A primer on Muslim "Anger"

[betsy]

It is time to step aside and let the bull run around. Eventually, the bull will get sick of the game.

And if it doesn't get sick of the game....then what?

Anyway why do you assume that the bull just wants to run around us when the extremists are screaming "death to all infidels!"

[jbg]

When the terrorists took over those planes they could have flown them anywhere. If all they cared about was killing infidels then they would have flown those planes into the nuclear plants in the area. They choose landmarks like the WTC because they cared about the symbolism instead of the death toll. That example alone proves that the motivations of terrorists are much more complex than you want to admit.

No, I do not agree with your analysis. Low-rise targets, like nuclear reactors or even the White House make poor targets. Even an expert fighter pilot (of the kind in "Snoopy and the Red Baron" song) would have trouble aiming a plane at a target hugging the ground. The World Trade Center sticks way up into the air, and, since it's next to the Hudson River it's easy to bring the plane down to a sufficiently low level to slam into it. A nuclear reactor would pose the same challenges. A plane going well over 500 mph (remember the 9/11 attackers were flying well over aviation speed limits to avoid being shot down) would have trouble making a precision crash into a small spot on the ground.

But according to the extremists, the west is the evil incarnate. It is why we should be dealt with...because we lead by example. We corrupt them.

That is exactly why we cannot take Riverwind's idea of letting them have nukes and then asking them to use them in a mature manner. They want us dead. End of subject matter (not of this debate, just their wishes).

[Argus]

I don't think refusing Iran the privilage of becoming a nuclear power constitutes making them "lick our boots".

Your problem is you refuse to look at things from the perspective of an average Iranian. The average Iranian believes that they are responsible civilization and that they have as much right to nuclear power and nuclear arms as anyone else.

And the average Israeli? He listens to the anti-Jewish, anti-Israel rants of the religious wackos in charge of Iran, and he certainly doesn't believe Iranians are a responsible civilization. I look at the rants and behaviour of those wackos and I don't think so either.

So, we have irreconcilable beliefs here.

Furthermore, the US has threatened to attack Iran on a number of occasions

Generally for very good reason.

The only option at this time is to accept Iran has the right to develop nuclear weapons if it so chooses but then try to persuade Iran with incentives (not threats) to choose not to do so.

Oh no. There is another option. It's very hard to develop nuclear weapons when there is no electricity in your entire country. It should not be terribly difficult to bomb all electrical generating plants and stations and ensure the Iranians can do no further harm. I rather like that option, myself. The Iranians can have their little tenth century Muslim paradise without electrical power.

How many times? And how warped do we become by cowering in fear of Muslim violence and defending their "right" to be violently angry

We have neighbors which, frankling speaking, are frequently hypersensitive jerks with an inferiority complex.

Perhaps, at times, but they don't threaten us physically.

Unfortunately, we are stuck with them so the only practical option is to use a little bit of tact and diplomacy even if it means saying things that we don't believe or holding our tongues at times.

But you can negotiate with a multi-party democracy far easier than with a brutal thugocracy populated by religious wackos and demogagues.

The world has spouted the 'One China' garbage for decades in order to placate the Mullahs in Beijing - I don't see why we can't do the same with the Islamic world.

I don't think you'll find that I ever agreed with that. In fact, I have already posted that we should break diplomatic relations with China, ban all imports from there, and establish closer relations with Taiwan.

[Argus]

How many smoldering buildings later?

It is time to stop peddling fear and paranoia. The evidence to date clearly shows that the 'war on terror' has inspired people to commit terrorists acts that would have never considered it before. The bombings in London and Madrid are directly linked the Iraq war.

They are directly linked to Pakistan, and ultimately to Saudi Arabia pumping billions of dollars into schools of religious fanaticism throughout the world and especially in Pakistan.

I agree with those who have said the US should have invaded Saudi Arabia rather than Iraq. Except that the world would not have allowed them to get away with what needs doing there. That's why I suggested earlier the US should have allied with Iraq and let Hussein invade Saudi Arabia and butcher its political and religious leaders to a man.

[KrustyKidd]

So, by this way of thinking, removing Saddam assisted those interested in Jihad?

Yes. As the origional goal of the Jihadists was to overthrow the Saudi Regime. By placing troops in Iraq it acomplished a few things. If you wish to know what they were and how that tied into the War on Terror I explained it for the umpteenth time here

We went into Iraq to isolate and frighten the Saudi government into cracking down on the flow of money to Al Qaeda. Bush never answered the question for fear of the international consequences. Early in the war, the President said that the key was shutting down Al Qaeda's financing. Most of the financing came from Saudi Arabia, but the Saudi government was refusing to cooperate. After the invasion of Iraq, they completely changed their position. We did not invade Saudi Arabia directly because of fear that the fall of the Saudi government would disrupt oil supplies: a global disaster.

and here.

