Yes, that is what I am saying.
Emphasis mine. You use sweeping generalizations in your own statement when DDG was very specifically talking about terrorists.
DDG:
All one billion of them?
Of course we’re talking abount the Islamic world. There’s no pleasing the small group of hard-core terrorists, but they rely on support from the Muslim community and that support could go down and it could go up. Young mislims could joint the ranks of terrorists, or not, depending on the political atmosphere and the level of hope, and the US contributes to that atmosphere.
I think it’s inaccurate to portray the Isamic terrorists as “extortionists”. That’s not their MO. They’re angry, vengeful, and seeking “martyrdom”. They’re motivated in part by distorted perceptions of the US and the World, and in part by legitimate grievances. They’re not rubbing their hands in anticipation of all the ill-gotten booty they’re about to get once the US begins caving in to their demands. They’re not even making demands. None of the terrorists attacks have been “encouraged” by any “appeasement” by the US, they’ve been (in their eyes) provoked.
Again, the body politic in the Islamic world is the key. Believe it or not, most Middle Eastern Muslims oppose terrorism and want better relations with the US. But they all care deeply about the Palestinians and have a lot of paranoid suspicions about the US. We need to do a better job communicating to them that we’re not as bad as we’ve been portrayed. Hearts and minds are an absolutely vital front in the war on terrorism.
As for Lieberman, I don’t think he’s quite presidential timber, and the fact that he keeps a strict Orthodox schedule could be a problem since the Prez needs to be on call 24/7. Of course we shouldn’t let Islamic radicals “dictate” who our next president should be–that’ll depend on whether any of them issue statements opposing Lieberman’s candidacy. It’s just that we ourselves should think twice about electing a leader who could make much worse a relationship which can instead be improved.
OTOH, as Spock once said “Only Nixon can go the China”. Maybe Lieberman is just the man to crack down on the Israeli settlements–since he wouldn’t have to worry about a backlash from Jewish voters. This would fly in the face of Arabs’ negative expectations of pro-Israel bias and Jewish-led conspiracies.
I respectfully disagree. One can well understand an issue and yet employ hyperbole to emphasize a point.
Actually, much of what these people are saying is coming from THE TERRORISTS THEMSELVES.
As Aby Bakar Bashir put it, when asked if he felt sorry for the families of the Bali massacre, “Please convert to Islam as soon as possible.” The Muslim group that Zacarias Moussaoui joined in Britain, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, has published calls for Muslims to exterminate Britons and Americans, and calls, as part of its platform, for Britain to be turned into a fundementalist Islamic state in which being Muslim is required by law, on pain of death. What Osama bin Laden and his ilk want is for the entire world to be an Islamic theocracy wherein Jews, Christians, Hndus et al. will either convert or be executed. That’s not hyperbole; it is the literal truth. It certainly may be that some, or many, of their followers have more specific grudges in mind, but I’m sure most Nazi soldiers joined for more pedestrian reasons than Hitler’s visions of conquest, too. We still had to kill them.
Issam Amireh, a Palestinian “cleric”: “They (Western countries) want Muslims to integrate and to accept democracy, which is a one-way ticket to hell fire.” Emphasis mine. Does that strike you as being the sort of person who wants to play nice?
It is critically important to be able to say that the terrorist groups arrayed against the civilized world (with the U.S. at their perceived epicentre) are really and truly the enemies of civilized people, while at the same time acknowledging that most people who happen to share their religion are decent folk. It’s folly to pretend Islamicist terrorists are just ordinary folks who can be reasoned with, or who can be appeased. They are not. But it would be equally stupid to simply classify all “Arabs” or “Muslims” as being terrorists; they are not. The U.S. has had to make those distinctions before - they didn’t exterminate the German people after WWII, for instance.
Sqweels, for heaven’s sakes, go back and read the OP again. :rolleyes: Here, I’ll copy it for you.
Okay? Got it now? Billions of Moslems are not out there actively trying to blow the crap out of us, hating us, armed to the teeth, willing to die to harm us. Billions of Moslems are out there living quiet, normal lives. Only a tiny minority of them have decided to become psychopathic mad bombers and take it out on America.
We’re most definitely NOT talking about “the Islamic world”. We’re talking about a hardcore group of armed fruitcakes.
