Should Israel Attack now?

[Argus]

Now that France has run away again - this time before it was even engaged in combat, the Lebanese government has made it clear it has no intention of disarming Hezbollah, and the world has shown an extreme reluctance to put forward any troops to stand between Hezbollah and Israel, would it not be in Israel's interests to launch a broad, land attack into Lebanon now? This is something they should have done a month ago, because the only way to clear dug in ground troops in small units is with ground forces. The alternative is to let Hezbollah get back into place, dig out its bunkers again, get rearmed by Syria and Iran, recruit more fighters from the eager young Lebanese shiites thrilled with their "victory" and then face them agian in a year or so.

France has backed out of supplying anything on the ground, except maybe a few engineering and support troops, and perhaps some people offshore on ships, for like, organizational and communications purposes. The only nations which have offered up any substantial numbers of troops are Malaysia and Indonesia - both of whom are Muslim, and so hostile towards Israel they won't even recognize its existence. They're going to protect Israel from Hezbollah rockets, keep Hezbollah from reestablishing its presence along the border? Suuuuuure. Hezbollah has said it will not disarm, and it will not release the Israelis kidnapped. The Lebanese government has no intention of forcing them.

Why not attack again? But do it right this time. Ram the attack home with tens of thousands of troops, bulldoze Hezbollah, shove the Shiites thirty miles back from the border, and give the UN the finger.

[August1991]

I think Israel will wait until there is clear evidence that Hizballah is rearming and Iran/Syria are supplying them with new rockets.

Then there's the Mark Steyn approach. Israel will go after Syria in a Six Day War style attack. Israel could destroy the Syrian Air Force before any plane got off the ground, and it could paralyze Syria's ability to launch any missiles. The Alawite regime would collapse and Syrian politics would turn into an ugly civil war.

What did George W Bush do after September 11th? He didn’t go after al-Qaeda’s camps in Afghanistan, he went after the sponsoring regime. That’s what Israel should have done. Had Bush tried to go into Afghanistan and pick off this or that al-Qaeda operation, he’d have killed a lot more civilians and got even worse press. Western nations don’t fight well against non-state entities but they can still just about fight other sovereign states. And, incidentally, Syria is an important part of Iran’s conduit to Hezbollah. So regime change in Damascus certainly complicates life for the mullahs.

Link

[GostHacked]

Now that France has run away again - this time before it was even engaged in combat, the Lebanese government has made it clear it has no intention of disarming Hezbollah,

France along with the US was one of the few who brokered a deal for a ceasefire. I'd say they did well. Considering the UN is a waste of time and I knew a resoluion was weeks away when the fighting started.

and the world has shown an extreme reluctance to put forward any troops to stand between Hezbollah and Israel.

Do you really want to get in the middle of two brutes beating the piss out of each other? Ever see bouncers break up bar fights? There is a reason these guys are large/strong individuals. But who wants to get in the middle and break up the fight when they are throwing bombs at each other. I sure as hell would not. Anyone in their right mind would not.

would it not be in Israel's interests to launch a broad, land attack into Lebanon now? This is something they should have done a month ago, because the only way to clear dug in ground troops in small units is with ground forces.

Not at all. I agree with small tactical units to accomplish much more.

The alternative is to let Hezbollah get back into place, dig out its bunkers again, get rearmed by Syria and Iran, recruit more fighters from the eager young Lebanese shiites thrilled with their "victory" and then face them agian in a year or so.

France has backed out of supplying anything on the ground, except maybe a few engineering and support troops, and perhaps some people offshore on ships, for like, organizational and communications purposes.

Well at least they are making an effort. How many troops does Canada, UK, US, plan to kick in?

The only nations which have offered up any substantial numbers of troops are Malaysia and Indonesia - both of whom are Muslim, and so hostile towards Israel they won't even recognize its existence.

I don't even recognize Israel's right to exist. And I am not even Muslim. I am agnostic but more of an athiest.

They're going to protect Israel from Hezbollah rockets, keep Hezbollah from reestablishing its presence along the border? Suuuuuure. Hezbollah has said it will not disarm, and it will not release the Israelis kidnapped. The Lebanese government has no intention of forcing them.

When Israel releases the hundreds of Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners (a good deal of whom might be completely innocent) Then they can release those two soldiers that were kidnapped.

Why not attack again? But do it right this time. Ram the attack home with tens of thousands of troops, bulldoze Hezbollah, shove the Shiites thirty miles back from the border, and give the UN the finger.

So you want to destroy your neighbours home and land because a few of the tenants are bad? You can evict the bad ones without needing to blow up the neighbourhood. You just need to go about it a different way since everything else they have tried seems to have no effect or flat out failure.

