On a somewhat related note, here’s a piece on an interesting fatwa (Islamic jurist opinion) just issued:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40545-2001Oct10.html
Basically, it refutes the idea of “Muslim solidarity” when it comes to stopping self-proclaimed Muslims from wreaking havoc.
Glib and somewhat amusing, but useless to this discussion. The Taliban is perceived as legitimately Muslim by some because of their communication efforts, and because much of their audience simply don’t know any better.
Of course, but there is a big difference between a training camp on your soil and knocking down the WTC. I do not wish to make excuses for the Taliban, rather I am trying to explain to those who have little desire to understand why some popular sentiment actually supports the Taliban.
While communication is an extremely important tool-set used by all governments, you oversimplify to an embarrassing degree the various tensions in the Middle East. I do not deny the existence of anti-Americanism at all, but I do question such blanket statements as you make.
I see no support for these statements. And Saudi Arabia is holy land, whether you recognize the sensitivity of the matter or not. While two of its holiest sites are indeed cities, that does not mean that foreign soldiers stationed in the rest of the country are not infringing.
Don’t bristle. I qualified that illustration as both “obtuse” and “ridiculous” in my earlier post, and had hoped most would be able to see it for what it was.
There is danger in blanket statements. I am assuming that by “Muslim countries” you mean nations where islam is the dominant religion? In that case I don’t think all Muslim countries are autocratic, consider for example Egypt.
That sounds like a half decent aphorism, but it does not apply at all to this situation, unless you are suggesting that all Muslim countries engage in this kind of activity–in which case I suggest you learn a bit more about the Islamic world, its many philosophies, and its various problems.
Simplistic nonsense that does not even constitute a semblance of an argument. While there is a small grain of truth in what you say, Middle-Eastern countries have very serious non-fictional problems with various US policies and with Israel. If you insist on ignoring these fundamental problems please don’t waste my time with pseudo-racist generalizations.
Even more bullshit demagoguery. In these times of tension and war, this silliness is the last thing we need.
You are entitled to your own opinions.
You seem to ignore my point that the Taleban have voided any validity to their claim as Muslims. This is not just my opinion, it is directly indicated by their own violation of the basic tenets of their religion. Their putrid interpretation of the Koran is an insult to the Islamic faith. The Taleban are not being “attacked”, they are undergoing reprisals for their deep complicity in the functioning of a terrorist network. That they have brought such revilement upon the rest of the Muslim world with their misogynistic and backwards autocracy should serve as some sort of indicator of how important it is for other Moslem nations to distance themselves from them in a vivid fashion.
Well gosh, Abe, you want evidence of Muslim on Muslim violence? Lets start with the Iran-Iraq war, how many thousands of young Iranian boys were killed being used as human minesweepers in advance of the Islamic guard? How many Iranians were cooked alive in the swamps of Basra when Saddam Hussein laced the bogs with high tension power lines? How many Kurds have died at the hands of Hussein as he persecutes their population in Northern Iraq with chemical weapons? I’ll cite a post from another thread at these boards;
(From:Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996))
(bolding mine)
Again, as noted by other posters here Abe, the Taleban are accomplices before and after the fact. Their refusal to hand over bin Laden is the final act of involvement in his organization. Let’s see, bin Laden is the Inspector General of their armed forces and the equivalent of the Taleban’s CEO. Hard to see how the two of them aren’t in bed together. They did not have to take “a direct part in such atrocities” in order to become responsible for them. They have directly abetted the perpetrators of this criminal act and it is a regular feature of many legal systems to charge accomplices with the same crimes as those who commit them. However distorted my cultural view might be, it is certainly not blinkered by an autocratic government’s propaganda. I would venture that I have much more knowledge about Middle Eastern affairs than most Americans whether you are willing to recognize it or not. That the US is perceived as the corrupter of religions that are often vehemently xenophobic and utterly intolerant of alternate views (especially religious ones) hardly discounts my own observations. You seem willing to lend an inordinate amount of validity to viewpoints that are much more heavily skewed than mine. While our support of Israel may be a thorn in the side of these Arab nations, more often it is Israel that has been attacked and not the other way around. I have no wish to be an apologist for the Israelis but at the same time it is the Arabs who are much more antithetic to the Israelis that the reverse. I would venture to say that Palestinians and other Arabs in Israel face much less persecution than Jewish people in other Arab nations.
