Four soldiers and a journalist killed

[eyeball]

When the reason they're targeting them is because "it's clear that being moderate has provoked them," yes, it proves that it's all about "religious extremism."

It doesn't definitively or conclusively prove that at all.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say they are motivated to go after us because we have killed their innocent fellow man, as you admit that they themselves go after their innocent fellow man simply because they don't adhere to their extremist religious beliefs. Obviously it's "extremism" that's the issue here.

It looks for all the world like a struggle within a struggle to me. Like I said, our interference has opened up Pandora's Box. Everyone is lashing out at everyone. Its Pandemonium on Earth.

As for supporting your observation that "abused people often become abusers themselves," I'd like some evidence that bin Laden et al were abused. Then I'd like some evidence that the westerners who 'abused' innocent civilians weren't abused themselves

.

The context of abuse that I often use is simply an analogy. A powerful country like a powerful individual that has its way with or diddles if you will a weaker country can result in very similar outcomes. Rage, hatred, and a propensity to abuse others is often, while not necessarily always a similar outcome and by the same token not every abuser was abused, some are just born bad too.

[eyeball]

Could you give any justification for this whatosever. For instance, do you think the Poles or the Hungarians were just peachy keen to join the Soviet sphere?

No, I bet they like human beings everywhere would chafe under their oppression and finally break free of it on their own - like they eventually did and like people in Iran are doing now.

It had a major expansive power with a growing arsenal of nuclear weapons, vast technological capabilities and a willingness to export revolution wherever it could, even into our backyards (ie. the Communists in Italy).

So did we.

How do you know this?

It seems self-evident to me. Its like when we fight an insurgency, in addition to a military struggle there is also a struggle to win the hearts and minds of the people from whom the insurgents also often seek or force support from. It's fairly clear that human beings living under the Soviet system were as filled with fear of us as we were of them. The tendency for governments of virtually all types to use fear of outsiders to maintain internal order is a well established fact.

It was quite the other away around at the end. Neither Roosevelt nor Churchill wanted Uncle Joe to split off, but it was inevitable. Stalin wanted to make sure that no one could ever again threaten the Soviet Union again. That was the point of the Iron Curtain, of exporting revolution to Africa, Latin America and East Asia. That was the point of arming the young Communist regime in China with nuclear weapons. The Soviets were very much a threat, and if we hadn't all kept them at bay, their long-stated purpose, to export Marxism everywhere (that was rather the point you know) might have come a lot closer to reality. The US might not be perfect, and it made a helluva lot of mistakes during the Cold War, but I shiver to imagine the alternatives. There are very much greater evils out there.

I guess my faith in people's desire to break free of oppression is just too irrepressible in me. In the meantime its way too late to worry about Marxists infiltrating the west, they've been here for years now if the accusations half the posters around here make are anything to go by.

Nonetheless if there truly are greater evils out there that justify the west's allowing people to be sacrificed to dictators they should be able to apologize for their action's. Unfortunately, aside from some extremely brief hints of official acknowledgement from people like Madeline Albright for example, the west remains determined to try and cover it's more despicable Cold War actions with a thin coat of real politic justifications that peel off almost as fast as they're applied. So long as these trump the real human lives that were and remain at stake our efforts to ensure no one can ever threaten the west will be as in vain as Stalin's efforts were to contain the threats he feared.

How do I know this? Just look at Iran 2010...human beings are irrepressible. Have more faith.

Edited January 2, 2010 by eyeball

[Jerry J. Fortin]

There is one citizens weapon that can and should be used. Our free will to stand against violence and corruption.

[ToadBrother]

No, I bet they like human beings everywhere would chafe under their oppression and finally break free of it on their own - like they eventually did and like people in Iran are doing now.

I don't exactly see the Iranian regime falling. It will take more than people taking to the streets, it will take a large enough outcry to convince the Iranian Army to move against the Revolutionary Guard.

I guess my faith in people's desire to break free of oppression is just too irrepressible in me. In the meantime its way too late to worry about Marxists infiltrating the west, they've been here for years now if the accusations half the posters around here make are anything to go by.

I think your naivete is too irrepressible. I think it's better that we never had to shrug of the tyranny of the Soviets than to test whether we could overcome its oppression by ideological means. Whether you like it or not, the United States contained the Soviet Union, forcing it to direct vast amounts of resources for half a century into its vast military and intelligence machines. It was a dangerous game at times, and it was a dirty, ugly, vile game at other times, but it kept the Soviets from their stated aims in many areas. War, cold or hot, is a horrific thing, but we can see from the 1930s that if you shy away from it, you won't get a better world, you'll get hell on Earth.