[Shady]

Why not attack again? But do it right this time. Ram the attack home with tens of thousands of troops, bulldoze Hezbollah, shove the Shiites thirty miles back from the border, and give the UN the finger

I absolutely agree. It saddens me that France and Germany have failed the peace process so badly. For the two supposed European powers to make a contribution of a grand total of 400 troops (all from France) is an abomination. Especially after their initial offer and suggestion. They've totally rendered themselves meaningless to any future peace talks. At least the rest of the world knows now not to waste their time including any of these two nations in future discussions.

Hopefully Netanyahu will take power soon, and do what's necessary, the right way, instead of the easy way.

[Black Dog]

Then there's the Mark Steyn approach. Israel will go after Syria in a Six Day War style attack. Israel could destroy the Syrian Air Force before any plane got off the ground, and it could paralyze Syria's ability to launch any missiles. The Alawite regime would collapse and Syrian politics would turn into an ugly civil war.

Yeah, Israel should totally listen to the same half-wits who cheerlead the U.S. into the Iraq debacle. Good idea!

[JerrySeinfeld]

Then there's the Mark Steyn approach. Israel will go after Syria in a Six Day War style attack. Israel could destroy the Syrian Air Force before any plane got off the ground, and it could paralyze Syria's ability to launch any missiles. The Alawite regime would collapse and Syrian politics would turn into an ugly civil war.

Yeah, Israel should totally listen to the same half-wits who cheerlead the U.S. into the Iraq debacle. Good idea!

Debacle? They won that war in a matter of months!

[Argus]

Now that France has run away again - this time before it was even engaged in combat, the Lebanese government has made it clear it has no intention of disarming Hezbollah,

France along with the US was one of the few who brokered a deal for a ceasefire. I'd say they did well.

The deal was predicated on a large and robust UN force which would aid the Lebanese army in disarming Hezbollah. But the Lebanese army has no intention of disarming Hezbollah, and there is no large, robust UN force.

"Are you dreaming?" was a wizened sergeant's response when asked yesterday whether the Lebanese army would try to disarm Hezbollah, as called for by a UN-brokered truce. The sergeant's answer produced great guffaws froma a small group of soldiers chatting on a step of a small building perched on a cliff above the Mediterranean Sea. "HEzbollah and the army are united. We are one," the sergeant said "I will tell you the truth. My brother is in Hezbollah, so why would I want to take his weapon?"

The Lebanese government, which had assured the UN that, with the aid of UN troops, it would disarm Hezbollah, has a different story today. Lebanon's defence minister has said his job "is to ensure the security of the Islamic Resistance and citizens, to protect the victory of the Resistance."

So Lebanon is defiantly stating it is allied with Hezbollah and has no intention of aiding in its disarmament. The French have backed out, look for the Italians to be next. And murderous Islamic fruitcake nations like Malaysia and Indonesia are eager to send troops, with as little interest in Israel's welfare as the Lebanese army. Not only can they not be expected to hinder Hezbollah's rearmament, rebuilding their bunkers and defenses in the south, they will, in all likelihood, aid them in their work, probably supplying them with weapons themselves.

Why should Israel abide by this truce?

would it not be in Israel's interests to launch a broad, land attack into Lebanon now? This is something they should have done a month ago, because the only way to clear dug in ground troops in small units is with ground forces.

Not at all. I agree with small tactical units to accomplish much more.

They'll need a lot of them, and they need to chase away the UN and Lebanese army as well. That requires large units. Otherwise Israel faces the prospect of having a ten man team or two captured, which is what they were trying to avoid with the air bombardments.

France has backed out of supplying anything on the ground, except maybe a few engineering and support troops, and perhaps some people offshore on ships, for like, organizational and communications purposes.

Well at least they are making an effort. How many troops does Canada, UK, US, plan to kick in?

France is not making an effort. Half of those troops are already there with UNIFIL, the rest already in the med as part of their evacuation program. There is no way in hell the US or UK can put troops there for they would immediately be attacked by Islamic nut jobs, and Canada has few troops and they are already commited to fighting Islamic nut jobs in Afghanistan. France brokered this deal in part by promising to provide a substantial portion of this force, and lead it. Now they've run away - again.

You can evict the bad ones without needing to blow up the neighbourhood.

The whole neighbourhood is behind the bad ones, cheering them on. So screw them.

[Shady]

France brokered this deal in part by promising to provide a substantial portion of this force, and lead it. Now they've run away - again.

This point cannot be understated nor refuted. It's tantamount to Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown.