The US had to do a few things and it all added up to invasion. First, the area was not a peaceful one with Saddam in a box. Sooner or later the box would have to be removed and then he or one of his sons would be up to the same old things. So, taking him out of power was a bonus for them.

Two. As I explained for the umteenth time to alzhiemer boy, the US needed to get the Suadis to take on Al Queda within their own border or there would be a coup sooner or later. Al Qudeda in control of SA would be extremely bad for the situation there.

Third. Showing the will of the US who were reknowned for cutting and running to support those who wish freedom was essential for change within the region as it is the poverty of the people and oppulance of the corrupt regimes which fuel the Jihadist mentality.

Fourth. To create a democracy within the center of the region where people can decide their own future is counter to the culture the Jihadists wish which is control of every aspect from shitting to how you dress.

The other three choices were to leave Saudi Arabia to the mounting tide of Conservative Wahabbism and hope for the best. Invade SA to take out the Royals and replace them with a democratic government. Or, to make a deal with Saddam where he would stay in power and let the US have bases there to threaten SA with to take care of AL Queda.

The first is not on as too risky. The second would play into the hands of Al Queda who would be instantly popularized into power as a resistance front. The third took care of nothing as it too would have be a galvanizing factor for Al Queda to show the people that the west is in bed with the corrupt regimes and they would more than likely have increased in power in SA rather than be marginalized as they are now.

Look up your history - the Caliphate was an Arab kingdom in the middle east. They could re-create if the want but it is no concern to those of us living outside the ME.

Yes, that would make sense if we lived in a non global economy with no such thing as WMDs and if that was their only goal. However, the idea is to first recreate the Claiphate and then expand to make it worldwide. I adressed this as well for the umpteenth time here.

When they become the government of our trading partners or, a shadow goevernment, then we trade with them. And, once they have economic power, they have political power and military power. They won't be sending envoys with belt bombs to garner favors of air bases and such to the west, they will be cutting off oil, bullying smaller countries adjacent to them and so on all with the intent of furthering Conservative Islamic values (that means adherence to the Koran to the letter as it was written thirteen hundred years ago.) If you don't agree with that then there will be lots of fourth world countries that will toe the mark and give them the means to get what they wish from second worl countries to make Jihad with the first world ones. Funny thing is, it's happening right in front of us and most people think it is pell mell radom violence when in fact, every terrorist action in Indonesia or the Phillipines is in preparation to topple weak regimes. Not topple them now, but weaken them so they can be toppled at will when the time is right.

[jdobbin]

Yes. As the origional goal of the Jihadists was to overthrow the Saudi Regime. By placing troops in Iraq it acomplished a few things. If you wish to know what they were and how that tied into the War on Terror I explained it for the umpteenth time here

So there is some truth to the Pentagon's report that Iraq has not made the U.S. safer.

[KrustyKidd]

So there is some truth to the Pentagon's report that Iraq has not made the U.S. safer.

Not sure what you refering to as I didn't ever say safer. I explained in depth why the action was necessary. As an analogy, taking on Hitler didn't make things safer in the short run but it was something that had to be done.

[Riverwind]

And, once they have economic power, they have political power and military power. They won't be sending envoys with belt bombs to garner favors of air bases and such to the west, they will be cutting off oil

If they did they would be killing the goose that laid the golden egg. The countries in the Middle East have nothing other than oil - that makes them completely dependent on the rest of the world for everything from technology to foodstuffs. This hypothetical Caliphate might rant and rave about infidels but they will be delivering the oil on time because their own people would string them up if they didn't. If you disagree then explain why Iran has been shipping as much oil as possible since 1979?

Furthermore, the Sunnis and Shias are drilling holes in each other with power tools in Iraq - it is ridiculous to suggest that these people could unite into a coherent political entity within the foreseeable future. Even the EU with 60 years of peace behind it has a hard time getting their act together. IOW, the Caliphate is phantom fear and cannot be used to justify any military actions today.

[jdobbin]

Not sure what you refering to as I didn't ever say safer. I explained in depth why the action was necessary. As an analogy, taking on Hitler didn't make things safer in the short run but it was something that had to be done.

Not something you said but what critics of the war were saying before it started. The administration assured people that invading Iraq would make the world safer. The Pentagon's own report now sayd it hasn't and in fact has increased it. And that isn't short run. That's as long as they could see into the future.

