Wow, I read OSC's warwatch and I'm appalled at his logic and reasoning.
I just want to put forth just one major point that he’s absolutely wrong on.
“It's all theatre. It's all an effort by Bin Laden to restore the Caliphate with himself, of course, as Caliph -- spiritual dictator of the Muslim world. The goal? Not just to unite Sunni Islam under a Caliph again, but to then make war on and crush Shiite resistance. That is the prize. Only when it is won would a united Islam be ready to conquer the rest of the world, finishing the task that was left unfinished by previous waves of Muslim conquest.”
I’m sorry Mr. Card but there are Nuclear weapons in the world nowadays. The Sunnis can conquer the west as much as the United States with its most powerful military in the world can now invade and conquer North Korea.
How do you miss the simple fact that nuclear weapons guarantee mutual destruction? Nah, that’s not what the Sunni want.
You want the real truth? The Sunni and Shiite people see the unbelievable greed of Corporate America. They know that they can’t destroy or conquer us, and they’re not trying to. The one thing that they can do is hurt us economically, and not short term, but in the future to come. Through terrorist acts, they tried to instill fear in Americans and succeeded. Yours truly, President Bush got us involved in an unnecessary war which is draining us economically and mentally. The American people were so scared that they went along without questioning it whatsoever!
You think the economy is going great right now? The national debt is growing by the second! I’ll borrow a line from Bill Maher, “Oh, and did I mention we owe China a trillion dollars? We owe everybody money. America is a debtor nation to Mexico!” This spells disaster for the future of America.
Bin Laden’s goal isn’t to conquer America, it’s to knock it off from its pedestal as the most powerful country/empire of our day and he’s succeeding, thanks to Bush and people like OSC.
The article he wrote was nothing more than fear mongering! Fear the Sunnis because they are irreconcilably hateful of our freedoms. Yes, that is what OSC wrote, the old “They hate us for our freedoms”. Quote: “Here's the story the Islamic puritans are telling: The West is full of terrible evils -- atheism, sexual filth of all kinds -- in defiance of God's will.” So it follows that the Sunnis will conquer the other factions of Islam and then they will come for us! We don't have to fear them, for God's sake! We need to learn how to live alongside on our one, lonely forsaken planet!
Oh and I’ll briefly go into OSC’s argument for democratizing the Middle East.
“Instead, President Bush has offered something quite different. We don't want to turn you into mini-Americas, he says. We offer you, instead, democracy, in which you can choose for yourselves what parts of western culture to adopt.”
I don’t understand how democracy in a society where the basic human freedoms are but an illusion isn’t a laughable concept. Here are the facts that you all surely know: if you try to leave Islam, you get hunted down. It simply boils down to “If you don’t think like we want you to think, you’ll die”. How can democracy take place in such a society?! Forget that America’s forcefully pushing for a government that’s amicable to us, hence destroying the whole premise of the argument.
Orson Scott Card says that the only issue that matters is terrorism. I think it’s fear, illogical and all-consuming fear.
Let them make you believe through fear that there isn’t a diplomatic solution and blood, and plenty of it, is all you’ll get.
Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
IceCool, this is rather emotional and unreasoning for an attack on someone's reasoning.
First, the Bin Laden take: Bin Laden has clearly said he wants to restore the caliphate, and he also wants to convert the west into an islamic caliphate, which means us, you and me. Nuclear weapons do enter into it, but not much. MAD depended upon the basic reasoning of the Soviets, who didn't want to die. Bin Laden et al. want to die, so MAD won't necessarily work there.
Second, the economy is mixed. We do spend too much and close to half our debt is held by foreign interests, which is a clear danger. (Quoting Bill Maher? Please!) Government should be cut way back. Entitlements should all be means tested. Rich people shouldn't get social security. There are too many people sucking at the public teat.
On the other hand, the economy is quite strong, unemployment is very low, stock market is strong and certainly the economy is much stronger than 2000 after Clinton had successfully created a recession.