[JerrySeinfeld]

When this thing goes down for real - US/ISRAEL/CANAD/AUSTRALIA/BRITAIN v. IRAN/HEZBOLLAH(lebanon)/N.KOREA/VENZUELA

the real serious question will be: which side will France come down on? I'm serious - they have some real problems in that country. Besides the massive unrest amongst it's swelling unintegrated Muslim population...The biggest problem (one shared by many posters on this site) is that they knee jerk against anything that is USA originated. Especially if it violates precious multiculti BS.

Some how they need to reconcile that kneejerk reaction to blame everything on "US foreign policy" with the fact that this time the US enemy is a jew-hating armegeddon-loving self-detonating death-cult.

France does good business in the mid-east. How will they ultimately come down?

Like many liberals around the world, France loves peace but doesn't have the stomach to stand up and fight for it. Sounds like a contradiction, but as we'll soon again see in Lebanon, it isn't.

[Black Dog]

Debacle? They won that war in a matter of months!

So why are they still there if the whole thing was sewn up when they kicked the hell out of Saddam Hussein's hodge podge "army"? Could it be that he debacle in question is the has h they've made of the susequent occupation?

Some how they need to reconcile that kneejerk reaction to blame everything on "US foreign policy" with the fact that this time the US enemy is a jew-hating armegeddon-loving self-detonating death-cult.

Um I don't know if reading comprehenison is your problem, or maybe you just don't understand basic logic, but citing western foreign policy as a force which fed the rise of Islamic radicalism is not blaming the west (blame is a moral concept that implies that the reaction to those policies is justified, which is a question of minor importance), but a simple recogniton of cause and effect. In politics, as in physics, actions have equal and opposite reactions. Sixty years of promoting regional "stability" to the benefit of western interests and at the expense of the local populace has come with a price, and we're just getting the bill now.

[Shady]

Sixty years of promoting regional "stability" to the benefit of western interests and at the expense of the local populace has come with a price, and we're just getting the bill now

I disagree. Middle Eastern and Islamic regressiveness has little to do with Western "promotion" of regional stability. It's a weak correlation at best.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Debacle? They won that war in a matter of months!

So why are they still there if the whole thing was sewn up when they kicked the hell out of Saddam Hussein's hodge podge "army"? Could it be that he debacle in question is the has h they've made of the susequent occupation?

Some how they need to reconcile that kneejerk reaction to blame everything on "US foreign policy" with the fact that this time the US enemy is a jew-hating armegeddon-loving self-detonating death-cult.

Um I don't know if reading comprehenison is your problem, or maybe you just don't understand basic logic, but citing western foreign policy as a force which fed the rise of Islamic radicalism is not blaming the west (blame is a moral concept that implies that the reaction to those policies is justified, which is a question of minor importance), but a simple recogniton of cause and effect. In politics, as in physics, actions have equal and opposite reactions. Sixty years of promoting regional "stability" to the benefit of western interests and at the expense of the local populace has come with a price, and we're just getting the bill now.

Yes - the raquetball theory of global jihad. Good one.

Now go talk to an Islamic Militant and lay it out for us all.

Let me teach you a basic premise. Al Qaeda and other Islamofascists want to create Islamic states where they don't exist now. They want to kill infidels - non-believers like Nick Berg who had nothing to do with the military. For them this is not a military battle, it's a religious one.

I watched a hidden camera documentary on the Passionate Eye. Inside Al Qaeda meetings they have a map of the world and colour each country as "conquered" or "not conquered" yet. Conquered countries are green. England was green. So was France.

The sooner you understand the mentality of terrorist Islamofascists, the much more intelligent this discussion will be.

Drop your antiquated [insert "US FOREIGN POLICY" rhetoric here] arguments and start dealing with reality of today's world.

Seriously I'm trying to help you. These old fashioned arguments are starting to sound ridiculous in the face of whats actually happening in the world today. I know usually the left tries to pull out it's "complex / nuance/ I understand more about the situation than you to" snoot nosed BS to try to evade candid realistic discussion, but who are you really gonna believe about JIHAD? The elitist lefty drivel or your LYIN' EYES?

[GostHacked]

Then there's the Mark Steyn approach. Israel will go after Syria in a Six Day War style attack. Israel could destroy the Syrian Air Force before any plane got off the ground, and it could paralyze Syria's ability to launch any missiles. The Alawite regime would collapse and Syrian politics would turn into an ugly civil war.

Yeah, Israel should totally listen to the same half-wits who cheerlead the U.S. into the Iraq debacle. Good idea!

Debacle? They won that war in a matter of months!

I think that Iraq War is still going on. Or am I wrong? 'Mission Accomplished!' my ass.

