I am not making any more excuses for them as you could be seen making of CIA and FBI. Try to look at things from other side. CIA and FBI serve American interests, and you CANNOT dispute the fact that they have at tims used methods which we canot be very proud of. While we can sit here and defend them, the other side will see them as terrorists. You do understand that we judging terrorists based solely on our definition of terrorists. "...[I'm] implicitly supporting terrorism" Thats the problem with you. You just lump people into one group without trying to understand and look at the bigger picture. Not sure what labling accomplishes. That is why Tiger's posts on the subject are more relevant, while yours do not come out in good light. We are the sole superpower of the world. So we dont need to go on marching out. Our president does that for us. Bush claiming "axis of evil" has to be dealt with isnt exactly showing love. The political situation in those countries dictates the public reactions. If you fail to see this, and it is obvious you do, I really dont know what else to say. You are commanding love and respect, but we have to earn them. Our opinion is not very good around the globe. You need to check on what is going on currently in Latin America regarding us. And I can assure you, its not Arabs and Muslims responsible for our unpopularity in those parts. Huh?? We are trying to establish democracy there, while there is a sizeable population there that wants us out! Saddam has been ousted for a while. If the Iraqis want democracy, let them build their own. I am sorry New Yorker, but your arguments are seriously flawed even to me, an American. How do you then expect all the Muslims to agree with you? I am looking back at the posts made by both sides on this issue, and frankly, you are just hard-headed and have lots of misconception. I am done here.
You're still replying, yet I am the only one personally invested in the argument? Wrong again. In post #168, in response to Tiger, you said "That they have subesquently continued their violence post-Israeli withdraw lends even less credence to your version of history." I brought it up in response to this statement by you to show the irrelevance. We are discussing their initial creation, not what they may have done later on. So spreading the Iranian Revolution = terrorism? It doesn't matter by what means they chose to carry out their mission, we are arguing whether or not saying it was a necessity equals making excuses for terrorism. By that same token, are you saying that any type of revolution is terrorism? The United States Revolution? (P.S. - I know you don't think the United States revolution or all revolutions = terrorism. I'm not asking for clarification, I'm trying to bully you off your stance. See, I AM learning.) I love how you are now patting him on the back now that I am the only enemy left. I'm not defending his argument. My grievance is in principle. That you and others resort to intimidation tactics in order to discredit any opposing view from the left. Already, this has manifested itself in the "French Riots" thread. Uh no, this was never stated in the other thread. Your entire argument was that because the textbook definition of neoconservatism is to spread democracy and human rights, there is no way that the mission in Iraq was one of exploitation. I don't care what you want to label them. I brought this up because you refused to accept that a group can sway from their original mission. When you said "That they have subesquently continued their violence post-Israeli withdraw lends even less credence to your version of history." you tried to establish that they have always been a terrorist group and that that was their mission all along. It's just to demonstrate that you're either a liar or are simply alone in your own little world. When you accused me just a few posts earlier of "supporting a terrorist group" you were asking for clarification? lol. Or you were asking for clarification when you accused me of supporting Saddam? Those are some pretty serious accusations and it's fairly obvious you and those of your ilk like to throw them around to discredit an opposing view because you know the other person will immediately back off from their claims. How ironic that you would go on this little rant about me overgeneralizing and then in the very next post NewYorker demonstrates the precise thing I took issue with. And if you hadn't noticed in the next post, Tiger who you suddenly seem to be so fond of (in attempts to juxtapose his level-headed responses to mine) took issue with it too. Of course, SergeantSemantics will likely fly in to the rescue as usual. If you are somehow asserting that it is OPINION and not FACT that Muslims take issue with our foreign policy in the Middle East, well then we might as well just end this discussion right there because you are a lost cause.