Third, the phrase "thanks to Bush . . ." Bin Laden's goals haven't varied, and it is to defeat the west and install the caliphate. Bush makes no difference. Bin Laden's long term goal is to bring about the Mahometan Millenium in which the whole world embraces (Sunni)islam.
I do agree that there may be some fear mongering. But fear or at least caution is a very reasonable response to a dictator who has made his intentions known. From 1931 - 1939, the world didn't want to acknowledge Hitler as a clear danger. Bin Laden has more potential supporters. I don't feel fear, but I do feel concern and the call to prepare for the worst.
We are in WWIV. (WWIII ended in 1991). It will probably last 50 years or more. There is no diplomatic solution I can imagine, any more than Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain were able to create a diplomatic solution with Hitler. We are in a contest with a deeply evil foe, for the third time in the last 70 years. If you can create a viable diplomatic solution, I'd like to hear about it.
War is terrible. I served in the military and no one in their right mind wants to go to war. But war is not the worst thing.
Possibly Iraq was ill-conceived, although at the time everyone (including John "I support the troops" Kerry) thought it was a good idea, based on the best info available. Possibly we have seen poor execution. But Iraq is a footnote. We are at war, and the storm clouds are gathering. Do you know how to swim?
IMHO. Lynn
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't really thing Islamic fundamentalist hate the west because of their freedoms. They view western society as decadant and hate things like movies with nudity, much like some, SOME conservatives do, only with a violent edge. They see it as a threat to their way of life, therefore they seek to destroy it. i don't condone it, it's stupid, but this is the case. But I doubt that a few centuries of decadent culture can undo thousands of years of their religion, but there are some things that need to shift in terms of women's rights and so much more, but I am not sure if some culture war is the answer. It's illogical and makes no sense.
Posted by Icec0o1 (Member # 8157) on :
The idea that the west can all be converted to Islam is ludicrous.
“Nuclear weapons do enter into it, but not much. MAD depended upon the basic reasoning of the Soviets, who didn't want to die. Bin Laden et al. want to die, so MAD won't necessarily work there.”
No, MAD didn’t depend on the fear of death, but the reasonable outcome that the world would become unlivable for anyone. Russians died by the millions in WWII, don’t tell me they were afraid to fight for a cause.
Further, your argument is false because it’s not just Bin Laden that will die if there’s a nuclear war. One side or the other will perish and I doubt even Bin Laden thinks that he can out-nuke the west. It’s one thing for Bin Laden to commit suicide for his beliefs/goals and a whole different thing for him to force the west to annihilate most of his (Sunni) people.
I agree with you on the scale of government and economy except that Clinton had anything to do with the recession; that’s just republican drivel.
You ask me to describe a diplomatic solution and I could but it’s too complicated and I don’t have the time right now. Would you, however, describe your physical solution? Where would war get us? Do we kill all Sunni and Shiite? Does one side indeed have to perish for there to be peace?! Iraq has strengthened the Shiite’s resolution that the west is evil, not weakened it.
You can’t imagine a diplomatic solution… I’m quite certain that there isn’t a militaristic solution to the problem.
Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
Often we are certain of things we know nothing about. The solution is likely to be analogous to a book from the 1960s, _Protracted Conflict_. I think it was by Kahn. We are in a protracted conflict with a set of beliefs that is destructive to our survival, just as we were with fascism and communism. Fascism made the mistake (thankfully) of a head-to-head confrontation. Communism was more wise and tried to out-last capitalism / freedom.
In 1946, Churchill made the famous "Sinews of Peace" speech at Westminster College, in which he used the term "Iron curtain." That concept was very helpful. Truman then created the containment doctrine, which worked moderately well. Containment was meaningless without military strength. World War III followed; Viet Nam was a tactical loss but not a permanent strategic setback. Containment was helpful.
The biggest problem was that many people didn't believe in containment. They allowed Mao to capture China, and it is taking many generations for China to recover. They were the people from the 1930s who were enthusiastic about Stalin. Many don't believe in confronting militant islam today. I suspect they trace their intellectual genealogy to the appeasers from 1930 - 1980.