Right, as the situation stands. But the OP is talking about trying to cut some kind of deal with them, in which we would give them things (like a non-Jewish American president), in return for which they would promise not to hurt us, and that most definitely is “extortion”.
So quick to take pointless potshots. :rolleyes:
What I said came out of the simple knowledge of human nature. Islamic terrorists are human, ain’t they?
Do I need some kind of degree in Islamic studies to be able to say how psychopaths’ minds work, or to know that there’s no point in trying to appease a blackmailer?
Geez. :rolleyes:
And.
I was talking about psychopaths in general, not Islamic terrorists in particular, but I don’t see why this wouldn’t apply to Islamic terrorists in particular. Do you think Osama Bin Laden could be bought off by anything, at all?
I don’t.
And I don’t need a degree in Islamic studies to know that there’s no point in trying to cut a deal with a religious fanatic. :rolleyes:
Doper istara, who actually LIVES in the Middle East (Dubai, to be specific), begs to differ. From the “American Pie” thread here in Great Debates:
(underlining mine)
OK, sqweels – why is your take stronger than istara’s? Do you really think Al Qaeda, et al are NOT marginalized in most of the Muslim world?
You who disagree with me will be singing a different tune when you wake up one day to turn on the news and see the aftermath of a nuclear explosion that killed millions…if you wake up that day.
There’s not an alliance or other bit of US foreign policy that’s worth that. None. I happen to think we should do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming, but the sad fact is that it will come if there is anyone out there with the will to make it so. WE CAN NOT STOP THEM. We can ONLY appease them. That’s all there is to it. Withdraw into total neutrality, total isolationism, make as few enemies as possible, and cross our damned fingers hoping…that’s all that’s left for us. The sooner we get busy doing that, and the sooner we start facing the world as it really is, not as we wish it were, the better chance we have of forstalling that ominous day when the sh*t will really hit the fan.
Rex, do you really mean that? Imagine a world filled with malicious predators and timid, cowering, isolated individuals who are too intimidated to do anything they want for fear of being targeted. Although, there always will be victims, whether or not they do anything specific to bring it upon themselves.
That seems to be the attitude you’re advocating.
I, for one, would rather live in a country that is vocal and stands tall and is a terrorist target, than one that chooses to ignore everyone else, and yet still may be a target.
There are bullies in the schoolyard, so should the picked upon little kid “face the world as it is” and always give his lunch money up to the bullies? The kid’ll get beat up occasionally anyway, you know.
So, RexDart, you think that appeasement is the way to go? What if the Klan starts getting popular again and threatens to nuke a city for each Black elected to Congress in the next national election. Should we ban African-Americans from running for Congress? You can’t give in to extortion - plain and simple, regardless of the price.
Do you think that Chamberlain was right in appeasing Hitler? Did Hitler stop his conquests with the Sudentland?
These people have one goal and one goal only - to control the world. It’s that simple. They want everyone to be a radical Muslim under their control.
[ul]
[li]It doesn’t make a difference if we support Israel or not.[/li][li]It doesn’t make a difference if we have a Jewish president or not.[/li][li]It doesn’t make a difference if we have troops in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Israel, Mars or anywhere else.[/li][li]It doesn’t make a difference if we buy our oil from Saudi Arabia, or anywhere else.[/li][/ul]
The only thing that makes a difference to these people is that they want to control us. Do you want to know when they’ll stop? They’ll stop attacking us when:
[ul]
[li] We all convert to radical Islam[/li][li] We forbid our women to wear anything but burquas outside the home[/li][li] We forbid women from even leaving their homes unless accompanied by a male relative[/li][li] We kick all our girls out of our schools[/li][li] We change all our schools to religious centers where the Qu’ran is taught[/li][li] We all follow the dictates of imams and mullahs and if anyone doesn’t agree, subject them to a fatwa.[/li][/ul]
That’s what these people want. Since I know you don’t want us to cupitulate to those demands (you do agree with that, don’t you RexDart?) why even go part of the way? Why show them that they can gain any concessions from us by terror. By doing so, you only show them that the proper way to get the next concession is by more terror.
And the last thing any of us needs around here (or anywhere else in the world) is more terror.
Zev Steinhardt
I would rather die in a nuclear explosion then give up my country and freedom to terrorist’s demands.
Okay, question.