It is hard for me to see how it is so difficult to blame the Taleban for terrorism when they are carrying out a genocidal program against half of their own population. The intense misogyny they have promulgated is nothing short of terrorism in my own book. Again, whether they have hosted or participated in these terrorist acts makes absolutely no difference. “Simply hosting” a mass murderer and knowingly doing so is sufficient reason for their current difficulties. ‘And WHY exactly, beyond political science for 3rd graders, are all countries forced to “actively engage in their ruination”???’ Let’s try this on for size. BECAUSE THE TALEBAN HAVE ACTIVELY FACILITATED ONE OF THE WORST CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE MODERN WORLD AND MUST NOW BE EXCISED FROM CIVILIZED SOCIETY LIKE THE MALIGNANT CANCER THAT THEY ARE! Does that answer your question? I don’t know where you live, but as an American citizen I am certainly not prepared to see the Taleban participate in ruling another country much less influence the thinking of another generation of Muslim youth. I will cheerfully contribute my tax dollars to the eradication of such a psychopathic element from our world.
And that is why I endured the brickbats of this board when I decried the way the current administration lent an iota of credibility or respectability to the Taleban by giving Afghanistan aid without attempting to moderate the Taleban’s power in any way shape or form. Sadly, Communism was an even more dire threat than the Taleban at that time. I hope that our military strategists have learned a lasting lesson about ends and means in treating with extremists no matter what the goal may be.
And I suppose another question might be, what better way to piss off most of the entire world’s population than by seeming to side (through willing inaction) with a regime that facilitates atrocities on a previously unknown scale? It merely reinforces the parochial nature of Islam as practiced by these fence-sitting nations if they are only focused upon the perpetuation of their own Autocracies rather than in the correct and proper dissemination of their hallowed religion. Whether the general populations of these countries realize that the Taleban are insane or not, their better informed governments (who, by the way, are responsible for informing their own people as well) do know that the Taleban are nut-cases and only do themselves and their religion irreparable harm with their mealy-mouthed equivocations. As to what constitutes a strong argument against Democracy, I am not aware of any valid argument against it. There are many expedient ones and many other corrupt ones but no valid ones. Representative government is an institution worthy of the greatest respect and the opportunity you enjoy here to argue the point stands in stark proof of that fact. Please provide a refutation to this if you would be so kind.
If they want to see the Taleban removed then they had better do something highly visible about it. Their tepid responses and condemnations are unconvincing at best. Especially Saudi Arabia and its Wahabbi royal family. They have served to breed up the monster that is the Taleban and their cries of disassociation carry no weight with me now that the wolf is at the door. Do you not think that the “deep distrust” of America has been inculcated by these exact same governments (with their unshared “necessary knowledge”), that are now faced with the threat of Taleban facilitated terrorism? Pakistan’s wailings are the most hypocritical of all. It is in the “Islamic Schools” within their own borders that the Taleban took root. I will only be able to advocate the immediate overthrow of any Taleban based government in Pakistan. The thought of a Taleban administration with access to nuclear devices is enough to make the blood of every civilized person run ice cold. The “struggle with their own population[s]” that these countries must now tiptoe through is almost entirely of their own Theocratic making. While we are forced to deal with this utter mess, please do not ask me to feel much sympathy for such unforgivable conflation of church and state. This should serve as a permanent warning to all who dare consider the admixture of religion and government about the numerous and fatal pitfalls awaiting those who indulge in such lunatic fantasies.
Ignorance is no excuse. The same governments who have held their people in darkness are now reaping the whirlwind of dichotomy that arises between using religion to propogate their own secular agendas and trying to avoid being perceived as perpetuators of now totally unacceptable terrorism. Again, I must disabuse you of this practice of referring to the Taleban as “muslim brothers”. Your willing confusion of the Taleban with devout Muslims only serves to discredit your extensive attempts to prove me wrong. The Taleban are psychopathic, genocidal, misogynistic tyrants and nothing else. Your swaddling them with even a vestige of respectability does grievous harm to your own credibility.
If you call getting the crap bombed out of you and being deposed from power, “playing your cards right”, so be it. I see them as just plain moronic in their rabid antisocial ravings. I would say that “the most important factor in war” is the ability to prevail against your enemies and be the scribes of history. History is written by the winners. Ask all of the crushed civilizations whose ashes are scattered in the winds of time.