Military might plays a vital role in containment of evil. So does diplomacy, but only when it is backed by overwhelming force. The proximate cause of communism's collapse is arguably Star Wars missle defense, a concept that drove anti-military types wild. But Gorbechev realized he couldn't compete and backed down. Iceland was a tremendous breakthrough also, but wouldn't have happened without the Reagan military recovery, undoing the damage done by the 20th century's worst president.
Your term "militaristic" betrays your narrow thinking and lack of historical perspective. YOu failed to read my post carefully: No one in their right mind wants war. It is undoubtedly a terrible business. But only our willingness to wage war will avoid war.
A fellow student of aikido was walking down the dark streets of a large city. Two men suddenly came towards him. He assumed his defensive aikido posture and asked, "What do you want?"
They replied, "Ah . . . nothing . . . we got the wrong guy." In fact, studies of muggers demonstrate that they attack those who appear to be weak. Bin Laden thinks we are weak. He thinks we cannot resist him. So he / his proxies (the term "Bin Laden" is really a symbol of militant islam) will continue to attack us.
Reagan, arguably Bush I, and Clinton all played into militant islam's view of the west as weak. That is why they attack. Now if the Murthas get their way, it will further embolden them.
Have you read the material on www.frontpagemagazine.com about Islam? If you despise the site, read it anyway, to get a broader historical perspective.
Then read the material buried in Howard Bloom's site on Islam where he predicted the twin towers and so on. www.howardbloom.net.
Often conservatives view liberals as illiterates who haven't read history. That is unfortunate and often untrue. But not always. I don't think you understand MAD, and I am pretty sure you don't understand militant Islam. Let's continue the dialog.
Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
Synesthesia, I agree with you. The freedoms are a threat, and so is the decadance.
But I think the overall problem is Wahabbism and the resurgance of fundamentalist Islam. Read _What Went Wrong_ by Bernard Lewis and you can understand some of their motivation. Islam failed and the way people react to failure of a belief system is to strengthen it, rather than abandon it. The old "When Prophecy Fails" study.
Lynn
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: It simply boils down to “If you don’t think like we want you to think, you’ll die”. How can democracy take place in such a society?
Actually, I think OSC dedicated a whole column to this very subject last year. His point was the fruits of democracy would be good enough to draw people to listen to imams who don't teach Wahabist doctrine. That's the thing about Islam. The number of doctrines on which there is no flexibility is pretty small. But like American Christians, there are upsurges in prefering "conservative" interpretations from time to time for reasons I don't pretend to understand. I put conservatives in quotes because I don't think Christian conservative ever recommends killing people who convert. I suppose the KKK. But I don't think the KKK was ever as influential as Wahabism. Not that we shouldn't keep an eye on it. I mean, I guess as a Christian, I can understand why most Muslims would look at the extremists and say "well, they're just clearly nuts. What does that have to do with me?"
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Thanks for the thread -- it reminds me there's a new WorldWatch to read.
I'll read it and then maybe have some comments. For now, I'll just notice this.
quote:The Sunni and Shiite people see the unbelievable greed of Corporate America. ... Through terrorist acts, they tried to instill fear in Americans and succeeded.
You're blaming the Sunnis and Shiite people for terrorism? Not al-Qaeda, not Hamas, but the whole of Islam? I've never heard such a blanket condemnation of Islam from anyone. Wow. I have known a few Moslems. They aren't anything like that.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: Thanks for the thread -- it reminds me there's a new WorldWatch to read.
I'll read it and then maybe have some comments. For now, I'll just notice this.
quote:The Sunni and Shiite people see the unbelievable greed of Corporate America. ... Through terrorist acts, they tried to instill fear in Americans and succeeded.
You're blaming the Sunnis and Shiite people for terrorism? Not al-Qaeda, not Hamas, but the whole of Islam? I've never heard such a blanket condemnation of Islam from anyone. Wow. I have known a few Moslems. They aren't anything like that.