How exactly are you planning on explaining to Al Qaeda and the other terrorist groups exactly what it is that we’re doing, and why? Call a news conference? Take out full-page ads in all the major daily newspapers? How are you going to inform them that they have won and America has surrendered? Let’s see some nuts-and-bolts plans here, 'cause otherwise you’re just wasting our time with your absurd theory that appeasement will somehow save an American city from being nuked by terrorists.
And what makes you think they’ll listen, anyway? They’re psychos.
Zev, I’m not convinced that Rex believes this. I think that he’d agree to have America forcibly converted to Islam by terrorists, if that is what it would take to appease Al Qaeda and prevent an American city from being nuked. He sounds absolutely wetting-his-pants cravenly terrified, all that doom-and-gloom “the best we can do is lock ourselves in and pray”. I mean, geez. :rolleyes: It’s exactly like all those people in D.C. who refused to let their children leave the house to go to school until the Washington Sniper was caught.
You can’t live like that.
Uhh shouldnt we elect a president not by what faith they believe in, or by the color of their skin, or the origins of their ancestors, of by their gender…
but we should elect the one who is best able to lead this country?
Well RexDart OP was that a President of the jewish faith will incite terror attacks and therefore the choice should never take place.
Odd? Yep.
Either this is a joke - and it really, really looks like trolling - or you’re saying cowardice is the only option. Logically, then, we should have been cowards in 1939 and let Hitler conquer the world.
I’d rather fight and die than live in a totalitarian Islamo-fascist state. If it comes to that, it’s either me or them. Some things are worth fighting for. You’re welcome to disagree and be a coward, but you’ll forgive the adults if they choose to stand up and try to save the world, m’kay?
Quite. I made the same argument against instituting torture as a means of extracting information. It is not worth the preservation of the country if you sell the countries’ ideals down the river.
Talk of appeasing ObL et al is nonsense - It cannot be done in any realistic way, even if it were moral, which it is not.
One can work at improving the U.S. reputation in the ME, without rolling over. And I say that as frequent ( reasoned, I hope ) critic of U.S. policy in the region.
- Tamerlane
And what about other countries, Rex? How do you suggest that the French deal with their Islamic terrorists?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2582931.stm
It’s not just “Islamic Terrorists vs. America”. It’s “Islamic Terrorists vs. the entire world.” Appeasement won’t stop them.
Now waitaminit. First I’m responding to those who act as though all Mislims are incorrigible terrorists, and now I must shore up the assertion that there is considerable anti-US feeling and support for terrorism in the Islamic world.
Like anywhere else, there is a spectrum of public opinion, and terrorists are at the extreme end of it. There is enough pro-US sentiment and moderation to give us hope and enough radicalism and anti-US sentiment to be dangerous. Which set of feelings is ascendent in the coming months and years can–I contend–#1, affect the number and level of terrorists attacks, and #2, be influenced by US actions in the region.
People in various parts of the Muslim world could feel compelled either to support the terrorists or to support those who are hunting them, depending on their perceptions of US and Israeli intentions. The fact that significant numbers of Arabs believe that US and Israeli agents were behind the 9/11 attacks frames the issue in stark detail. This “Sept 11th Denial” gives aid and comfort to the terrorists. All I’m saying is that we should be careful about doing things that increase the level of suspicion because suspicion leads to hate and hate leads to suffering.
So the 9/11 attacks occured because we encouraged the terrorists by electing a non-Jewish president? :rolleyes:
Ducky, gIve me the name of the terrorist organization that demanded that we not elect Lieberman and offered us a phony “deal” if wew didn’t. What’s this about a “deal”? The OP didn’t mention a “deal”. The OP’s point is that fallout in the Arab/Muslim world from electing a Jewish president might energize support on the fringe for more terrorism.
Mind you, I didn’t come out 4-square against Lieberman. If he’s the best man for the job we’ll just have to sit back and enjoy all the exciting CNN Special Reports that ensue. But is it like, the minute something that would anger Muslims pops into your head
we have to carry it out because any failure to anger Muslims amounts to “appeasement” and would “encourage” the terrorists?
All I’m saying is let’s use a little carrot with our stick because you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
RexDart, here is one person’s take on how well appeasement has worked in the past.
http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/national/will/story/5572547p-6550392c.html