Jerrysinfeld - Lumping Venezuela in that group does not sit well with me. They do not deserve to be lumped in to that crowd. Chazez was reelected acter the US backed attempted coup to get Chavez out. The people revolted and elected Chavez back in. Democracy seems to work there.

And it looks like France WILL kick in some troops. about 200 more.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/18/...e.ap/index.html

Argus

France is not making an effort. Half of those troops are already there with UNIFIL, the rest already in the med as part of their evacuation program. There is no way in hell the US or UK can put troops there for they would immediately be attacked by Islamic nut jobs, and Canada has few troops and they are already commited to fighting Islamic nut jobs in Afghanistan. France brokered this deal in part by promising to provide a substantial portion of this force, and lead it. Now they've run away - again.

Actually I can blame alot on the US for not putting a sooner end to the crisis. They vetoed a previous resolution on having Israel withdraw on the notion that Israel has a right to defend itself. So it tied up the process in the UN to allow Isreal the time it needed to get the job done. The US would have let Isreal go for a couple extra months before they would have said anything. But International outcry put the US in a position where they needed to act to save face.

And why was France and the US needed to broker a deal anyways? I thought this was between Israel and Lebanon? Should THEY not be sitting at the table to resolve this? If both parties were not willing to sit at the table to talk (and we know the president of Lebanon was crying while addressing the UN asking for someone to step in and stop the violence. Begging Israel to stop. Those cries fell on deaf ears.

[Leafless]

Argus

And why was France and the US needed to broker a deal anyways? I thought this was between Israel and Lebanon? Should THEY not be sitting at the table to resolve this? If both parties were not willing to sit at the table to talk (and we know the president of Lebanon was crying while addressing the UN asking for someone to step in and stop the violence. Begging Israel to stop. Those cries fell on deaf ears.

France and the U.S as always played the role of 'big daddy' to Israel.

France in a nuclear sense and the U.S. as a conventional arms supplier to help avoid Israel from using 'the big one' when threatened.

[Black Dog]

Slim:

Middle Eastern and Islamic regressiveness has little to do with Western "promotion" of regional stability. It's a weak correlation at best.

When the promoters of radical Islam are citing Western policies as the basis of their ideology, I'd say the correlation is a strong one. But tell me: how did radical Islam get to be such a force?

Funnyman:

Let me teach you a basic premise. Al Qaeda and other Islamofascists want to create Islamic states where they don't exist now. They want to kill infidels - non-believers like Nick Berg who had nothing to do with the military. For them this is not a military battle, it's a religious one.

Meaning what? Politics and religion are inseperable in this strain of Islam, but we can still adress the political dimension.

Drop your antiquated [insert "US FOREIGN POLICY" rhetoric here] arguments and start dealing with reality of today's world.

You mean the arguments you clearly can't counter, since you've offered no other explanations?

The sooner you understand the mentality of terrorist Islamofascists, the much more intelligent this discussion will be.

Oh I think that ship has sailed. You're not even making an argument here, just spouting slogans. "Islamists hate us! They want us all dead just for being so awesome! Argh!"

Seriously I'm trying to help you. These old fashioned arguments are starting to sound ridiculous in the face of whats actually happening in the world today.

Why? How can you talk about a problem if you don't know where it came from.

I know usually the left tries to pull out it's "complex / nuance/ I understand more about the situation than you to" snoot nosed BS to try to evade candid realistic discussion, but who are you really gonna believe about JIHAD? The elitist lefty drivel or your LYIN' EYES?

So you're seeking simple solutions to an obviously complex problem. I understand, you don't "get" the foreign policy argument, so you want it off the table (again, without offering up any substantive alternative).

[Shady]

but who are you really gonna believe about JIHAD? The elitist lefty drivel or your LYIN' EYES?

Well said.

Lumping Venezuela in that group does not sit well with me. They do not deserve to be lumped in to that crowd. Chazez was reelected acter the US backed attempted coup to get Chavez out. The people revolted and elected Chavez back in. Democracy seems to work there

Venezuala is definitely a different animal. However, to do the topic justice, a new thread should probably be created. That being said, I'm not sure Venezuela is as democractic as you may think. Chavez is the first Venezuelan President to seek a third consecutive term. Chavez has also recently "considered" an end to Presidential term limits, and he's insisted on continuing his weekly "Presidential" broadcasts during the campaign, broadcasts that can last up to five hours.

And it looks like France WILL kick in some troops. about 200 more

Actually, I heard it's closer to 400, but that's irrelevant. It's far fewer then what France had brokered the cease-fire over.

Actually I can blame alot on the US for not putting a sooner end to the crisis

I would put most of the blame on the terrorist organization Hezbollah, existing within a state against international law, who started the conflict in the first place. Resolution 1559, land for peace. Israel leaves Lebanon, Hezbollah disarms. One happened, and one didn't.

