I don`t care

[Bonam]

and yet you never see anyone burning any Russian flags or suicide bombing any Russian interests

Actually that's false. There is plenty of terrorism against Russia as well.

[Army Guy]

Actually that's false. There is plenty of terrorism against Russia as well.

Really, other than terrorism that is internal from some entity wanting it's freedom....what Terrorism is russia faced with that is orginated out of the middle east...

[Army Guy]

The Cold War was a different kettle of fish. NATO was a lot stronger in those days. The objective was clear. Our Brigade in Germany was well respected and we were an active member of NORAD. The vast majority of citizens were loyal and knew what side they were on. Then along came Pearson and followed by Trudeau.

I disagree i think it was that cold war struggle and all the meddling that went with that trying to secure NATO's key areas such as the middle east ....one of the cornerstones to ensuring europes safety...Had thier been no meddling i don't think the cold war would have played out the way it did , I think Russia would have had a stronger postion....maybe enough to sway it's decission to sieze europe....

[eyeball]

Really, other than terrorism that is internal from some entity wanting it's freedom....what Terrorism is russia faced with that is orginated out of the middle east...

The ME isn't faced with Russian diddling on anywhere near the scale that the West is engaged in. Note the Russian Empire collapsed after it tried.

[eyeball]

I disagree i think it was that cold war struggle and all the meddling that went with that trying to secure NATO's key areas such as the middle east ....one of the cornerstones to ensuring europes safety...Had thier been no meddling i don't think the cold war would have played out the way it did , I think Russia would have had a stronger postion....maybe enough to sway it's decission to sieze europe....

All that would have happened is that Russia would be hip deep in a ME quagmire of its own making, instead of the West.

[BC_chick]

Saddam started this when he invaded Kuwait. I'm not sure if you'd call Saddam a Muslim...perhaps, eh?

I remember an article written by Barbara Amiel Mclean's magazine during the Israel/Lebanon war of 2006. She expressed her dismay about a number of callers who had called a Montreal radio station discussing their views on the war. Apparently, according to Amiel, the callers were blaming "Les Juifs" for the war instead of "Les Israelites", thereby displaying their anti-semitic overtones in their criticism of Israel.

Though I didn't agree with the jist of the article, I did agree on that one point, you can't blame "Jews" for what Israel does. Jews are a much larger group than just Israelis. After all, you are referring to the actions of some individuals/group, not the religion.

Obviously a whole other set of rules apply to Muslims though. As usual.

[DogOnPorch]

I remember an article written by Barbara Amiel Mclean's magazine during the Israel/Lebanon war of 2006. She expressed her dismay about a number of callers who had called a Montreal radio station discussing their views on the war. Apparently, according to Amiel, the callers were blaming "Les Juifs" for the war instead of "Les Israelites", thereby displaying their anti-semitic overtones in their criticism of Israel.

Though I didn't agree with the jist of the article, I did agree on that one point, you can't blame "Jews" for what Israel does. Jews are a much larger group than just Israelis. After all, you are referring to the actions of some individuals/group, not the religion.

Obviously a whole other set of rules apply to Muslims though. As usual.

I was responding to eyeball's statement...

Islamic people definitely did not start this.

...when one obviously did.

Gulf War 1 led to US/Allied troops in Saudi Arabia which apparently pissed off OBL which led to 9-11.

[eyeball]

Gulf War 1 led to US/Allied troops in Saudi Arabia which apparently pissed off OBL which led to 9-11.

US and other super-rogue diddling in the region started pissing people off long before Saddam invaded Kuwait. I use the word diddling to capture the essence of disgust that's usually reserved for molestation. The dysfunction that usually follows this depraved behaviour can last for years and often result in new generations of diddlers who then go on to molest other smaller weaker nations, like Kuwait for example.

At least you seem to have gotten your head around the concept of blowback and root causes, now you just need to work on expanding your field of view so you can line up and connect the dots a little better.

[DogOnPorch]

US and other super-rogue diddling in the region started pissing people off long before Saddam invaded Kuwait. I use the word diddling to capture the essence of disgust that's usually reserved for molestation. The dysfunction that usually follows this depraved behaviour can last for years and often result in new generations of diddlers who then go on to molest other smaller weaker nations, like Kuwait for example.

Frankly, numerous Arab countries have been somewhat of a pill for years, if we're talking about pissing folks off. Their eagerness to side with the Soviet Union was well noted at the time. The Soviets, keen to have friends and influence in the area, poured in the rubles as well as the free advanced weapons. It was this interference that allowed the Arabs to attack Israel on several occasions leading to the 'Palestinian Situation' we have today. But since it was just the Soviets and Arabs...who cares? It's much more fun to vent your bile against the United States (or perhaps Israel), which through its actions no doubt has some bearing..if not nearly all...on the standard of living you enjoy.

