Perhaps the enemy IS better defined than we thought

[E. Blackadder]

... Which doesn't mean the fight can be easily won, but there may be some hope.

I'm not sure I would compare Saudi Arabia to the Soviet Union as the author does, because Saudi Arabia sits on a pool of oil.

I spent too much time tonight trying to get better, useful information on the details of Wahhabism via the web without much success.

Back to the books!

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/000/277gkmhl.asp
.................................................. ......
Complicated problems have simple, easy-to-understand wrong answers.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: E. Blackadder on 2001-10-05 00:00 ]</font>

[Aaron Brachowitz]

Saudi Arabia is definitely a big part of the problem. Not content to practice and enforce the Wahhabi version of Islam at home, they have also used their (our) wealth to finance religious academies in other Arab countries. It says a lot about the Saudis that they were one of the very few governments in the world to recognize the brutal Taliban regime as legitimate.

Keep in mind, Saudi Arabia was nothing but a bunch of warring tribes until about 70 years ago. The Saudis are just the heirs of the winning tribe.

[Anonymous]

Oooooh, I so wanna say something, but I know that anti-semite moderator will censor me.

[Wally]

I don't get it. Why does everyone seem to think Saudi Arabia owes us anything?

Oh yeah, we buy their oil. Lesson in capitalism here: when something is bought & sold in an arm's length transaction, neither party is doing the other any particular favor. We buy their oil for OUR benefit - not their's. By the same token, we sell all kinds of products to nearly all other nations. It works both ways: we don't owe those nations anything, and the Saudi's don't owe us anything just because we choose to buy their oil.

I know, there's that other article of faith that we rescued them from Saddam in 1990. It's a matter of opinion, but it was clear then that the Saudi's did not think they needed our help, and let us use their soil to launch the attack as a favor to us - after much urging from us, in fact. Consider this: Kuwait is about 1/4 the size of Iraq, w/ practically no military. Saddam only went forward with that invasion after getting our assurance that we would not intervene (in a major snafu, our ambassador gave him that assurance.) Saudi Arabia is about 4 times the size of Iraq, with a stronger military than Kuwait, albeit not that strong. Saddam would have NO question that the US would intervene had he invaded Saudi Arabia. Again, it's a matter of opinion whether he would have gone into Saudi Arabia, but the Saudi's seemed to differ with the consensus American opinion. Personally, I think they are right.

To sum it up, the Saudi's don't owe us the time of day. If they need to keep us at arm's length due to their own internal cultural issues, I do not fault them for that!

[Anonymous]

Oh good, another Lao.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

On 2001-10-05 12:37, Wally wrote:
To sum it up, the Saudi's don't owe us the time of day.

All governments have a responsibility to ensure that their citizens aren't plotting, funding or carrying out attacks on other countries. They owe us that. We can't police inside Arab countries -- we have to rely on their governments to do this. If they don't, we need to take action against their governments, which is what Bush has promised to do.

[golgo13]

On 2001-10-05 09:58, Aaron Brachowitz wrote:
Saudi Arabia is definitely a big part of the problem. Not content to practice and enforce the Wahhabi version of Islam at home, they have also used their (our) wealth to finance religious academies in other Arab countries.

I just love how the far-right is willing to give up a fundamental tenant of faith when it suits its purposes.
I thought the idea of free markets was supposed to be that if Businessman A sells something to Customer B, then any money that A gets in return becomes his legitimate property.

[independent]

On 2001-10-05 14:32, Aaron Brachowitz wrote:

On 2001-10-05 12:37, Wally wrote:
To sum it up, the Saudi's don't owe us the time of day.

All governments have a responsibility to ensure that their citizens aren't plotting, funding or carrying out attacks on other countries. They owe us that. We can't police inside Arab countries -- we have to rely on their governments to do this. If they don't, we need to take action against their governments, which is what Bush has promised to do.


What would be the US responsibility with regard to Cuban exiles living in the US in the early 60's ?

[golgo13]

On 2001-10-06 23:47, phpBB wrote:

On 2001-10-06 23:34, independent wrote:
What would be the US responsibility with regard to Cuban exiles living in the US in the early 60's ?


Your point being ... ?

The Bay of Pigs: US allows a group of individuals to launch a terrorist attack against a foreign government from its own soil.

[independent]

It certainly seems that the US failed the test that you suggested:


"All governments have a responsibility to ensure that their citizens aren't plotting, funding or carrying out attacks on other countries."



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: independent on 2001-10-07 23:28 ]</font>

[Hierophant]

Calling Bay of Pigs a terrorist attack is a gross mischaracterization; it was clearly a conventional act of war.

Cuba and the Soviets were clearly our enemies, and they were intent on destroying us, just as we were intent on destroying or containing them. The peculiarities of the cold war limited our ability to support the Bay of Pigs invasion.

So, we pass the test.

[Laocoön]

Hierophant, you are an idiot.