If both parties were not willing to sit at the table to talk (and we know the president of Lebanon was crying while addressing the UN asking for someone to step in and stop the violence. Begging Israel to stop. Those cries fell on deaf ears

Your referernce to "both parties" is incorrect. There's actually three parties. Israel, Lebanon and Hezbollah. Two states, and one terrorist organization within a state. Israel and Lebanon have been at peace for many years. Israel and Hezbollah have not.

[JerrySeinfeld]

So you're seeking simple solutions to an obviously complex problem. I understand, you don't "get" the foreign policy argument, so you want it off the table (again, without offering up any substantive alternative).

OK I'm calling your bluff Dog.

What is your foreign policy explanation for

-The danish cartoon jihad

-The banning of the chocolate swirl in Burger in the UK because it resembles the Arabic symbol for "allah"

-The blowing up of a French frigate by terrorist groups

-The planned beheading of the Prime Minister of Canada

-The Fatwa against Salmon Rushidie

-The bombing of a nightclub in Bali

??

[Black Dog]

OK I'm calling your bluff Dog.

What is your foreign policy explanation for

-The danish cartoon jihad

-The banning of the chocolate swirl in Burger in the UK because it resembles the Arabic symbol for "allah"

-The blowing up of a French frigate by terrorist groups

-The planned beheading of the Prime Minister of Canada

-The Fatwa against Salmon Rushidie

-The bombing of a nightclub in Bali

This confirms you don't understand the substance of the foreign policy argument. Which is sad, as its really quite simple and I've already explained it to you in the WWIII thread. All the examples you cite above are mere symptoms of the greater problem of the ideology of radical political Islamism, which was a 20th Century creation that emerged as a response to colonial rule over much of the Muslim world. Its core premise is that only a return to strict sharia law would restore Islam to its former preeminence. This is a explicit rejection of the secular western values that colonialism and its later variants brought into Islamic society.

Trouble is, even when the Cold War ended (thus ending the need to prop up repressive regimes like the military dictatorship in Egypt or the "decadent" rulers of the Gulf States in order to counterbalance communism), western countries, embodied by the United States continued to pursue the same policies that the Islamists have been railing against from the get go. Ironically it was the western-backed struggle against Soviet rule in Afghanistan (which led to the Taliban's rise) and, later, the western expulsion of the secular socialist Iraqi regime from the oil state of Kuwait that gave conetmporary Islam its spark. Those conflicts gave rise to the schools that taught the ideologies and enabled it to spread and prosper by offering an alternative to the policies that have left the Islamic world poor, impotent and corrupt. That's how it started, that's how it spread and the above (except for the Burger King thing, which I mantain is a practical joke) is how it is manifesting itself (after all, since most Muslim nations are weak, western puppets, terrorism is the only means for Islamists to wage their struggle).

Now, what's your explanation?

[August1991]

For once, I largely agree with you BD - except for one "detail":

Ironically it was the western-backed struggle against Soviet rule in Afghanistan (which led to the Taliban's rise) and, later, the western expulsion of the secular socialist Iraqi regime from the oil state of Kuwait that gave conetmporary Islam its spark. Those conflicts gave rise to the schools that taught the ideologies and enabled it to spread and prosper by offering an alternative to the policies that have left the Islamic world poor, impotent and corrupt.

BD, you put too much emphasis on the role of the western world. It's like someone ascribing to France and de Gaulle a critical role in the rise of Quebec nationalism.

The rise of Islamic fundamentalism has mirrored the collapse of decadent Middle Eastern governments. Nasrallah has replaced Nasser. It started in Iran with the revolution and is still primarily a Shiite phenomenon but if Assad Jnr or Mubarak falls, it is quite likely they would be replaced by the Moslem Brotherhood or something of that ilk.

IOW, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism goes beyond the Palestinian issue, the role of western governments in the Middle East or even Saudi funding of madrassas. Ordinary, young Arabic men are frustrated and some turn to religion.

[Argus]

This confirms you don't understand the substance of the foreign policy argument. Which is sad, as its really quite simple and I've already explained it to you in the WWIII thread. All the examples you cite above are mere symptoms of the greater problem of the ideology of radical political Islamism, which was a 20th Century creation that emerged as a response to colonial rule over much of the Muslim world.