And it is the overwhelming majority of the nations on earth that will carry away from all of this a perception that Islamic fundamentalists are monster raving loonies never to be trusted with a fountain pen much less the governing a nation. If Muslims are so concerned about the “killing of Muslim innocents,” they should take better care not to support or facilitate the senseless slaughter of thousands of innocents in another country. That the predictable and correct response of the United States results in the deaths of Muslim innocents is child’s play to anticipate. I fail to see how anyone is surprised at this. Your mention of it is facile at best. Your additional mention of the UN workers being killed verges on Taleban apologism and is extremely repugnant. It is idiotic to think that there will not be some sort of unintended deaths that result from how many tons of bombs falling from the skies? Who made this necessary? THE TALEBAN! It is they who have imperiled all who reside within their borders. Mullah Omar has in as much taken responsibility for it in his declaration that he would rather see Afghanistan obliterated than to hand over bin Laden. If that does not constitute complicity, I fail to see what does. And yes, I am familiar with the concept of being forced to allow refuge to one who throws himself upon your mercy. I just happen to think that this does not apply to mass murdering criminals. If the Taleban wish to believe so, then it is up to us to change their minds, be it through forceful persuasion or a bullet in the brain.
Or perhaps because I feel it is time for the world to progress beyond stone age repressive religious mentalities that suppress basic human freedoms and endanger the rest of the globe’s security and stability. Call it reductionist if you like, but there is no way that I will allow the desire for Islamic Theocracies to enjoy an existence uninterrupted by the impingement of reality upon them to take precedence over the need for progressive civilization’s enshrinement of such important ideals as equal rights for women and freedom of expression.
And how do you “moderate[ly]” suppress women in such a vile fashion? How do you moderately facilitate the aims of a mass murderer? There is no baby to throw out with the bath water here. The overall complexion of the Taleban organization is one of utter tyranny. Where are these Taleban moderates who decry the state of affairs in Afghanistan? All of this pales in comparison to the immediate need to quell this menace to the rest of the civilized world. I will mourn the passing of these so-called Taleban moderates after they have been removed them from any position of further influence upon the Moslem world.
Welcome to the age of information. Common sense will dictate who shall prevail in the near term and (one would hope) for the remaining future as well. Again, the Arab nations are reaping the whirlwind of discontent that they have sown among their own people in order to propel their own petty agendas. None of this has truly served the greatness of their people or their religion. It has merely ensconced certain autocracies for a brief period that will be no more than historical footnotes to the further centuries America shall endure.
I vehemently advocate the utilization of advanced technology to obsolete current automotive transportation. To shed our dependence upon oil would best serve our interests in the Middle East now and in the future. I hold little hope of the Bush administration doing so even if they enjoyed eight years of power. Sadly, the role big oil plays in their decision making process literally prohibits such a notion. For yet another time I am obliged to point out that the “popular outcry” you continually bleat about is a direct byproduct of the self-serving propaganda these selfsame countries have spewed for decades. They have sown the Hydra’s teeth and now must face an army of discontent that is their harvest.
I have followed Middle Eastern affairs enough such that casual conversation with Iranian strangers on the street has resulted in them asking if I work for the state department. I have had social intercourse with Arab friends and colleagues for over twenty years and have devoted myself to better understanding of their culture. For yet another time I am forced to remind you that the “tightrope” being walked is a direct result of ingenuous political scheming that is no fault of the United States. While our track record is far from perfect, it is exemplary in comparison to any other superpower’s in history.
Your pessimism is duly noted. I am much more optimistic about our nation carrying away from this the important lessons that need to be learned about dealing with nations that are fundamentally repressive. Petroleum or no, we must find ways to disentangle ourselves from dependency upon such unreliable and questionable allies. Please feel free to describe the “sudden radical shift in foreign policy” that you have read into my OP, Abe.
Although I’m quite sure that the Saudis don’t see it this way, they are more than a little responsible for their Wahabbist clerics breeding up the Taleban and all the religious intolerance that comes with them. Again, you attempt to lend credence to the morally bankrupt Taleban by saying that we are “attacking” them. Please remember that we are defending ourselves against a visious and repressive regime that had the lack of foresight to facilitate one of the most heinous crimes in all history. You are also insulting quite a few Americans (myself included) to refer to America in any way as a “predominately Christian power”. It is only the Theocratic aspirations of the current administration that lends any religious taint to which you refer. Our nation was founded upon the separation of church and state and your ascribing religious motive to it is reprehensible. The only reprehensible aspect of this entire campaign in the idiocy of the Bush administration to have ever called this a “crusade” of any sort. I will thank you not to twist perception of our self-defense in such a repugnant manner. You say that we have the “approval” of the countries in the region. I beg to differ in that the nature of the crime that the Taleban abetted is so heinous in nature and such an indictment of the Islamic faiths propensity towards violence that only direct participation in the immediate dismantling of the Taleban’s movement can serve as proper response to their culpability.
