kuzadd

It blows me away everytime. Yet, it seems there it is, as quick to perpetuate a lie, as quick to swallow a lie, as quick to further propogate lies. Then they wonder, how did it happen to their ancestors? Well this is exactly how it happened.

the point being, as you point out so often and with such relish. economics trumps virtue! Therefore as the authors point out in the book, the war with Islam, is a continuation of policy. Not one of principal. How can you claim principal, when it is clear Bushco. LIED, the country into a war of plunder, a war of gain, a war of choice?? It's a joke. Where is the principal?Now there are 4000 dead soldiers. Where is the principal, sacrificing someone elses kids? Dead for lies, dead for plunder. Where is the principal? When American policy, particularily regarding the oil is of "paramount importance", that my friend is policy, same policy , it has always been. To justify the policy there has always been the propogandic "boogey man/men" to get the people on board. It works the same way, everytime. You know this. You know economics trumps virtue everytime. Simply put the authors are correct, it is policy, not principal, and this time, the west intends to go further then just two countries in the ME, hence the need for a really big boogey man to scare the pollyanna's. So now it is all of "Islam" how convenient?

america had a "jihad" from Japan those crazy kamikaze's so your point is imo lame. or intellectually lazy. of course it isn't just about oil , but as even you concede oil is of paramount importance it is in fact american policy that has played a role in the ME for years and years and years, and despite all the messin' around, the muslims polled still "don't hate you for your freedom" and all other rhetoric and propaganda spouted by the talking heads of the west.

The authors are in fact saying it is the policy that is the justification for the attack, and not the principle. In fact the attacks on Muslims have nothing to do with principle, though that is the spin. here I'll quote in again Washington's conflict with Islam is "more about policy than principle" The anti-muslim rhetoric is not necessary, I agree and the muslims polled for six years, speaking for themselves, would agree with your postualtion. This is about policy, it is only about policy and has always been about US policy. during the Truman era http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2003/0213iraq_telhami.aspx http://www.meed.com/economy/mena/news/a_tr...the_region.html On 12 March 1947, US President Truman announced what became known as the Truman Doctrine to contain Soviet communism. The trigger was events in Greece, where the government was losing against pro-Soviet partisans. The results were momentous. They included the Marshall plan for rebuilding Western Europe and Nato. On the day the doctrine was declared, an agreement was signed that granted oil majors Exxon and Mobil a stake in Aramco, previously exclusively owned by their US counterparts Chevron and Texaco. Securing Saudi oil was the cornerstone of the Truman Doctrine in the Middle East. So middle east oil has long been a concern and policy issue of the US , which is exactly the point the authors are making. Washington's conflict with Islam is "more about policy than principle" they are in fact totally correct.

Washington's conflict with Islam is "more about policy than principle" as you well know. Count the years of American Foreign policy going as far back at the Carter Doctrine, which makes the statement above more then clear, and factual. ON 23 January 1980, in his State of the Union Address, President Jimmy Carter announced a new American policy that came to be called the Carter Doctrine. Referring to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Mr. Carter warned that: An attempt by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.1 The Carter Doctrine, which took many foreign capitals by surprise,2 came at the conclusion of these developments. In his statement, the President sought to persuade the world that American interests in and around the Persian Gulf were so vital that the United States would fight if necessary. Concurrent with Mr. Carter’s pronouncement came an intensified search by Defense and State Department officials for new military arrangements with Kenya, Somalia, Oman, Egypt, and Pakistan. Diego Garcia, the British territory in the Indian Ocean, also received new attention. On 1 March 1980, the United States Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force(RDJTF) was formally established by Secretary of Defense Harold Brown at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. Its primary mission was subsequently focused exclusively on deployment to the Middle East and Southwest Asia.3 By early 1981, when Ronald Reagan took office as President, the RDJTF was estimated to have grown to more than 200,000 CONUS-based forces, including 100,000 Army troops, 50,000 Marines, and additional Air Force and Navy personnel.4 http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchro...eb/grinter.html 27 years of policy, minimally

Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=12576 A new book by John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed ought to have a profound and transforming influence on Americans' view of their government's confrontation with Islam. The book, Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think, presents the results of six years of Gallup polling in the Muslim world between 2001 and 2007. "With the random sampling method that Gallup used," the authors explain, "results are statistically valid with a plus or minus 3-point margin of error. In totality, we surveyed a sample representing more than 90% of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, making this the largest, most comprehensive study of contemporary Muslims ever done" (xi). Based on this data, Esposito and Mogahed have determined that Washington's conflict with Islam is "more about policy than principle" no surprise there, of course it is policy, imperial policy! and all the "good germans" are on board, now, as in WW2 * "As we have seen in the [Gallup] data, resentment against the West comes from what Muslims perceive as the West's hatred and denigration of Islam; the Western belief that Arabs and Muslim are inferior; and their [Muslims'] fear of Western intervention, domination, or occupation" (141). well the Muslims certainly get it, unlike the 'good germans' * "As our [Gallup's] data has demonstrated, the primary cause of broad-based anger and anti-Americanism is not a clash of civilizations but the perceived effect of U.S. foreign policy in the Muslim world" (156). again, the muslims get it, "good germans" blindly and in fear follow the "leader" * "[The Gallup data shows that] contrary to what the 'They Hate Our Freedom' thesis might predict, Muslims do not recommend or insist upon changes to Western culture or social norms as the path to better [Western-Muslim] relations. … Rather they call on the West to show greater respect for Islam, and they emphasize policy-related issues [u.S. interventionism; unqualified support for Israel; and protection for authoritarian Arab regimes]" (159). again the muslims are on the ball, we get to read here everyday all the respect the west shows islam, denigration of everything in typical imperialistic style, the good "colonialists" at their best. ya know, rip their countries apart, kill their people , to bad for them. there religion is the religion of violence, I especially chuckle at that from the 'christian' crowd , the most violent pro-war faction,oops I mean the religion of peace LOL!!!! muslims speak for themselves sans the propagandist talking heads of the west reccommended reading, for the sake of enlightening ones self.

sadly, unpleasant people such as yourself, need to get the responses, they so dearly require. In other words , having dealt with racist boors early on, I learned mighty fast how to deal with xenophobes who have no substance, no stats, just innuendo, postulations and stereotypes, they offer up as false knowledge and phony fact. If the xenophobic shoe fits, you can wear it, and you do so well dear, so well.

actually drea, despite all argus's postualtions and stereotyping, and xenophobia of more then just muslims of course. suicide rates , appear to be no worse in the ME then in the west http://www.who.int/mental_health/preventio...cideprevent/en/ world health organization one can also get charts for individual countries here http://www.who.int/mental_health/preventio...s/en/index.html or there is this http://www.who.int/mental_health/preventio...s/en/index.html the highest rated suicide commiters seem to be middle aged men? enough of exposing myself to this xenophobic crap, it just makes me ill and reminds me of the idiots in my past, who called me names or characterized my father as bad, for his place of birth.

like too many white men, wanting to have sex with black women see black = whore =bad girl oops a little dose of reality for someone who has none? gotta get some "brown sugar" how small is your world? How narrow is it that, anything outside of your little confines is wrong? We see this also in black men wanting to have sex with white women, or I knew of one fellow myself, friends of my daughter, a young Jewish lad, who was hung up on Japanese girls, wanted to bed as many of them as he could. You think this is something unique to Muslim men only?? Yes that is it? lol A male family member, worked in Jamaica for a time, you should of heard the comments about having sex with the Jamaican woman, once you go black you never go back, ya know what they say,?? wink wink. I am all for criticism, if it has a legitimacy to it, but your postulations??? Yet how many white men marry black women, and vise versa?? not just have sex with them actually marry them? I think you need to get out more.

used to be that way. It still happens, in rape cases. A woman's sexual history, partners, where she was , what was she doing?? It's all brought out in the open. Like it matters? It still happens in our enlightened western world.

a little more on the madonna/whore male complex http://www.healthieryou.com/mhexpert/exp1031003b.html ""For some men, love and sex don't mix. For them, love is reserved for 'good' women, and sex is reserved for 'bad' women. In cases of the Madonna/Whore Complex (or Syndrome), a husband's relationship with his wife may be based upon the unmet intimacy needs he had as an infant. He may unconsciously seek out a woman who reminds him of his mother so that those needs can finally be met."

there is no indication, the information came from the police. So how do we know the police told this woman that? "The police advised her to go into hiding after the incident, according to the newspaper." according to the newspaper. what newspaper? Did the newspaper interview the police officer? which officer? when? notice all that information is missing?

Like christianity, it's a political force. right? So you must surely have issues with that??