I don't buy it. Western colonial rule ended decades ago. Reactionary Islamic fundamentalism is a much more recent phenomenon. And where is it the strongest and where is it the weakest? It's weak in the most liberal, most westernized of Arab nations, strongest in the Arab states which are the most draconian, most anti-western. It is no coincidence that most of the terrorists from 911 were Saudis - a land where you can't even drive a car if you're a woman, where they chase girls without burkhas back into fires to burn. It is no secret that the greatest source of Jihadists is now the barbaric border regions of Pakistan, where life is much as it was a thousand years ago. Jordan? The gulf states? Where are the fanatical terrorists here? For that matter, without Iranian money, arms, training and organization, would Lebanon even have Hezbollah? Unlikely. These are the most liberal, most western of Arab nations, so why is it radicalism is not rising here as it is in the more conservative Arab states?

Its core premise is that only a return to strict sharia law would restore Islam to its former preeminence. This is a explicit rejection of the secular western values that colonialism and its later variants brought into Islamic society.

This is mostly an Arab concept, and the belief is that only by embracing Islam can they return to their former glory and preeminence - except that their glory period came BEFORE Islam.

Trouble is, even when the Cold War ended (thus ending the need to prop up repressive regimes like the military dictatorship in Egypt or the "decadent" rulers of the Gulf States in order to counterbalance communism), western countries, embodied by the United States continued to pursue the same policies that the Islamists have been railing against from the get go.

Like what? It's not like these are liberators ranting against injustice and human rights abuses here. The Islamists are far more violent, extreme and repressive than any dictatorship, and they want no individual rights, want no civil rights, want only rule by the Koran.

Ironically it was the western-backed struggle against Soviet rule in Afghanistan (which led to the Taliban's rise) and, later, the western expulsion of the secular socialist Iraqi regime from the oil state of Kuwait that gave conetmporary Islam its spark.

Nonsense. It was oil money pouring out of the Wahabis into Pakistan and other parts of the world, building madassas by the thousands, filling them with hundreds of thousands of little boys and filling those little boys with a violent, vicious extremist version of Islam - and virtually nothing else. And it is Wahabi money going into Canada, the US and Europe to build mosques and muslim schools - on the condition Wahabi imams and mullahs are put in charge. I won't stake my life on it, as it's been a while since I read the article, but I believe virtually every mosque in Canada and the US (and, if I remember correctly, Europe) was built with Saudi money

I'm sure the US presence in Iraq has aided their recruitment, but the US military actions in the midddleast are a response to Muslim violence, not the cause of it. The violence was growing before the US did anything. Remember that Osama Bin Laden had ten housand men in Afghanistan, most of them foreigners who had been drawn to Afghanistan and the new jihad.

The US should have invaded Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.

[Black Dog]

I don't buy it. Western colonial rule ended decades ago.

Direct, yes. Indirect? Eh not so much.

It's weak in the most liberal, most westernized of Arab nations, strongest in the Arab states which are the most draconian, most anti-western.

Hmm: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt...all hotbeds of Islamism. All with western-backed governments.

This is mostly an Arab concept, and the belief is that only by embracing Islam can they return to their former glory and preeminence - except that their glory period came BEFORE Islam.

It's a concept the Islamists have embraced and co-opted to their advantage.

Like what? It's not like these are liberators ranting against injustice and human rights abuses here. The Islamists are far more violent, extreme and repressive than any dictatorship, and they want no individual rights, want no civil rights, want only rule by the Koran.

That doesn't disprove anything. They don't see themselves as worse than the current alternative. As far as their concerned, a society governed by sharia would be a peaceful paradise. They're wrong, as you and I both know, but that's the product they are selling and a lot of people seem to be buying it.

Nonsense. It was oil money pouring out of the Wahabis into Pakistan and other parts of the world, building madassas by the thousands, filling them with hundreds of thousands of little boys and filling those little boys with a violent, vicious extremist version of Islam - and virtually nothing else. And it is Wahabi money going into Canada, the US and Europe to build mosques and muslim schools - on the condition Wahabi imams and mullahs are put in charge. I won't stake my life on it, as it's been a while since I read the article, but I believe virtually every mosque in Canada and the US (and, if I remember correctly, Europe) was built with Saudi money

Saudi money that started life as US dollars or Euros.

I'm sure the US presence in Iraq has aided their recruitment, but the US military actions in the midddleast are a response to Muslim violence, not the cause of it. The violence was growing before the US did anything. Remember that Osama Bin Laden had ten housand men in Afghanistan, most of them foreigners who had been drawn to Afghanistan and the new jihad.

But they don't see the invasion of Iarq as an isolated event, but part of a long continuum of the west's war on Islam. As far as they are concerned, the violence has been going on for a long time.

The US should have invaded Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.

Colour me confused. If liberal Arab/Muslim societies are the one's least receptive to Ilsamism, shouldn't the focus be on liberalizing those societies that we influence throuh trade and political support?