When confronted with an offense to the sensibilities of humanity on a scale of this proportion it is safe to begin with a somewhat narrow focus. The immediate goal of eradicating the Taleban and Osama bin Laden’s network takes priority over all other considerations in order to assure the safety and security of the civilized world. After that we may indulge in the luxury of reassessing our other relationships in the region. And I cannot (without using foul language) think of a more apt term than “demons” to label the Taleban and Osama bin Laden with. They are creatures of a nether world seeking to set back the clock after centuries of progress away from the exact sort of dark ages Theocracy they seek to impose upon the world. Such a thing must not be permitted.
Seeing as how mine is a free country, which you have repeatedly sought to belittle in your repulsive and repeated attempts to legitimize the Taleban’s psychotic tyranny, I will do exactly that. I am led to suspect that you are not an American citizen and can only wonder at your motives. As to your “obtuse and humorous illustration,” it has little perspective or applicability and is specious reasoning in view of the overwhelming, damning and irrefutable evidence against Osama bin Laden that has been assembled by the international community. You are again skirting dangerously close to being an apologist for the Taleban with such outright drivel. However much I detest such maggots as Fallwell and Robertson, I refuse to air your little tirade and refer others to its text in your prior post.
And it is painfully obvious that you are willing to attribute some sort of validity to the Taleban and their direct contribution to the execution of bin Laden’s dastardly plot. Your petty sniping at my grammar (which I am routinely praised for in many circles) is duly noted. Since I eschew tobacco, I doubt that I shall miss the repulsive prize you seek to deny me. Better luck next time.
PS: Tamerlane, please show where I have even once refered to Afghanistan as an Arab nation and I will post an immediate apology to you. Your work to disspell myths and misconceptions here at the boards is nothing short of heroic.
Zenster, in one month of extremist posts on these boards, yours is thus far the greatest effort.
Let me spell it out for you:
You advocate, repeatedly and consistently, massive retaliation against Afghanistan with no distinction between the Taliban, Bin Laden and his forces, the militia, and civilians. You show no tolerance or understanding for any position other than your pseudo-genocidal nonsense. You refuse to consider any mitigating factors for any group in or outside Afghanistan, choosing instead to lump all your perceived enemies into one group and annihilating them. In fact, you deserve a pit thread for your various posts of vulgar incitement and generalization over the last month.
I advocate understanding WHY a regime like the Taleban is able to enjoy support in spite of their clearly deranged nature. When you look at these reasons the way I am trying to explain, you simply can’t hold innocent civilians responsible for the crimes of an illegitimate regime that installed itself through brute force and proceeded to market itself as a pious Muslim government. And, of course, knowledge is power–understanding such factors will only benefit the world in the long run.
In no way am I “willingly confusing” the Taleban with other Muslims, or any of the other silly accusations you make. It should be VERY clear from my posts what I think of the Taliban’s legitimacy.
It is also becoming clear that you hold a deep bias. Particularly suspect is the evidence you submit to support your assertion about the violent nature of Islamic civilization. I have not read the book in question, however just based on the passage quoted I think I can spot a number of problems.
Arguing upstream or using false premises you can select data to support almost anything you want. Since its creation, the US has gone to war more than any other country. The US is of mostly Christian make-up. Therefore Christians are warlike. This idiotic syllogism is actually less nonsensical and inconclusive than Mr. Huntington’s quoted passage, in which he analyzes an infinitesimally small sample of history (as opposed to the much larger sample considered for US wars).
It must also be remembered that different parts of the world, regardless of dominant religions, retain certain characteristics that are defined by various such factors as culture, history, geography, regional politics, government, ideologies, etc. It took Europe thousands of years of civilization and countless land and power shuffling to overcome “internecine Christian slaughter”. To focus on religion in such situations is not only misleading but very dangerous as well. Wrong conclusions tend to be made. One could very easily write a passage similar to Mr. Huntington’s, except one could change two variables: insert Christian instead of Muslim, and scan over a period of 2000 years instead of 3 or 4. The results, if taken seriously, will be most depressing for both Christians and Europeans, but that doesn’t mean a damn thing when using such methods.
Please spare me this kind of nonsense. The issue is very simple and is summarized in the first half of this post.