Wait, that doesn't make sense to me, aren't those just simular branches of Islam and not terrorist groups? That really doesn't seem like an accurate statement.
Posted by akhockey (Member # 8394) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icec0o1: Russians died by the millions in WWII, don’t tell me they were afraid to fight for a cause.
People don't go to war to die, they go to live, and on a broader level, for their ideals or way of life to live.
Militant/Fundamental Islamicists use suicide bombings as a prominent tactic. There is no hope of life in a suicide bombing, at least not here on Earth. That's a huge, huge difference.
Posted by Icec0o1 (Member # 8157) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: Thanks for the thread -- it reminds me there's a new WorldWatch to read.
I'll read it and then maybe have some comments. For now, I'll just notice this.
quote:The Sunni and Shiite people see the unbelievable greed of Corporate America. ... Through terrorist acts, they tried to instill fear in Americans and succeeded.
You're blaming the Sunnis and Shiite people for terrorism? Not al-Qaeda, not Hamas, but the whole of Islam? I've never heard such a blanket condemnation of Islam from anyone. Wow. I have known a few Moslems. They aren't anything like that.
They certainly don't condemn it with any real zeal. I know I'd be pretty pissed if my religion was made synonymous with suicide bombings.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:They certainly don't condemn it with any real zeal.
Out of interest, what would constitute "real zeal" to you?
Posted by Icec0o1 (Member # 8157) on :
quote:Originally posted by akhockey:
quote:Originally posted by Icec0o1: Russians died by the millions in WWII, don’t tell me they were afraid to fight for a cause.
People don't go to war to die, they go to live, and on a broader level, for their ideals or way of life to live.
Militant/Fundamental Islamicists use suicide bombings as a prominent tactic. There is no hope of life in a suicide bombing, at least not here on Earth. That's a huge, huge difference.
There isn't? The only reason they're suicide bombing themselves is to gain 72 virgins in paradise? I don't think you believe that.
Posted by Icec0o1 (Member # 8157) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:They certainly don't condemn it with any real zeal.
Out of interest, what would constitute "real zeal" to you?
Not protecting Bin Laden or any other Al Qaeda members and instead exposing them, leading to their capture. Speaking out in volume against terrorist actions, that those radical members of their religion don't represent them or their goals, values, ideas.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Um, I seriously doubt that all 1.3 billion Muslims of whom 160 Million are either Sunni or Shi'ite, or even a most of them are part of a conspiracy to hide Mr. Bin Laden.
"Speaking out in volume against terrorist actions, that those radical members of their religion don't represent them or their goals, values, ideas."
Have you been listening?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Wow, it's almost as though Will B and I had the same thought and posted it at the exact same minute So, am I going to have to quote myself? That's why I will often speak of Wahabists and Baathists (thought I don't really know what Baathists are into, except Saddam was one.)
Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
pooka, Baath party is a nationalistic socialistic pan arab party. In other words, an Arab nazi party. Here is the Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baath_Party
Wahhabis want to return Islam to 9th century purity. They are kind of like christian neonazis. Wahhab was an islamic scholar from what is now Saudi Arabia, and so Wahhabism is strongist in Saudi Arabia. A friend working in a Saudi hospital on 9-11 told me the Saudis were giddy with excitement. That is the result of thinking they are the only true carriers of God's word. They virulantly hate the west, Jews, and basically all other religions. Their view is Allah would be pleased if they killed us all. It is somewhat influential all through the Muslim world but is balanced by the more secular versions of Islam in places like Egypt and of course Turkey. Baali nightclub bombings show that Wahhabi influences have spread throughout Islam. The Egyptian terrorists are strongly influenced by wahhabi thought, that's why they try to assessinate moderate Egyptian leaders.
Wahhabis and Baathists can be allies based on balance theory (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) but it is likely an unstable alliance.