[KrustyKidd]

Not something you said but what critics of the war were saying before it started. The administration assured people that invading Iraq would make the world safer. The Pentagon's own report now sayd it hasn't and in fact has increased it. And that isn't short run. That's as long as they could see into the future.

Sorry. So you will start a new thread of should we discuss this report here? If here, I would say that we could all be much safer if we simply hide in a hole somewhere and wait for the Conservative Wahabiists to take over everything. Then convert to Islam. Zero risk.

[jdobbin]

Sorry. So you will start a new thread of should we discuss this report here? If here, I would say that we could all be much safer if we simply hide in a hole somewhere and wait for the Conservative Wahabiists to take over everything. Then convert to Islam. Zero risk.

No point starting ten threads on more or less the same subject.

Don't know that people were hiding in a hole about Iraq. I don't think they had an insurgency before the invasion.

[KrustyKidd]

Sorry. So you will start a new thread of should we discuss this report here? If here, I would say that we could all be much safer if we simply hide in a hole somewhere and wait for the Conservative Wahabiists to take over everything. Then convert to Islam. Zero risk.

No point starting ten threads on more or less the same subject.

Don't know that people were hiding in a hole about Iraq. I don't think they had an insurgency before the invasion.

OK. Then I suggest we go back to this one as I have addressed all those points ad nausium with Black Dog. Hence, I will just be requoting my relevent posts to counter you arguments here.

So, although we were not hiding in a hole, we were in danger well before 911. It just was not as apparent. Also, the Recreation of the Caliphate is not a new idea, nor is making a worldwide Caliphate a modern one. The abuility to take action to fulfill it is though, hence, action needs to be taken to stop this idealology.

And yes, they did have an insurgency in Iraq. Saddam had problems keeing oil moving and sabatuers from taking action there. Russia had terrorists as did China and many other countries.

[Riverwind]

So, although we were not hiding in a hole, we were in danger well before 911. It just was not as apparent. Also, the Recreation of the Caliphate is not a new idea, nor is making a worldwide Caliphate a modern one. The abuility to take action to fulfill it is though, hence, action needs to be taken to stop this ideology.

The only thing we need to do is sit back the and let the Muslims fight among themselves. Interfering their affairs just makes us targets and makes it more likely that they will stop bickering among themselves and unite as a political or economic entity.

In any case, the chances of a modern Caliphate spreading beyond on the ME are slightly less than the chance of an invasion from Mars.

[KrustyKidd]

If they did they would be killing the goose that laid the golden egg. The countries in the Middle East have nothing other than oil - that makes them completely dependent on the rest of the world for everything from technology to foodstuffs. This hypothetical Caliphate might rant and rave about infidels but they will be delivering the oil on time because their own people would string them up if they didn't. If you disagree then explain why Iran has been shipping as much oil as possible since 1979?

Furthermore, the Sunnis and Shias are drilling holes in each other with power tools in Iraq - it is ridiculous to suggest that these people could unite into a coherent political entity within the foreseeable future.

They wouldn't stop selling oil but rather use it as an economic tool using it for reward and punishment to grow their empire. Buying weapons from countries that need the oil in order to move against weaker countries and add them to the Caliphate.

As to why Iran is shippiong oil it's simple - they have people to feed and they don't want a revoltion. And Shiites are not expected to become part of this Caliphate as they are considered Aposphates.

Even the EU with 60 years of peace behind it has a hard time getting their act together. IOW, the Caliphate is phantom fear and cannot be used to justify any military actions today.

Afaganistan was entrenched in it and Saudi Arabia was in danager of becomming a Jihadist controled country so I really wouldn't say it was a phantom fear. Now the threat is diminishing however, it can still remerge if action is not continued.

[jdobbin]

OK. Then I suggest we go back to this one as I have addressed all those points ad nausium with Black Dog. Hence, I will just be requoting my relevent posts to counter you arguments here.

So, although we were not hiding in a hole, we were in danger well before 911. It just was not as apparent. Also, the Recreation of the Caliphate is not a new idea, nor is making a worldwide Caliphate a modern one. The abuility to take action to fulfill it is though, hence, action needs to be taken to stop this idealology.

And yes, they did have an insurgency in Iraq. Saddam had problems keeing oil moving and sabatuers from taking action there. Russia had terrorists as did China and many other countries.

I have seen all those arguments. I just don't believe this war was the first of a Christian or Anglo-Saxon Crusade to throw back the Muslims to ages gone by.

I certainly haven't seen this being the argument made by Dick Cheney.

[KrustyKidd]

The only thing we need to do is sit back the and let the Muslims fight among themselves.