But it’s a small one. Allowing terrorists to train on your soil and then harboring them in the aftermath of an attack are simply the first and final steps of the action.
Yet you fail to articulate those questions. And complaining that I oversimplify the tensions in the Middle-East in a single paragraph is a bit like complaining that I fail to walk on water. I was in no way attempting to explain the entire situation in my post. But here’s a quick debating tip for you, merely casting distain upon a point does not refute it.
Infringing on what? The Quran makes no claim that the whole of Saudi Arabia is holy land. Indeed it does not because Saudi Arabia was not formed until 1932. It’s boundaries are not ordained by Allah. Only Makkah and Madinah are mentioned by the Quran.
Zenster: Didn’t mean to imply that you had made that specific comment. That example was intended more generally for readers that might be having trouble picking up on the differences between the “Arab world” and the “Muslim world”. It was triggered by you going back and forth between those two terms a couple of times. I wasn’t clear if you were synonymizing them or not ( which is why I said it was only a potential nitpick, not an actual one ), but I figured I’d take the opportunity afforded to clear up that potential misconception, which I have seen a few times recently.
No harm, no foul, in this case.
Tamerlane, your spiritual agreement with me on this topic means a thousand fold more than the glancing blows of someone like Abe.
Abe, that you have such a dim view of democracy and are able to express even a hint of disbelief at the Taleban’s complicity in the WTC atrocity speaks volumes to me. I think you’ve been swimming laps in Aberdeen harbor too often.
One last attempt, because --as I made clear in my posts–I feel understanding for the misguided.
In addition to a general lack of debating skills, you are either completely lacking in understanding of any kind, or you are setting up more straw men for the convenience of your weak position. Democracy has very little to do with this argument, so kindly stop your knee-jerking.
One more time:
I have no problem with the punishment the Taliban are receiving. What we are talking about here is a matter of PERCEPTION. WHY is the Taliban enjoying minority support of Muslims scattered across the world, and in particular across the Middle-East? That is the question I was trying to answer for you while you were busy inciting violence.
If you really insist I will post both a point-by-point refutation of the nonsense you have submitted in this thread, as well as an analysis of your posts on similar topics over the last month. Continue on your illegitimate and low-brow attempts to invalidate my points and I will invest the time required.
Absolutely correct. But rememember the context in which we are discussing this particular issue is one of perception. To the average uninformed person in the Middle-East this case may seem like an attack against an institution that did not perpetrate the terrorist attacks. There is indirect complicity, in that the Taliban did aid and abet terror on its soil, and there is a degree of direct complicity in that the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden, but these issues become smudged in popular opinion, which is by definition not the most informed kind. The end result is a minority incensed by the tensions reported on the media.
When the point in question is so poor, I sometimes make the mistake of using disdain. I did not provide insuficient refutation though. You said, “Saudi Arabia and Egypt find it easier to allow their press to cook up outrageous fabrications of what the US is responsible for in the Middle-East or to blame Israel for every tragedy in the world, including the WTC attack, rather than face head on the problems that these incompetent governments are causing”. First of all this is incorrect, unless you can find the cite that proves the Saudi Arabia and Egypt did not not make their feelings about the attack known right away (they did). It is also noteworthy that these governments have cracked down on in-country protests against the US. In spite of that, I immediately acknowledged your point by stating that “communication is an extremely important tool-set used by all governments”. That is by no means the whole picture though, as the US and Israel are indeed participants in the aforementioned troubles. For you to say that “this is more a question of incopentent governments encouraging the media to concoct demonizations of the US and Israel” is a blanket statement, which is what I questioned. If you did not intend to dismiss half a century of political tension, then please explain your point.
Infringing on popular sentiment. Do you not assume that a number of the holiest sites in Islam would assign the host country an especially high regard among all Muslims? This concept, by the way, is also one of the exact reasons why both Muslims and Jews in Israel and Palestine have been at each other’s throats since the beginning of the Israel-Palestine problems. Perhaps it doesn’t make the best sense, but it seems to be human nature.
Feel free Abe. Your little backhand at Democracy that I juxtaposed with your other mention of it speaks volumes. In fact, it smacks of royalist or fascist pronouncements. Your dim view of those who support Democracy is duly noted for the record. You have posted no proper refutation of Democracy’s validity. Neither have you refuted my points about Muslin-on-Muslim violence. Our debate deals with the here and now. However much the power mad aspirations of many Christian churches have also drenched history in blood, it is extremist Psuedo-Muslim fanatics that seem Hell-bent on deluging us a second time. Just to enlighten you, Democracy has everything to do with this argument. Many of the countries in discussion here would not even allow this forum or this very debate to occur. I feel that the vigorous defense of our nation from the attempts of those who would silence such debate is a very worthy thing.