At least you seem to have gotten your head around the concept of blowback and root causes, now you just need to work on expanding your field of view so you can line up and connect the dots a little better.

That'll be the day...you schooling me in history.

Edited September 4, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[eyeball]

That'll be the day...you schooling me in history.

You probably need a course in ethics, apparently history alone is unable to explain why committing two wrongs only makes things worse.

Edited September 4, 2009 by eyeball

[myata]

I don't think you get the gist of the post "who cares"...... what radical muslims did do is bring it into our living rooms

....and awoke the bull, and now they are going to get both horns....

As before "we" brought it to them (with colonial policies, meddling, support of brutal regimes, and so on)? And after, who knows? The cycle goes on. And on. And on. Forever.

[Argus]

No, they should have simply got out of SA.

As for bombing the living hell out people, that's only your famous penchant for vindictive justice talking.

How would getting out of SA have accomplished anything? SA would continue, as it has anyway, to pour billions of dollars into poor countries to brainwash poor children into believeing their crude, backwards version of the Koran is the only acceptable version, and the number of religious wackos in the world would have continued to grow, as it has.

[lictor616]

No, they should have simply got out of SA.

As for bombing the living hell out people, that's only your famous penchant for vindictive justice talking.

funny how the SA government is begging whites to stay... since they are for all practical purposes the professional class, without them, the country would collapse in a month.

[DogOnPorch]

You probably need a course in ethics, apparently history alone is unable to explain why committing two wrongs only makes things worse.

It figures that all you can do is a personal attack. Stay classy there, hombre.

[eyeball]

It figures that all you can do is a personal attack. Stay classy there, hombre.

You mean classy like this?

Libtards like to forget history.

Link

My reference to ethics stands.

[DogOnPorch]

You mean classy like this?

My reference to ethics stands.

Did I call you a "libtard" or are you merely seeing yourself as one?

Off to pull the wings off flies...taa.

[Argus]

US and other super-rogue diddling in the region started pissing people off long before Saddam invaded Kuwait.

As far as I'm aware the US and other nations want nothing from that region, and care nothing about what goes on in that region, except for ensuring that they are able to buy oil, and that nobody attacks them. That's it, that's all.

There never were any enlightened governments in that region. Despite the fact you and others might complain about this or that "democratic" government having once been overthrown by George Bush's great grandfather or whatever.

All of the oil fields were developed by outsiders, all the refineries and pipelines and ports were built by outsiders, all to pump oil out to the West.

Now, some time ago the Arabs decided they could be making an awful lot more money out of that resource then they were being paid, and quadrupled the price (or whatever), but no one sent in armies to steal the oil.

The time of the Arab oil boycott, however, launched a different era. Oil as a weapon, used against the US, even though the US wasn't at war with Arabs, used in order to force the US to abandon its support for Israel.

The US and other western nations set out to ensure the Arabs would not use oil as a weapon again, by "diddling" as you term it, and it worked. One can hardly blame them for this. Oil is the lifeblood of western economies. What were they supposed to do? Sit back and let a bunch of oil sheiks dictate terms to them?

[BC_chick]

I was responding to eyeball's statement...

...when one obviously did.

Gulf War 1 led to US/Allied troops in Saudi Arabia which apparently pissed off OBL which led to 9-11.

Since you missed the entire point, I'll try again. But first, allow me to introduce you to some elementary concepts of logic:

BC_chick doesn't like kiwi fruit

BC_chick is a woman

So it follows that women don't like kiwi fruit

Um, no BC_chick does not speak for all women, and it is a fallacy to make generalised comments about an entire group based on the actions of one.

To apply the same concept to our earlier discussion: when you negate all other aspects of a conflict, ie nationality, ethnicity, history and you base the situation predominantly on religion, you are making a blanket statement for all people of that religion. IOW, you are making inferences based on the fallacy that all people of that religion think uniformly about the situation.

Ultimately, whether it's angry callers making blanket statements about "Jews" for what some Israelis do, or whether it's people like you doing the same to Muslims, the end result is the same - you are creating more divisions as a result of your misuse of words. Whether it's deliberate or just plain ignorance, I'm not sure.

Edited September 6, 2009 by BC_chick

[Guest American Woman]

No, they should have simply got out of SA.

Yet Saudi Arabia stripped bin Laden of his citizenship. And what about the hatred of Israel? Of Jews? That has nothing to do with what the U.S. or Britain did regarding Iran. And speaking of Israel, what of Palestine? Why aren't the other Arab nations, Muslim nations, coming to Palestine's aid? Why is all of their energy directed towards hating the West?

I'm just saying that I don't think it's as simple as saying 'this started it' or 'that should have been done' and all would be right with the world. Other nations have suffered terrorist attacks, too; and the attack against the U.S. embassy in Kenya, for example, by far killed more Kenyans than Americans.