Interfering their affairs just makes us targets and makes it more likely that they will stop bickering among themselves and unite as a political or economic entity.

Ah affairs like taking over other countries and all. Being in violation of UN resolutions, attacking and invading our trading parnters and attempting to corner the oil resources of the region. Yes, just let them do whatever

In any case, the chances of a modern Caliphate spreading beyond on the ME are slightly less than the chance of an invasion from Mars.

So you are saying that a single social, political, cultural and economic force that controls the oil in the Middle East and has one mission - to spread the word of Islam throughout the world by whatever means possible and was being given whatever weapons they desired would have no impact on your life? How many annexations of coutries would it take to affect you? Indonesia, Phillipines, Somalia, the rest of Africa? At what point would they become a force that controlled something that affected you?

[Riverwind]

They wouldn't stop selling oil but rather use it as an economic tool using it for reward and punishment to grow their empire. Buying weapons from countries that need the oil in order to move against weaker countries and add them to the Caliphate.

Not possible in today's world. No country can operate in isolation - even one with with a lot of oil. In any case, _if_ you are correct. Then is it safe to assume that Iran would be the first target of any Caliphate. IOW - we just let the Muslims fight among themselves and we can get on with our lives.

As to why Iran is shippiong oil it's simple - they have people to feed and they don't want a revoltion. And Shiites are not expected to become part of this Caliphate as they are considered Aposphates.

Are you assuming that the Sunnis don't need to be fed?

[KrustyKidd]

I have seen all those arguments. I just don't believe this war was the first of a Christian or Anglo-Saxon Crusade to throw back the Muslims to ages gone by.

I don't either as it is not a crusade. It is a batle against an idealology that believes it can do it though.

I certainly haven't seen this being the argument made by Dick Cheney.

Bush has.

[KrustyKidd]

Not possible in today's world. No country can operate in isolation - even one with with a lot of oil.

Of course they wouldn't be isolated. France would probably buy oil to them as would China and Russia. All in exchange for whatever weapons and things they needed.

Are you assuming that the Sunnis don't need to be fed?

Taliban Afganistan was run quite differently than Iran is. That is the type of control they would have over their poulations if they came to power.

[jdobbin]

Bush has.

Then he should come out and say that this is a Crusade.

[KrustyKidd]

Bush has.

Then he should come out and say that this is a Crusade.

Why? It's not a crusade but a battle against an insidiuous reppressive iealology.

[Riverwind]

Not possible in today's world. No country can operate in isolation - even one with with a lot of oil.

Of course they wouldn't be isolated. France would probably buy oil to them as would China and Russia. All in exchange for whatever weapons and things they needed.

Russia does not need to buy oil from anyone. Once oil goes on the world market it does not make a difference who buys it because it still increases the world supply and keeps the price down. In other words, you are agreeing that they would still sell as much oil as possible and that the only possible issue is the US would have to purchase its supplies from places other than Saudi Arabia. Sounds like it makes more sense for the US to patch up relationships with Iran and Venezuela. Forget about stopping Iran from getting nukes - the US should give Iran nukes if this so-called Caliphate was a real threat (which it isn't).

Taliban Afghanistan was run quite differently than Iran is. That is the type of control they would have over their populations if they came to power.

The Taliban got into power because they were better than the anarchy offered by the warlords. They maintained power for the same reasons. Any new gov't in Saudi Arabia would have to provide at least the same level of stablity as the House of Saud. In other words, the Mullahs in Ryiad would have to deal with the same constraints as the Mullahs in Tehran.

[jdobbin]

Why? It's not a crusade but a battle against an insidiuous reppressive iealology.

Is it now? I thought it was a religious war you are talking about.

[KrustyKidd]

In other words, you are agreeing that they would still sell as much oil as possible and that the only possible issue is the US would have to purchase its supplies from places other than Saudi Arabia. Sounds like it makes more sense for the US to patch up relationships with Iran and Venezuela. Forgot stopping Iran from getting nukes - the US should give Iran nukes if this so-called Caliphate was a real threat.

Of course they would sell as much as they could. They would also use the money to arm themselves. And why would Iran having nukes be a good thing?

The Taliban got into power because they were better than the anarchy offered by the warlords. They maintained power for the same reasons.

Huh? They got into power because they took it by force. Nobody had a choice in the matter.

Any new gov't in Saudi Arabia would have to provide at least the same level of stablity.

Of course it would be stable. All reppressive societies are.

[KrustyKidd]

Is it now? I thought it was a religious war you are talking about.

No. Jihadists believe this is a religious war but I know we certainly don't look at it as a way to further the Christian religion.