I criticize the Americans for lots of things. The 1953 coupe in Iran was a horrible error, and one more justified by Britain's desire not to lose a critical oil supply than any kind of ideological struggle, and we're paying for it. The Latin American coupes may have kept the Communists at bay, but the cost in lives and in post-Cold War sentiments sharply against the US has yet to be calculated.. In such conflicts it is often the weighing of differing evils, not of simply good vs. bad.

In simple terms, the world does not work like you think it does. I applaud your idealism, but there are times when untempered idealism can lead to unmitigated disaster, and ultimately cost many more lives than the path of least resistance.

Edited January 3, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Guest American Woman]

Since "it's clear that being moderate has provoked them," it obviously is about religious extremism.

I have no doubt religion makes things worse but what I meant by moderate was, people who don't display a sufficient amount of patriotism. It's clear that the dysfunction caused by the west's interference in the region's political and ideological landscape and the organizations and governments struggling within it has resulted in the evolution of new groups and struggles for dominance.

What does "patriotism" have to do with moderate Muslims' views? You think being an extremist makes one a Patriot? You think that's what bin Laden/the Taliban/al Qeada cares about -- patriotism??

The only reason the Taliban and al Qaeda maim/kill/oppress their fellow Muslims is because they don't share their extreme religious views; they don't abide by their extremist Islamic rules.

But yes, of course, it's our interference that's responsible for their extremist views. But for our interference, there would be no such thing as extremists. But for us, there would be nothing but "ideological" peace and harmony in those nations; because there is, of course, a history of peace and harmony in these nations prior to our actions.

I'm sure somehow Hitler was abused, too, and someone else gave him the "motivation" to do what he did; some one else, other nations, are to blame for his 'retaliation.' Oh, but wait. He's a westerner, and as such, capable of evil in and of itself, without 'motivation.' Is that it?

Seems to me you bend over backwards to give the impression that but for us these extremists would be a peace-loving bunch. Your critical thought appears to be very one-sided.

I can see mistakes the west has made without believing but for those actions the world would be peaceful. I don't believe the west is the only one who is aggressive, acts inappropriately, etc.

Furthermore, as I pointed out, nations who have had conflicts in the past are now allies. Close allies. One doesn't go around blaming their actions on the fact that they were "abused" over half a century ago. Furthermore, if Japan were to suddenly invade Canada, were to suddenly start engaging in acts of terrorism, I doubt you'd blame it on the atomic bomb ... which you would have to blame on Pearl Harbor ... and on and on it goes to the beginning of time ... while you give only one side a 'pass/the benefit of the doubt;' while you see only one side as 'peaceful but for us.'

Edited January 3, 2010 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

....there are times when untempered idealism can lead to unmitigated disaster, and ultimately cost many more lives than the path of least resistance.

I agree. I too recognize the mistakes that have been made, but to say 'but for the mistakes' there would be no discourse, no extremism, no acts of terrorism (when they are committing acts of terrorism against the very people they are supposedly angry at us for killing/hurting), is blind idealism at best.

I don't think the way to solve the problems/acts of violence too many in the world are dealing with at the hands of Islamic extremists is to see only one side of the problem; to view only one side as responsible. I doubt that but for us, the extremist/violent Islamists would be a peace-loving bunch. To say it's not about their religious beliefs, and the desire to oppress those who don't believe as they do, is, I believe, to have one's head buried in the sand.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I agree. I too recognize the mistakes that have been made, but to say 'but for the mistakes' there would be no discourse, no extremism, no acts of terrorism (when they are committing acts of terrorism against the very people they are supposedly angry at us for killing/hurting), is blind idealism at best.

I don't think the way to solve the problems/acts of violence too many in the world are dealing with at the hands of Islamic extremists is to see only one side of the problem; to view only one side as responsible. I doubt that but for us, the extremist/violent Islamists would be a peace-loving bunch. To say it's not about their religious beliefs, and the desire to oppress those who don't believe as they do, is, I believe, to have one's head buried in the sand.

Religion could be the answer to all of these problems, but it will not be.