[Leafless]

It's like someone ascribing to France and de Gaulle a critical role in the rise of Quebec nationalism.

This is a poor example for de Gaulle did play a role in promoting Quebec separatism by uttering "Vive la Quebec" while giving an address to a large crowd from a balcony at Montral city hall july 24,1967.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vive_le_Qu%C3...ec_libre_speech

Furthermore Quebec is one of ten provinces within the prosperous country of Canada using the separation agenda as a political pawn unlike in most cases poor separate Arab countries with nothing to fall back on.

[Argus]

It's weak in the most liberal, most westernized of Arab nations, strongest in the Arab states which are the most draconian, most anti-western.

Hmm: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt...all hotbeds of Islamism. All with western-backed governments.

Western backed perhaps, but not western oriented in any way I've noticed. And certainly not Western controlled. In what way to the people of Saudi Arabia groan under the yoke of American imperialism? In what way is the West preventing them from living their lives as they want to, interfering in their culture, in their country and the way it's run? You are still on the cold-war kick, where the presumption was that dictators were propped up by the Americans to the detriment of the People, who would otherwise be free to enjoy the presumed joy and peace of socialist brotherhood. What would life be like in Pakistan if the Islamists could pull down the government? Another Islamofascist dictatorship? One at war with India perhaps?

Like what? It's not like these are liberators ranting against injustice and human rights abuses here. The Islamists are far more violent, extreme and repressive than any dictatorship, and they want no individual rights, want no civil rights, want only rule by the Koran.

That doesn't disprove anything. They don't see themselves as worse than the current alternative. As far as their concerned, a society governed by sharia would be a peaceful paradise. They're wrong, as you and I both know, but that's the product they are selling and a lot of people seem to be buying it.

But we're talking about motivations here. What is their motivation if it's not anger against the barbaric treatment of the People by the West and Western backed regimes? Since we both apparently agree that Islamist regimes are typically more brutal and repressive than any other, it's hard to believe they're legitimately outraged at human rights abuses. So what is it? The presence of McDonalds?

Nonsense. It was oil money pouring out of the Wahabis into Pakistan and other parts of the world, building madassas by the thousands, filling them with hundreds of thousands of little boys and filling those little boys with a violent, vicious extremist version of Islam - and virtually nothing else. And it is Wahabi money going into Canada, the US and Europe to build mosques and muslim schools - on the condition Wahabi imams and mullahs are put in charge. I won't stake my life on it, as it's been a while since I read the article, but I believe virtually every mosque in Canada and the US (and, if I remember correctly, Europe) was built with Saudi money

Saudi money that started life as US dollars or Euros.

Yes, or Yen or whatever currency the Chinese use. What's your point? That we're exploiting the worker masses in order to assuage our prolifagate and irresponsible use of energy? Somehow, I don't think that's what's got the Islamists upset either.

I'm sure the US presence in Iraq has aided their recruitment, but the US military actions in the midddleast are a response to Muslim violence, not the cause of it. The violence was growing before the US did anything. Remember that Osama Bin Laden had ten housand men in Afghanistan, most of them foreigners who had been drawn to Afghanistan and the new jihad.

But they don't see the invasion of Iarq as an isolated event, but part of a long continuum of the west's war on Islam. As far as they are concerned, the violence has been going on for a long time.

Whatever they see it as, my point remains, that this was not the inspiration. The WTC came down well before Iraq and Afghanistan. The bombing in Kenya, the bombing of the USS Cole, and other terrorist attacks were well before Iraq and Afghanistan, so the inspiration for Religious fanaticism came first - American military responses later. I agree that these are contributers to recruitment, but there are still thousands and thousands of madrassas funded by the Wahabis churning out tens of thousands of willd-eyed zealots every year, most of them without proper educations, fit to do nothing more than, well, preach the cruel, intollerent version of the Koran they have been taught.

The US should have invaded Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.

Colour me confused. If liberal Arab/Muslim societies are the one's least receptive to Ilsamism, shouldn't the focus be on liberalizing those societies that we influence throuh trade and political support?

We have been trading with the Saudis for a generation now - about as long as they've been stinking rich, and no liberalization appears to be on the horizon. The only threat to the government comes from Islamists who, bizarrely, think it's already far too liberal.

[Black Dog]

Western backed perhaps, but not western oriented in any way I've noticed. And certainly not Western controlled.

And that has what to do with my point?