Just make sure that as you falsely accuse me of advocating genocide that you also show the exact order of my posts. Did you bother to notice that when I suggested a series of one-for-one retaliatory strikes against Afghanistan (not the genocide [see the definition below] you libelously accuse me of), it was preceded by suggestions of allowing cities to be evacuated prior to their being bombed? Any mention of how the bombing of evacuated cities should be preceeded with a demonstration of might in a remote region? Did you bother to notice or, perish the thought, mention that I have repeatedly and directly expressed my own personal discomfort with the intense feelings I have had related to all of this? Instead, you seek out only the most salacious aspects of my postings without providing any of the balance that I have attempted to include in them. While you may be incapable of distinguishing between military reprisal and mindless irrational slaughter like Kalt and Coppertop purvey, I am not. From the very onset of this crisis I have been one of the loudest opponents of nuclear reprisal. However, I’m sure you just can’t bear to choke that one down. If you are unwilling to maintain a degree of perspective similar to that which I have attempted to show, then kindly bugger off.
From dictionary.com:
gen·o·cide (jn-sd) n.
The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.
[Greek genos, race; see gen- in Indo-European Roots + cide.]
What no one has really brought up yet, and I’m surprised at this, is that no Islamic country – no country in general – wants the US or anyone infringing on their religion or their sovereignty (sp?). U.S. troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War with the understanding that they would pull out eventually. U.S. troops are still in Saudi Arabia. Why is this??
In addition, say we decide not only to deal with Osama, but to deal with the Taliban (Taleban?) as well. We would be walking a tightrope that doesn’t exist, trying to balance out human rights with religion. Sample conversation: US:Your women should be educated and freed from the shackles of conventional dress (sorry, don’t remember proper word). Afghanistanis: We are protecting our women from other people, as it says in the Qu’ran. US: Uhhh…
We need to remember that all of this is aimed at bringing Osama bin Laden to justice for his crimes. Anything involving the Taleban or Afghanistan in general should be a completely different program or whatever….
Zenster, I’ll hit the worst points in this mess you call an argument, but this is becoming tiresome.
In spite of your valiant repetition and question-begging, I still don’t see how. You might as well say that Christian fundamentalists are not actually Christian. Sure there’s an argument for that when dealing with absolute knowledge, but this is a matter of perception. The Taliban are perceived as Muslim, and this perception (not absolute knowledge) seems to be a problem with you. Not everyone is gifted with clear and absolute knowledge, a point I made earlier.
Arguing that millions of people are simply not in a position to know any better is, according to you, lending an inordinate amount of validity to skewed viewpoints??
False cause. It is not difficult to blame the Taleban for terrorism; blame, as we see from your lengthy rantings, is surprisingly easy to assign. Let’s PROVE IT instead, conclusively and to all parties involved. Also, misogyny, while revolting, is not terrorism by any means. You can, however, argue the Taleban are a terrorist regime because they employed some terrorist tactics to rise to power.
A very utilitarian and even ameliorative way of thinking, but one that has limited bearing on this problem. There is no world government; each and every nation will take its own decision on this matter regardless of your righteous thoughts. The decisions will be influenced not simply by moral obligation, upon which you seem to place so much emphasis, but many other factors.
While I despise the Taleban just as much as most Americans, I recognize that meddling intervention in the affairs of other countries is a very complex problem. As an American, you ought to know that! I have never sought to protect the Taleban, however, and their downfall will be most welcome (they could hardly be replaced with a worse regime).
This is too simplistic to be true. International politics is not the feel-good affair you seem to believe it is. In your opinion, which countries have sided with the Taleban in the recent month? Remember, neutrality is the right of every government. It is foolish to mistake neutrality for enmity. The political process is not a straightforward one.
You seem truly innocent of the entire political process I mentioned above. And, by the way, the first priority of any government is its perpetuation, so why state the obvious and make it sound like sun an evil thing?
So it’s OK in this case, as you have been advocating loudly and obnoxiously for a month, to make the general populations suffer? You are still not supporting this flimsy point you keep moaning about. I will also add that, yes, it is the government’s responsibility to inform the people, but it is not the fault of the people when the government fails to inform them. Ignorance is rampant everywhere, and the US–the most advanced country in the world–is certainly no exception. Information is not an easy task.