How do you KNOW these things? Oh I see you reckon them. wow, you know what others 'believe' and you 'reckon' some stuff?

holy cripes, this is ridiculous!. let's read the article all together now. she drove over and killed a purse snatcher, and has been in hiding since then, she claims out of fear of retaliation. She was tracked down at the order of a judge, and has been taken to court. yah, she was so fearful , that she backed over the purse snatcher and crushed him against a tree, does that sound fearful? not to me. A fearful person , would have drove away, to safey , if she was so fearful. Called the police, yelled to someone to call the police. A fearful person would not have made the calculated decision to back the car up and crush a pursesnatcher. The woman says she is in fear, though again, no mention of any actual threat, she just says she is in fear. All this fear but no mention of an actual threat, just "she's afraid" . What does this mean? ,Well it doesn't mean much of anything, because anyone can say anything they want! I can say I am afraid of something also, but am I really ? Jefferiah, I am deathly afraid of you, deathly! ditto for PeterF. I must hide from you. so terrified am I of you . OMG! Do either of you believe me? Surely you must because I am saying it. Drea, you believe me, I am afraid of Jefferiah and Peter? back to the article: This sentence is pure filler, Angus, when we read a sentence like this we should asssume nothing about where this information came from. Why? There is no indication where the information came from, except it was 'according to the newspaper' Filler. Has she been threatened??, in this article there is ZERO indication that this woman was threatened at all, even once. Or surely it would have been included, and yet? nothing. She says she is afraid, and that's all, she says. I'd be afraid of going to jail, if I was in her position, and this to me is all she is afraid of. She , killed someone and is trying to avoid her day in court. What is pathetic, is the attempt to paint this woman as a victim, of a purse snatching, who then murders someone, with a deadly weapon. She backed her car up and crushed to death a purse snatcher and has spent 3 yrs hiding from her crime. good god, some critical thinking courses are sorely needed here!

well I am bright enough to catch your xenophobia. Also a devout muslim, wouldn't be in a bar or a club, drinking, if they are, they are not devout,plain and simple, despite your spin on it. bright people are not xenophobes, bright people don't promote stereotypes, this are traits of simplistic thinkers and simplistic persons, who need narrow views on a variety of subjects , as coping mechanisms. xenophobia and other stereotypical type thinking is borne out of ignorance or irrrational fear. all traits of the ill-informed. where does that leave you??

back in 2004 there was already info disputing any linkage between OBL and Iraq. and probably even prior to that, in all likelihood. No proof links Iraq, al-Qaida, Powell says Secretary of State Colin Powell reversed a year of administration policy, acknowledging Thursday that he had seen no “smoking gun [or] concrete evidence” of ties between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/3909150/ but just to keep the fear going...... "but I do believe the connections existed,” He believes it. Like religion. Like Santa Claus, he "believes" it, despite the fact he saw NO smoking gun, NO concrete evidence. the Iraq war was wanted, same as Afghanistan, just had to get the people on side, just had to get the people to" believe"

'Gosthacked' but you are not surprised by this are you???? I think you had a solid suspicion that this was just more bs to scare the populace. Like "the smoking gun , in the form of a mushroom cloud" Or colin powells scary show at the UN , all theatrics. Or the dossier, from Blair, etc.

or perhaps you are simply incapable of comprehending anything outside of your narrow xenophobic views???? xenophobic adjective suffering from xenophobia; having abnormal fear or hatred of the strange or foreign xen·o·phobe n. A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples.

in clubs and bars eh?? so these are cleary NOT devout followers of Islam Argus???? As opposed to crude and obnoxious (fill in the blank) men in bars and clubs???? cause when I was a younger gal,lol, the men were crude and obnoxious , but they weren't muslim!

'JB Globe' my father is a southern Italian, Calabrese. which is why so many of the southern Italians immigrated, as opposed to the Northerns. Originally but it defintely spread to southern Italian. based on what my dad told me. After ww2, things only got worse in that department. I could not agree more! OMG, some rational thinking as opposed to kill them all!

little or no experience living and having RELATIONSHIPS with people who are different from you. touche!!!!

pick your hat and wear it Jefferiah, I'd say you promote half-truths and stereotypes, as facts. I leave the hateful statements to Argus, since as of yet I haven't seen you lower yourself to that.

not most, only ones with certain 'end times' beliefs. Is that most of them now? good god what a mess we are in.! I didn't specifically link you with hateful, I gave you three types of common postings I see here as example, "hateful views, half-truths and stereotypes to promote their views" see what Jesus did in the posting? Luke 9:52-56: "...they did not receive him...And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village." yet, how many here who identify themselves as "christians" follow there saviours admonishment?? Jefferiah?