In what way to the people of Saudi Arabia groan under the yoke of American imperialism? In what way is the West preventing them from living their lives as they want to, interfering in their culture, in their country and the way it's run? You are still on the cold-war kick, where the presumption was that dictators were propped up by the Americans to the detriment of the People, who would otherwise be free to enjoy the presumed joy and peace of socialist brotherhood. What would life be like in Pakistan if the Islamists could pull down the government? Another Islamofascist dictatorship? One at war with India perhaps?

I don't really care to speculate about what the alternatives to western suport for these regimes would be. I'm only enumerating the the greivances. (Incidentally, I think Iran is a great example of what we're talking about. The repressive policies of the U.S. supported SHah helped bring an arguably worse regime into power.)

But we're talking about motivations here. What is their motivation if it's not anger against the barbaric treatment of the People by the West and Western backed regimes? Since we both apparently agree that Islamist regimes are typically more brutal and repressive than any other, it's hard to believe they're legitimately outraged at human rights abuses. So what is it? The presence of McDonalds?

How about the decline of traditional values, economic disparity and yes, even barbaric treatment. After all, if you're a member of a religious sect persecuted by a western backed regime, your chances are better if you become the persecutor.

the inspiration for Religious fanaticism came first - American military responses later.

But I'm not saying Iraq and Afghanistan were the starting points, just high points on a continuum that goes back 60+ years. (I was also not talking about the 21st Century interventions in those countries, but the one's that occurred in the last two decades of the last century.)

We have been trading with the Saudis for a generation now - about as long as they've been stinking rich, and no liberalization appears to be on the horizon.

Could that be because we haven't been trying to get them to liberalize?

[Argus]

In what way to the people of Saudi Arabia groan under the yoke of American imperialism? In what way is the West preventing them from living their lives as they want to, interfering in their culture, in their country and the way it's run? You are still on the cold-war kick, where the presumption was that dictators were propped up by the Americans to the detriment of the People, who would otherwise be free to enjoy the presumed joy and peace of socialist brotherhood. What would life be like in Pakistan if the Islamists could pull down the government? Another Islamofascist dictatorship? One at war with India perhaps?

I don't really care to speculate about what the alternatives to western suport for these regimes would be. I'm only enumerating the the greivances.

You haven't enumerated any greivances thus far. that I'm aware of.

(Incidentally, I think Iran is a great example of what we're talking about. The repressive policies of the U.S. supported SHah helped bring an arguably worse regime into power.)

The Shah was arguably no more repressive than Hussein or Assad. There are some who say Jimmy Carter holding back the Shah from slaughtering those trying to bring him down was what allowed Khomeni into power. Certainl Assad and Hussein never made any such error. They slaughtered tens of thousands to make sure no group ever gained enough influence to bring them down.

But we're talking about motivations here. What is their motivation if it's not anger against the barbaric treatment of the People by the West and Western backed regimes? Since we both apparently agree that Islamist regimes are typically more brutal and repressive than any other, it's hard to believe they're legitimately outraged at human rights abuses. So what is it? The presence of McDonalds?

How about the decline of traditional values,

Like what? Wife burning? How have "traditional values" declined in Saudi Arabia?

economic disparity

There's far worse economic disparity in Africa and they aren't out bombing airplanes.

and yes, even barbaric treatment. After all, if you're a member of a religious sect persecuted by a western backed regime, your chances are better if you become the persecutor.

I don't regard hypocrisy on that order as any kind of legitimate grievance. It's like Hitler complaining that the Soviets don't respect human rights. Boo-hoo.

the inspiration for Religious fanaticism came first - American military responses later.

But I'm not saying Iraq and Afghanistan were the starting points, just high points on a continuum that goes back 60+ years. (I was also not talking about the 21st Century interventions in those countries, but the one's that occurred in the last two decades of the last century.)

Again, compared to much of the world, the colonialism affected the Arab world least. It wasn't their people shipped off as slaves to America. Their ancestors weren't slaughtered like the south/central American natives. If you look at the bloody histories of places like French indochina and Algeria, central America and India, these are places where colonialism bit much deeper into local culture and were far bloodier. Yet it's the Muslim people - EVERYWHERE - who are giving birth to fanaticaly violent religious fruitcakes. The commonality is not colonialism, for the colonial experience is different from nation to nation, but Islam.

We have been trading with the Saudis for a generation now - about as long as they've been stinking rich, and no liberalization appears to be on the horizon.

Could that be because we haven't been trying to get them to liberalize?

No, I don't think so. This is a land ruled by hundreds of princes who spend vast amounts of time and money in the West, who send their kids to school here, who know damned well what advantages we have. They have rejected the West and all it stands for in favour of their ancient, mystical religion and ancient, barbaric ways. More importantly, they have spent billions spreading their barbarism around the world, giving birth to the current phase of Islamic fundamentalism