What about terrorists taking hold of the Great Mosque in Mecca in 1979? Saudi Arabia couldn't even regain control without outside help.

Even if one were to agree that the US should have gotten out of Saudi Arabia, I'm doubting if things would have been much different if we had.

[eyeball]

Even if one were to agree that the US should have gotten out of Saudi Arabia, I'm doubting if things would have been much different if we had.

I doubt it too given the west still insists on molesting the region.

I suppose we'll just have to wait until the oil runs out before that stops. In the meantime would it be too much to ask that we accept the consequences, if not graciously, then at least for what they are?

By the way did anyone notice there was no reference to oil in the letter to the editor this thread was based on? I guess the letter really was written by someone who doesn't care.

I just shake my head in wonder at how many more threads there must be in cyberspace where people are just as adamantly arguing this diddling has nothing at all to do with oil. Its all about democracy or some such thing.

[DogOnPorch]

Since you missed the entire point, I'll try again. But first, allow me to introduce you to some elementary concepts of logic:

BC_chick doesn't like kiwi fruit

BC_chick is a woman

So it follows that women don't like kiwi fruit

Um, no BC_chick does not speak for all women, and it is a fallacy to make generalised comments about an entire group based on the actions of one.

To apply the same concept to our earlier discussion: when you negate all other aspects of a conflict, ie nationality, ethnicity, history and you base the situation predominantly on religion, you are making a blanket statement for all people of that religion. IOW, you are making inferences based on the fallacy that all people of that religion think uniformly about the situation.

Ultimately, whether it's angry callers making blanket statements about "Jews" for what some Israelis do, or whether it's people like you doing the same to Muslims, the end result is the same - you are creating more divisions as a result of your misuse of words. Whether it's deliberate or just plain ignorance, I'm not sure.

WTF are you going on about?

Eyeball claimed 9-11 was not caused 'by Muslims'. I mentioned that one in fact did start the ball rolling. Next I'm condemning all Muslims, apparently. As usual, this is another case where another's supposed 'Islamophobia' exists only in your head. But I'm used to such things.

[Guest American Woman]

In the meantime would it be too much to ask that we accept the consequences, if not graciously, then at least for what they are?

I guess I'll have to work on "accepting" the deaths of innocent people "graciously."

You seem to think people are wrong for not mentioning oil when talking about the western world, but you seem to have no problem leaving out references to "infidels" when referring to al Qeada et al.

I guess one side is all bad, all self-consuming, while the other side is all innocence and justification and would be living in peace and harmony if only it weren't for Big Bad Us.

By the way did anyone notice there was no reference to oil in the letter to the editor this thread was based on? I guess the letter really was written by someone who doesn't care.

I just shake my head in wonder at how many more threads there must be in cyberspace where people are just as adamantly arguing this diddling has nothing at all to do with oil. Its all about democracy or some such thing.

For the record, I didn't even make reference to the email/letter-to-the-editor/whatever it actually is. I was just expressing my thoughts, hoping for a decent give-and-take exchange of ideas.

I, for one, realize I don't have the answers. Must be nice to know exactly who's to blame.

[eyeball]

I guess one side is all bad, all self-consuming, while the other side is all innocence and justification and would be living in peace and harmony if only it weren't for Big Bad Us.

Where did the assumption that only one side is innocent come from?

I, for one, realize I don't have the answers. Must be nice to know exactly who's to blame.

How would I know?

Edited September 6, 2009 by eyeball

[BC_chick]

WTF are you going on about?

Eyeball claimed 9-11 was not caused 'by Muslims'. I mentioned that one in fact did start the ball rolling. Next I'm condemning all Muslims, apparently. As usual, this is another case where another's supposed 'Islamophobia' exists only in your head. But I'm used to such things.

I'm talking about a bigger issue, the power of language, which relates to Islamophobia in this particular issue, but could be used to marginalise any group of people.

I repeat, just because person X commits a crime, and person X is of a Y origin, saying things like 'people Y committed this crime' creates a false inference about the entire group of Y origin.

When a Christian or Jew commits a crime you don't say "Christians" or "Jews" did it. The same respect should be given to Muslims.

Edited September 6, 2009 by BC_chick

[DogOnPorch]

I'm talking about a bigger issue, the power of language, which relates to Islamophobia in this particular issue, but could be used to marginalise any group of people.

I repeat, just because person X commits a crime, and person X is of a Y origin, saying things like 'people Y committed this crime' creates a false inference about the entire group of Y origin.

When a Christian or Jew commits a crime you don't say "Christians" or "Jews" did it. The same respect should be given to Muslims.

When Christian do something that pisses me off...I mention Christians. For example, the Creation Museum was a stupid thing done by stupid Christians furthering a new generation of stupid Christians distrustful of science.

I realize Islam is like a pet project for you lefties...you can CHANGE "him"...lol. But guys like me don't have time for your pet projects at my culture's expense. Expect resistance.