First, no one claimed that the Bay of Pigs invasion was a terrorist attack. The original statement was, "All governments have a responsibility to ensure that their citizens aren't plotting, funding or carrying out attacks on other countries." The US's involvement in the Bay of Pigs invasion clearly fails this standard.

Second, Cuba and the Soviet Union were not "clearly our enemies" any more than we are now clearly the enemies of radical Islam, which we are clearly intent on destroying or containing. If the Cold War justifies our involvement in the Bay of Pigs invasion, then our current situation with regard to radical Islam justifies radical Moslems plotting, funding, and carrying out attacks on us.

So, you fail the test.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

I would draw a distinction between supporting a group of democratically-inclined exiles (non-US citizens) attempting to overthrow a dictatorship in their native land, and offering a safe haven to terrorists attempting to accomplish nothing beyond mass murder.

[Laocoön]

On 2001-10-08 10:00, Aaron Brachowitz wrote:
I would draw a distinction between supporting a group of democratically-inclined exiles (non-US citizens) attempting to overthrow a dictatorship in their native land, and offering a safe haven to terrorists attempting to accomplish nothing beyond mass murder.


Interesting. The U.N. General Assembly passed a declaration against terrorism in the late 80's that made a distinction for resistance by native people to military occupation. Want to guess the two nations that dissented from this declaration due to this distinction?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Laocoön on 2001-10-08 10:56 ]</font>

[E. Blackadder]

On 2001-10-08 09:40, Laocoön wrote:
Hierophant, you are an idiot.

Second, Cuba and the Soviet Union were not "clearly our enemies" any more than we are now clearly the enemies of radical Islam, which we are clearly intent on destroying or containing. If the Cold War justifies our involvement in the Bay of Pigs invasion, then our current situation with regard to radical Islam justifies radical Moslems plotting, funding, and carrying out attacks on us.

So, you fail the test.


Master, with all due respect, the view that the Soviet Union was not our enemy is not supported by the evidence, and cannot be supported in concience.

But perhaps this needs clarification. Communism as practiced agressively promotes -- through force; deceit; and a cadre of useful fools -- a way of life that most find intolerable, so that the few may remain in power.

Did and do we have an obligation to help those who were oppressed by Communism? No. Would it have been (and be) a good thing to do? Absolutely. Unless what we call Western Civilization merits death in favor of Communism.

And I really can't see how anyone in posession of the facts could rationally oppose this view. It's not even close.

[Laocoön]

On 2001-10-08 10:36, E. Blackadder wrote:

On 2001-10-08 09:40, Laocoön wrote:

Second, Cuba and the Soviet Union were not "clearly our enemies" any more than we are now clearly the enemies of radical Islam, which we are clearly intent on destroying or containing.


Master, with all due respect, the view that the Soviet Union was not our enemy is not supported by the evidence, and cannot be supported in concience.


Grasshopper, with all due respect, is it necessary that the Soviet Union was not our enemy in order for my statement to be true?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Laocoön on 2001-10-08 10:54 ]</font>

[Aaron Brachowitz]

On 2001-10-08 10:35, Laocoön wrote:

On 2001-10-08 10:00, Aaron Brachowitz wrote:
I would draw a distinction between supporting a group of democratically-inclined exiles (non-US citizens) attempting to overthrow a dictatorship in their native land, and offering a safe haven to terrorists attempting to accomplish nothing beyond mass murder.


Interesting. The U.N. General Assembly passed a declaration against terrorism in the late 80's that made a distinction for resistance by native people to military occupation. Want to guess the two nations that dissented from this declaration due to this distinction?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Laocoön on 2001-10-08 10:56 ]</font>

So native people resisting military occupation should be able to set off bombs in shopping malls? You're morally confused.

[Patience]

AB: Now you've got it. That's why a Palenstinian setting off a bomb in a pizza parlor isn't a terrorist.

[Laocoön]

On 2001-10-08 11:26, Aaron Brachowitz wrote:

So native people resisting military occupation should be able to set off bombs in shopping malls? You're morally confused.


If the Polish resistance in World War II had blown up whatever was the equivalent then of a shopping mall in order to kill Germans, whether soldiers or not, I would not think that it was indefensible, no.

But I don't think I'm morally confused.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

No, you are. Really. You just stated that Palestinians blowing up 15-year-old Jewish girls standing in line at a disco in Tel Aviv is fine by you. You need help.

[E. Blackadder]

Another article, re the Oprah show "Islam 101"

Particularly noteworthy is the claim that 80% of the imams in the US are wahhabist.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-dreher100801.shtml

[E. Blackadder]

On 2001-10-08 12:57, Laocoön wrote:

On 2001-10-08 11:26, Aaron Brachowitz wrote:

So native people resisting military occupation should be able to set off bombs in shopping malls? You're morally confused.


If the Polish resistance in World War II had blown up whatever was the equivalent then of a shopping mall in order to kill Germans, whether soldiers or not, I would not think that it was indefensible, no.