So you are saying the terrorist group serve the Islamic world's interest just like the CIA and FBI serve American interest? So you are verifying that the Islamic world see terrorists groups in the same way we see the FBI? Muslims in Islamic countries view terrorists as serving their interests and that blowing up innocent people INTENTIONALLY is no different then the CIA spying on a muslim?????? Ok, so if you're saying Muslims support terrorism then I think we finally have made progress. Finally someone admits to it. No, I am not commanding love and respect. I'm am asking that my life not be threatned. And yes, Iran is evil. They are calling for my death and the death of my lifestyle. When they say "Death to America" - that means death to me. And yet you want me to say they are not evil for doing that???? I think the governments foster this hate in order to control their people - and now it's gotten to a breaking point that's out of control. You wish to blame only the U.S. for the worlds problems because you can't admit that Muslims have any hand in it as well. It's that sort of denial that will cause things to worsen instead of geting better. Your defense and excuses is what gives the terrorists power - that quiet sympathy and support. I find it disgusting.
As i've indicated above new yorker's initial take on tigermission's statement wasn't an inconceivable interpretation. As such tigermission's response is one that provides value to the discussion while your does not. You do exactly what you claim to be against 'in principle,' lol. You curse, ridicule, and label without substance. What part of that you don't get I'm not sure. You say 'x' is bad, then you do 'x.' Your whole take on 'intimidation' is silly. Is anyone intimidated by TJ or Glynch? No. When someone responds to them with substantive argument (a claim and a warrant) then little weight is given to their statement. As far as the French riot thread, I guess my post pointing out that FB, IMO, was being one sided - and that the truth was probably somewhere in the middle - was a classic example of my 'intimidation' tactics, lol. Sigh. Well I agree its possible I didn't break it down into basic logic for you. The substance of my argument was the same - IF cheney is a neoconservative then he sponsored the Iraqi intervention for neoconservative reasons, not realist reasons. It doesn't have anything to do with 'discrediting' anyone, lol. Who on this board, predominately read and posted on by liberals, would stop reading your posts because of such a statement, lol? Who 'backs down' on this board when such either such a label is levelled or such a question is asked? I agree in some cases it is written as a negative label. In each of the cases I've made such statements its because there are connections that should be discussed IMO. If you say 'we should not have intervened in Iraq' you are defacto saying 'we should have left saddam in power.' What are the implications of that? If you say 'i support the troops' is that a contradiction if you're against the war? If tigermission says 'i am not justifying what hezbollah has done since its inception because that would be justifying terrorism,' and then you do so - its logical to point out your are justifying a terrorist organization. Those aren't some bogeyman labels, those are questions for debate and discussion... If you want to avoid a clash of ideas and logic then you might be in the wrong place. There are plenty of online support groups you could spend time at instead. What the hell happened? Yesterday I was a Captain! I got demoted? He is juxtaposed with you. You make little substantive argument. More importantly you spend too much time making declarations about how your opinion is obviously the truth, literally, for certain - objectively - and too little time actually responding with warrants for your claims. What NewYorker has done subsequent to my post is as irrelevant to our disagreement as what bigtexx posted in some other thread. You can go back up in the thread and tigermission's initial response to newyorker, and his reponses to me. That is debate and discussion. You ranting, cursing, labelling and general childishness is not.