[Topaz]

I just finished reading this article on the BBC web and the writer tells how some Middle-Eastern countries are holding their breathe in this new year of what could happen with Afghanistan and Pakistan and trying to drive out the Taliban from there. I did come across an article several years ago, that said, that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were behind 9/11. Who really knows? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8424289.stm

[eyeball]

What does "patriotism" have to do with moderate Muslims' views? You think being an extremist makes one a Patriot? You think that's what bin Laden/the Taliban/al Qeada cares about -- patriotism??

No, they care about belief, and to them a failure to display a certain level of belief is pretty much like failing to display a certain level of patriotism.

The only reason the Taliban and al Qaeda maim/kill/oppress their fellow Muslims is because they don't share their extreme religious views; they don't abide by their extremist Islamic rules.

Yes, that's what I just repeated again.

But yes, of course, it's our interference that's responsible for their extremist views. But for our interference, there would be no such thing as extremists. But for us, there would be nothing but "ideological" peace and harmony in those nations; because there is, of course, a history of peace and harmony in these nations prior to our actions.

No, but our interference was a big factor in unleashing their extremist views. 9/11 was a big factor in unleashing some rather extremist views in our society too.

I'm sure somehow Hitler was abused, too, and someone else gave him the "motivation" to do what he did; some one else, other nations, are to blame for his 'retaliation.' Oh, but wait. He's a westerner, and as such, capable of evil in and of itself, without 'motivation.' Is that it?

You're just being cynical now but good old Hitler eh, what would you ever do without him to cast fear and aspersion on things you don't like to hear? As I said you don't always have to be abused to become an abuser, and in Hitler's case I think he was just a real ass-hole. His 'genius' was in his ability to galvanize people. Perhaps people in Germany were simply in a mood to be galvanized.

Seems to me you bend over backwards to give the impression that but for us these extremists would be a peace-loving bunch. Your critical thought appears to be very one-sided.

I don't think they'd be any less extreme in their views, but I don't think these could have gone viral either without the west to provide the galvanizing element they needed to do so.

I can see mistakes the west has made without believing but for those actions the world would be peaceful. I don't believe the west is the only one who is aggressive, acts inappropriately, etc.

No, but the west should know better than to act aggressively through proxy dictators. This is extremely inappropriate behaviour for Shining Beacons. Why do you think a priest's morals are held to such a higher standard than anyone else? Why do you think it is so much more shocking to people when priests abuse kids? Why does it seem more disgusting when their churches defend and protect them?

Furthermore, as I pointed out, nations who have had conflicts in the past are now allies. Close allies. One doesn't go around blaming their actions on the fact that they were "abused" over half a century ago.

How do you explain Toadbrother's blaming our worst Cold War actions on the fact we were so afraid? If creating fear in others is a form of abuse creating it in yourself is probably a form of self-abuse.

Furthermore, if Japan were to suddenly invade Canada, were to suddenly start engaging in acts of terrorism, I doubt you'd blame it on the atomic bomb ... which you would have to blame on Pearl Harbor ... and on and on it goes to the beginning of time ... while you give only one side a 'pass/the benefit of the doubt;' while you see only one side as 'peaceful but for us.'

Will you please forget the silly Hitler-like what-if scenarios. This reminds me of the point people try to make that other countries or cultures have not engaged in the terrorism that is associated with the Muslim world. So what? Some folks just stroke differently than other folks I guess.

Edited January 3, 2010 by eyeball

[eyeball]

I agree. I too recognize the mistakes that have been made, but to say 'but for the mistakes' there would be no discourse, no extremism, no acts of terrorism (when they are committing acts of terrorism against the very people they are supposedly angry at us for killing/hurting), is blind idealism at best.

Perhaps the reason moderates are not speaking out more loudly against extremism is that they don't see any meaningful acknowledgement from the west for the west's mistakes.

I don't think this will be as effective at defusing extremists as much as it might prevent more people from becoming extremists. Perhaps if moderates could see meaningful attempts by the west to apologise and make reparations they might be able to counter the claims that extremists make.

Simply put the ball is in the west's court.

Edited January 3, 2010 by eyeball

[ToadBrother]

How do you explain Toadbrother's blaming our worst Cold War actions on the fact we were so afraid? If creating fear in others is a form of abuse creating it in yourself is probably a form of self-abuse.

Of course we were afraid. We had every reason to be.

[Guest American Woman]

Of course we were afraid. We had every reason to be.

We would have been stupid not to have been.

[Riverwind]

We would have been stupid not to have been.