Baathism is only a danger to Arabs (witness the murderous approach Syria has to Lebanon)but Wahhabism is a danger to the west, with its' view that all the world must become Islamic / Sunni.
lynn
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Lynn, the "roll back the clock" theory exposed like people like Patton is a retarded military belief that it is somehow possible t push back the Soviets at th end of WWII, it also applies to China, the Chinese People won the Civil War, they threw off Chiang Kai Shek who wouldve had China exploited by Western companies and bound by unfair treaties that put Chinese interests last and European ones first, Chiang LOST not because of the Soviets aiding the Chinese but because the Chinese Communists had the support of the people and turned a 5-1 disadvantage to a 5-1 advantage within a year of the resumption of hostilities between the Nationalists and the Communists.
Also, it was not militarily possible to "stop Mao" in 49' the US troops that could be deployed were far too few, they had already given Chiang billions of dollars in military hardware and equipment large portions of it which were hijacked by Communist sympathizors in the logistics corps and given over to the communists, Chiang had virtually no spies whatsoever within Communist ranks while the Communists had spies and sympathisors in nearly every level of the Nationalists chiang of command, Chiang was doomed and no amount of aid would have saved him without redeploying vast amounts of boots and reserves from Europe which would have left it vulnerable to Soviet invasion at a time where Zhukov's army reforms made the Soviet Army at its peak of its organization, training, and experiance.
So you have a choice of either europe or China which do you choose?
In short I highly object to the idea that the overthroughing of Chiang's regime should have been in any amount of hindsight been something to be "contaned".
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Blayne, you're like a Maoist puppy. Sheesh.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I think he's right though. Could we really have contained Mao? For a while, yes, but forever?
As for the Soviets, yeah, Patton should have known better. Short of nuclear weapons, there was no way to beat them. Together we had just destoyed a great military power, oposed, we would simply have destroyed the world. Almost did a few times, actualy.
Posted by akhockey (Member # 8394) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icec0o1:
quote:Originally posted by akhockey:
quote:Originally posted by Icec0o1: Russians died by the millions in WWII, don’t tell me they were afraid to fight for a cause.
People don't go to war to die, they go to live, and on a broader level, for their ideals or way of life to live.
Militant/Fundamental Islamicists use suicide bombings as a prominent tactic. There is no hope of life in a suicide bombing, at least not here on Earth. That's a huge, huge difference.
There isn't? The only reason they're suicide bombing themselves is to gain 72 virgins in paradise? I don't think you believe that.
Sorry, thought I had replied already. Technically, according to PLO deserter Walid Shoebat, they are promised 72 mansions with 72 rooms with 72 virgins in each room...so something in the 300,000 range. Which I suppose would motivate some people much more than just a mere 72 virgins.
Also, obviously they are attaining some sort of objective with the bombings, be it military targets, civilian scare tactics, what have you...
I was just pointing out that at least the Russian soldiers were fighting with the possibility of life. Suicide bombers are going to die. It's sort of a requisite trait of suicide. So I guess I was objecting to what I perceived to be an equating of Russian soldiers fighting, and a lot of the times dying, to protect their country from the expansion of Nazi Fascism in WWII, to terrorists dying, all the time, in suicide bombings used to further their own fascist agendas. Or something.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
About time people finally agree with me, yes I agree that the establishment of the People's Republic probly only wouldve happened in Mao's original prediction of 1952 rather then 49' (which caught him by surprise how quickly the nationalists collapsed) had the Americans put actual boots on the ground but Korea shows us that the determination of the PLA could win against the US when circumstances were dictated by the PLA, Korea this was hard becaused of the closed territory there wasnt enough room to maneuver, in China with its wide open spaces the PLA could eventually defeat the US especially since the PLA had spent years fighting a suporior military machine, they were trained and exprianced at dealing with larger better equiped armies.
Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
Blayne, this thread isn't about China.
We were talking about islamic extremism on this thread. Have you anything to say about it?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
So, am I going to have to quote myself? That's why I will often speak of Wahabists and Baathists (thought I don't really know what Baathists are into, except Saddam was one.)