But I don't think I'm morally confused.


Lao, is a German child, born in 1930, responsible for Adolph Hitler's reign?

Conversely, if 80% of American imams are wahhabi, a sect that seems opposed to Western Civilization, is it unreasonable to suspect that they are here to destroy America? Were they so, would that make it morally reasonable to kill American Muslims? Including children?

[Aaron Brachowitz]

Good quote from the Oprah "Islam 101" link:

"The religious dimension of this conflict is central to its meaning," Sullivan writes, adding that it would be "naive to ignore in Islam a deep thread of intolerance toward unbelievers, especially if those unbelievers are believed to be a threat to the Islamic world."

Also:

"Wherever one looks along the perimeter of Islam, Muslims have problems living peaceably with their neighbors," Harvard's Huntington wrote. "Muslims make up about one-fifth of the world's population but in the 1990s they have been far more involved in intergroup violence than the people of any other civilization. The evidence is overwhelming."

Political correctness and touchy-feely Oprah-think are fine when thousands of lives aren't at stake, but we need to look at this problem without the handicap of feel-good notions that may be largely fantasy.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Aaron Brachowitz on 2001-10-08 17:27 ]</font>

[Hierophant]

Lao: Thanks for the ad hominem. I must be close to the truth now.

golgo13 did, in fact, refer to Bay of Pigs as a terrorist attack. (Perhaps golgo13 is "no one" in an identity relationship? :smile: )

I don't care to parse out the similarities and differences between the cold war and terrorism; however, "Mutual Assured Destruction" is not part of the equation in terrorism, so they are different in the extreme at least.

I say we pass the test because we were willing to be seen as the enemy of Cuba and the USSR.

The duty to not allow acts of terrorism or war to originate from our soil extends to our friends, not our enemies. As to our enemies, we don't allow citizens to conduct private wars - only because we don't want them to start private fights that the U.S. public in general will have to finish.

Maybe you consider this to be failing the test, and indeed, from Cuba's perspective we failed the test of being a non-enemy by allowing the Bay of Pigs invasion by the Cuban exiles. Of course, since Cuba had already allied itself with the USSR, everyone already knew on which side everyone's bread was buttered.

In other words, we failed a test that we either could not have passed, or should not have wanted to pass.

[Laocoön]

On 2001-10-08 15:12, E. Blackadder wrote:

Lao, is a German child, born in 1930, responsible for Adolph Hitler's reign?


No.


Conversely, if 80% of American imams are wahhabi, a sect that seems opposed to Western Civilization, is it unreasonable to suspect that they are here to destroy America? Were they so, would that make it morally reasonable to kill American Muslims? Including children?


It would not be unreasonable to consider the hypothesis, but even if it were verified, it would not be reasonable to kill them (or their children) for what they think. Now, if they were actively engaged in destroying America, that would be another story. And, if they were actively engaged in destroying America and had achieved overwhelming military superiority here, I, for one, would not think that it would wrong to attack them anywhere other than at their points of greatest military strength. And I don't think that their bringing their children in a military occupation would change my mind about that, though I would especially regret and try to avoid the loss of the lives of any children.

Do you think I'm morally confuse, EB?

[Laocoön]

On 2001-10-08 14:48, Aaron Brachowitz wrote:
No, you are. Really. You just stated that Palestinians blowing up 15-year-old Jewish girls standing in line at a disco in Tel Aviv is fine by you. You need help.


Read again, moron. I never stated that it was "fine with me."

[Laocoön]

On 2001-10-08 16:57, Hierophant wrote:
golgo13 did, in fact, refer to Bay of Pigs as a terrorist attack. (Perhaps golgo13 is "no one" in an identity relationship? :smile: )


I stand corrected. But I still say you're an idiot.

[E. Blackadder]

Lao, the short answer is: "No. You do not seem to be confused." But some of your statements seem designed to cause confusion about your views.

And we disagree about the facts and their importance.

Finally, it's not clear that ad hominem works better for you than it does for me. Maybe we could pick up some pointers from Master Po!

[Hierophant]

Lao: "I know you are, so what am I?"

"I'm rubber, you're glue; whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you."

"Shut up." "Make me." "Shut up." "Make me." "I don't make monkeys, I only train them."

[Laocoön]

On 2001-10-08 23:36, E. Blackadder wrote:
And we disagree about the facts and their importance.


Which underscores the importance of inquiry and debate. The one thing that I think is most inexcusable about Israel and the US involvement in the Middle East is that inquiry and debate about the injustices that the Palestinians may have suffered has been almost entirely stifled, both in international law (such as it is) and in American understanding of the situation (which in many respects substitutes for international law). It may be that, upon inquiry and debate, there were no injustices; but I think that it is categorically wrong to prohibit or otherwise impair inquiry and debate into the matter, which I think the US has been complicit in doing.