If the US makes a military gesture into Iran, it would turn the masses of young, unemployed and disenfranchised Iranians against us. I think its only a matter of time before regime change happens on its own. Waving the sword at Israel and America is the way these guys stay in power. They spend money on terror the same way US politicians pay for fancy commercials. As for Hizbollah, so freaking what if they build hospitals! So did the French, Italians and US Marines (remember a certain truck bomb in '83?) in Lebanon. And if Hizbollah hadn't killed them and ran them out of the country, maybe they wouldn't need to be building any, 'cause Reagan was trying to do that long before Hizbollah or the Israeli invasion of the South. Damn man, Rantissi was a pediatrician and by all rights a great humanitarian to his own people but he was still the head of Hamas and a murderer of many innocent Israelis. And the Israelis had no regrets about smoking him with Apaches, and neither should we. An ethnocentric extremist with blood on his hands can't be redeemed by whatever other good he does. I think the fact that Syria invaded the country years before, and that the Christians in the country were persecuted in the midst of a civil war (and asking the Israelis (along with the US and anyone else who would listen to assist them), and that the PLO was using South Lebanon as a staging base and training base for terror might be relevant to the discussion. South Lebanon is home to excellent dry red wines and the best hashish outside Afghanistan. Guess which one Hizbollah makes? Guess which one is easy to get in Israel? Most of the guys who smuggle hash also smuggle bombs, because people need to feed their kids. Personally, I wished they smuggled the wine, but profit motives dicate the product, I guess. But none of this has jack **** to do with the fact that Iran represents the biggest existential threat to Israel, and the resources of the government here are more focused on espionage against Tehran than anywhere else. At this point Israel is more concerned about Tehran's growing boldness and influence in the Territories than Hizbollah's drug cultivation and Katusha missile barrages into the north. Didn't you read about the Karine A? That was the Iranian ship stopped by the Israelis that was bringing bomb-making material to Hamas. Iran is expanding its role in clear defiance of good taste and is competing with the likes of other extreme ideologies with its own brand of islamo-facist extremism. As for Israel's goverment, I blame democracy itself. I think the notion that somehow free elections elsewhere in the ME are going to create peace is naive. Check it: So many splintered poltical parties without anyone able to comprise a majority means that ultra-nationalist and religious parties (a very small minority in terms of constituency) decide elections and keep the the settlements open, and the entitlements pouring in for the people who would move there. Most Israelis are secular and don't live or even venture past the green line and would much prefer the money be used to build a subway in Tel Aviv or used to feed the hungry here or some other social justice than to build apartments in Ariel and Hebron and send 18 year-old kids to guard them. Israel, like every other Western democracy, is run by self-interested politicians and not by the will of the people. And unfortunately for us, that's as good as it gets. None of this is that simple, and to oversimplify what goes on here is as wreckless as the British cartographers that used big green pens to mark it up into countries that should have never existed in the first place. If you really need someone to blame, blame them.
Uh, amidst the endless pages of trash in this forum, it is nice to read an insightful post like Deji's every once in a while..
Sergeant Semantics: Because this discussion has basically degenerated into nothing but mud flinging, I'm done with it. I'm not sure where exactly I was "cursing, ranting, and ridiculing" as you accuse. I exchanged barbs with you and that was as a sidebar to the real discussion. Even then, you aren't innocent of what you accuse me of. It's funny to me that you accuse me of trying to shout down others when I distinctly recall you whining in another thread about Glynch and trying to silence him. Do as I say not as I do? It's fairly obvious to anyone with any semblance of reading comprehension ability that NewYorker's declaration that Tiger was "making excuses for terrorism" was an attempt to denounce his arguments or write him off as being apologetic. He later reinforced this sentiment in a post earlier on this very page. That is what I took issue with. True to form, Sergeant Semantics came marching in and took us on a merry-go-round of word connotations and an exercise in splitting hairs to the point where it could be easily forgotten what we originally were even arguing. Call me a coward, but being called a "terrorist sympathizer" is a pretty offensive thing and enough to make one re-think what they are about to say, especially with Sergeant Semantics on duty. By you claiming that I have no right to "shout down others" as you put it when I see something I don't like, you are doing the very thing you accuse me of. I can't point out my disdain for this but you can shout down my complaints? But that is a whole 'nother discussion for another thread and quite frankly I don't have my Dictionary nearby so I'll take a raincheck for now. P.S. I thought the alliteration made "Sergeant" a favorable option to "Caption."
Well, one of us is a monkey... Since your reading comprehension is above reproach IYO, re-read the thread. Good Lord, man. If I could think of a way to silence Glynch I freely admit I would do so! Certainly wouldn't want you to THINK about what you're going to say, lol. Hardly. I don't shout, I make arguments. You can look up what that means when you find your dictionary. I can't argue with that but I have to admit I was hurt by the demotion.