This is not important, I really did not intend to attack democracy, but ask yourself this: why should rule by the people and for the people be any better than, say, an autocracy? Who is to say that one million people are always better informed than a single person? Democracy is a good system to distribute the responsibility of decisions; it is not necesarily an ideal system to make the best decisions. I refer you to Plato’s Republic on this point: good decision are made by the informed, not necessarily the majority. There are some who think democracy is repulsive because of such glitches. I am not such a person, so find something else to sink your teeth in.
As I said before, it seems to me like most of the world is unified on this matter. It is. however, the right of every nation to have reservations on any matter. It is probably too much to ask you to understand the considerations that go into every big decision, as you do not seem able to do anything except yammer.
Really? I may be wrong on this point, but it seems like the US government served to breed the monster that is the Taleban and the monster that is Bin Laden. This is yet another example why interventionist meddling is so dangerous, be it American or Saudi. Were I to use your logic I could say that the US is crying crocodile tears now that things have gone hideously wrong. But I reject that kind of logic.
As mentioned about a million times, we are talking about perceptions. No amount of whining on your part is going to change the fact that, unfortunately, the Taleban is still perceived as a legitimate Muslim government by some uninformed and highly vocal people (although we have seen, contrary to your delusional posts, that the Taleban has been condemned by religious and political leaders for their actions and “flavour” of Islam). Change the perceptions, and you will remove most if not all of the opposition to dismantling the Taleban. Not so difficult to understand really.
Talk about harm to credibility. Once again, it’s a matter of perception. You are wasting a lot of energy (and I would add credibility but you have next to none) when you focus on attacking points that you want me to be making.
As far as communications go, I did not expect such a successful campaign. With very few resources in-country, the Taleban (or Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda in all probability) have managed to rally a surprising show of support across much of the world. Not from governments, granted, but from the ignorant and/or fanatical masses. Of course from a military point of view the Taleban are seriously outgunned and battered, but if you think that’s all there is to it you are (again) seriously mistaken.
Propaganda is probably the single most important factor in any war. “The ability to prevail against your enemies” is not a single factor at all, but a collection of several factors.
Irrelevant point, unless you are saying that Muslims in general were aware that such an atrocity as the WTC would happen. At this point, little you say can surprise me anymore.
Speaking in absolutes again. That’s a bad habit. And it’s callous. And, whether we are able to predict something has absolutely no bearing on the morality of the situation. Consider also that there are people out there saying, “that the predictable and correct response of the Al Qaeda network results in the deaths of Muslim innocents is child’s play to anticipate”. And they are saying it with as much categorical certainty as you utter your lines.
You find it repugnant simply because you are too obsessed and, indeed, fanatical about your demagoguery and particular brand of bigotry to understand simple arguments. I make no apology for the Taleban. The sooner they are removed the better. I will keep repeating this ad nauseam, so cease your attempt to twist this argument around.
No argument there, as long as the targets are the Taleban, Bin Laden/Al Qaeda and not innocents (although your violent tendencies are extremely distrubing and deserve immediate correction). The argument here is against your repeated maniacal calls to obliterate innocent civilians; your crass generalizations of entire cultures, ethnic groups, and religions; your categorical, narrow-minded, and intolerant point of view; and your obtusity in the face of reason.
[a lot of very general anti-Taleban surface nonsense and assorted vague tirades skipped because I’m getting tired]
My point was that categorical assertions go out the window when you are dealing with intricate interdependent systems such as international politics. Like it or not, the US needs the support of Middle-Eastern nations, for a lot of reasons. Therefore don’t go pissing them off, or you will make your task that much harder. Once again, this is not such a difficult point to understand if you know anything about how the world works.
It feels like I am trying to explain physics to a maggot with attention disorder. Again, you are the victim of your disingenuous categorical reasoning. The “popular outcry” is in part a result of propaganda, but it is also a result of (as stated before) other factors such as US intervention, support of Israel and subjugation of Arab states, hegemony, etc. You are free to disagree with the facts, but they are still the facts.
Utterly irrelevant, and a classic example of ethos in argumentation: you are simply trying to increase your standing with your audience by using an appeal to character and credibility, but most people around here are able to such cheap tricks.
That is rather difficult to believe, in the light of your disjointed and uninformed arguments thus far. I detect practically no understanding from your camp at all.
Oh my good grief. And that categorical assertion, ladies and gentlemen, helps explain why anti-Americanism exists. Would that it didn’t, but with attitudes like yours it is a simple matter to become detested.