Yet hindsight tells us there was nothing to be afraid of since the soviet machine was economically unsustainable.

[Guest American Woman]

American Woman, on 03 January 2010 - 12:16 PM, said: We would have been stupid not to have been.

Yet hindsight tells us there was nothing to be afraid of since the soviet machine was economically unsustainable.

Nothing like "hindsight" to give one the true picture, eh?

From what we knew at the time, we would have been stupid not to be. Can you refute that?

[bush_cheney2004]

Yet hindsight tells us there was nothing to be afraid of since the soviet machine was economically unsustainable.

Hindsight wouldn't have stopped a Delta III missile launch from your ice cap.

Edited January 3, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Riverwind]

From what we knew at the time, we would have been stupid not to be. Can you refute that?

I did not try to. Our information at the time was incomplete. We had no way to know that the entire soviet economy was a Potemkin village sustained by oil exports. The lesson we should be taking from this is that just because all of our information says something is a threat that does not necessarily mean it is a threat - especially when many people benefit from creating the illusion of the threat. Edited January 3, 2010 by Riverwind

[Guest American Woman]

I did not try to. Our information at the time was incomplete. We had no way to know that the entire soviet economy was a Potemkin village sustained by oil exports. The lesson we should be taking from this is that just because all of our informations says something is a threat that does not necessarily mean it is a threat - especially when many people benefit from creating the illusion of the threat.

Just because something isn't necessarily a threat, if all of our information says it is, we'd be stupid not to treat it as such.

[Riverwind]

Just because something isn't necessarily a threat, if all of our information says it is, we'd be stupid not to treat it as such.

It is just as stupid to insist that we know that the risk is real. Uncertainty denial is a real problem in politics. Politicians like certainty and tend to make it up when it does not exist.

[Guest American Woman]

It is just as stupid to insist that we know that the risk is real. Uncertainty denial is a real problem in politics. Politicians like certainty and tend to make it up when it does not exist.

Perhaps if people didn't "insist the risk was real," nothing would get done about it.

It's interesting to note that when something is done, and the potential risk turns out be less than we thought it was, there is criticism.

Yet if not enough is done regarding a potential risk, and tragedy occurs as a result, there is criticism.

Too bad there's no crystal ball so we know 100% how to act, so no one has to be critical.

[Riverwind]

It's interesting to note that when something is done, and the potential risk turns out be less than we thought it was, there is criticism.

Yet if not enough is done regarding a potential risk, and tragedy occurs as a result, there is criticism.

There are just as many situations where nothing is done and no tragedy occurs and people forget there ever was an issue. People only remember the times when hindsight tells us that we should have done things differently.

[Wilber]

Yet hindsight tells us there was nothing to be afraid of since the soviet machine was economically unsustainable.

Yup, nothing more benign than an unstable country with enough nukes to destroy the world 100 times.

[ToadBrother]

There are just as many situations where nothing is done and no tragedy occurs and people forget there ever was an issue. People only remember the times when hindsight tells us that we should have done things differently.

Could you give me an example of a major expansionist empire being ignored by everyone and in its path and everything being a-okay?

[ToadBrother]

I did not try to. Our information at the time was incomplete. We had no way to know that the entire soviet economy was a Potemkin village sustained by oil exports. The lesson we should be taking from this is that just because all of our information says something is a threat that does not necessarily mean it is a threat - especially when many people benefit from creating the illusion of the threat.

And despite all of that it still took nearly three quarters of a century for it to collapse, and if it hadn't been run into the ground by the Americans constantly forcing it to maintain a vast military machine, it might have lasted longer. But during a fair chunk of that 70-odd years, in particular in the period from the end of WWII into the late 1970s, the USSR was not just something that anyone could ignore. I mean, this was an empire that had basically lined the borders of the Warsaw Pact countries with a huge number of troops, armor and nuclear weapons. So this sort of strange, bizarre idea that the USSR was really this limp weiner is nothing more than revisionism.

[eyeball]

Of course we were afraid. We had every reason to be.

Every reason, even in hindsight? I certainly can't fully subscribe to the idea that the Soviet Union collapsed solely due to western containment can you? If I did I'd have to conclude there might not be anywhere near as much wrong as we've been told to believe there is with communism.

[eyeball]

Hindsight wouldn't have stopped a Delta III missile launch from your ice cap.

The Russians likely just loved their children as much as we loved ours and it is this that deterred them.