A similar argument can be made against the US, who, I remind you again, propped up Islamic fundamentalism in response to the Communist threat. The US’s excuse? “It seemed like a good idea at the time”. Probably the same excuse running through some of the Saudi clerics’ minds right now for all you know. Also, judging from your several posts in these forums, you seem to blame Saudi Arabia and Wahabbists for everything that went wrong in Afghanistan. Oh dear.
It is bad enough I have to clean up the manure you leave in these message boards, but I will not tolerate a single more accusation of supporting the Taleban in any way, particularly not from someone with as weak and simplistic a grasp of international affairs as you.
Several days of heavy air strikes against Afghani targets on Afghani soil is supposed to be a defence? It’s not, no matter how you look at it. Not an important issue, but I wanted to point out how skewed your thinking can be.
Live with it, at least until US dominant religious make-up changes to something else and the US administration make-up represents beliefs other than Christianity. The chief religious interests in the US are Christian interests; Christian dogma is still by far the most influential in the nation; the number of Christian fanatics in the US is, if anything, on the rise; and, as you point out, the current administration has a Christian zealous streak. Again, I raised this point because it is important to understand how Middle-Easterners perceive this situation; I did not launch an attack against the US, but it seems that you can’t handle criticism unless you’re the one dishing it out in absolute terms (kill them, destroy them, eradicate them, etc.).
Words without meaning on something that is not the issue. I am not ascribing religious motives to US action, nor have I ever in this whole Afghanistan incident. You are really reaching. Go back and read what I wrote–and since I repeated it several times, do me the courtesy of reading it as many times.
I have twisted nothing, it’s all right here on black and white. You, on the other hand, have attempted to twist almost everything I have said, as demonstrated several times before this point. If twisting is the best refutation you can come up with, I can’t really blame you for your rabid approach.
Wrong. See above on the right to remain neutral and also on the approval and support granted the US by almost every nation in the region. I have discussed this point to death and am tired of repeating myself.
[removed a lengthy diatribe about “Demons” and civilization, and evil and whatnot. Very flowery if we ignore the grammatical errors, but of no substance]
I warned you earlier, do not ascribe to me support of the Taleban. This is below even your low-brow debate tactics, as is the attempt to assign to me a position I do not hold in regards to attacking the US.
My motives have been clear since my first post in response to your idiotic demagogic comments: to stop ignoramuses all over the world from inciting violence against the innocent. Let me know if you still don’t get that.
[cut some rubbish that did not pertain to the argument at hand]
Covered this already, and your position is STILL not looking good.
No, it is not obvious at all, especially in light of all I have written. Your statement above is a painful fabrication to which you latch on in an attempt to invalidate points for which you have no better answers.
You are amusing. Your writing style is so verbose and self-important that it is difficult to reconcile it with several clumsy errors (both linguistic and factual) that keep popping up in your posts. When Collounsbury does something like this it is evidence of character; when you do it it just looks silly and pretentious. I thought I would alert you to it, a better service to you than praise from other circles, I assure you.
Oh and by the way:
I have, it’s up there, too bad you seem bent on accepting only one sepcific data-set. I also find is suspect that the author correlates Islam with warlike tendencies. But what, if any, is your point on that matter in regards to the argument?
Freedom of speech is one concept, democracy is another. While the two often overlap, that is not to say that other forms of government do not support freedom of speech. I thought this was irrelevant to the argument, but now I see that it may be your zeal for all things democratic that is firing you up even more.
Zenster, you have posted so much SHIT on these boards in the last month that before I even got into this unpleasant discussion with you I already had my suspicions. Fear not, I will shortly bring the evidence forward for all to see, as you have requested.
Frankly I care nothing for your personal discomfort or intense feelings in this or any other matter. My only concern is that readers of these boards should be influenced by your output simply because it is the most visible and abundant (often a mark of inferor quality by the way). And a great many of your posts on this topic are offensive, not just “the most salacious aspects” of certain messages. Balance is definitely lacking in your posts, although I grant you gladly that I have read with interest such points you make as discouraging the use of nuclear bombs–but I see no need to hold your hand while I tell you why your thinking is on other matters is bunk. So yes, I have read and weighed all your posts on this matter.
Leaving aside your propensity for ad hominem attacks, not a chance. You can either retract your several bigoted statements (to be posted soon, probably in the pit), or you may continue posting the kind of rubbish we’ve seen so much of, in which case you are discrediting yourself for me (thanks for the help).