The people. Shariah is a living, breathing set of laws that interpret Islam and apply it to the current world, and Shariah is arrived at by a concept of 'ijtihad', which means efforts by man to apply Islamic teachings/concepts to today's challenges and circumstances. Contrary to Christian Europe in centuries past, Muslim leaders are forbidden from claiming to rule by thhe authority of God, because the very concept of "Shura" (meaning consultation) is embedded in Islam, in the Koran itself ("and their rule is to take counsel among themselves." Ch. 42, Revelation 38). In fact, the prophet Muhammed HIMSELF used to consult with his followers on day-to-day affairs, and never appointed a successor, and the following Caliphahs in the early days of Islam were more or less 'elected' by tribal leaders who entrusted them with the leadership of the Ummah (Islamic nation). It could very well be on the mind of terrorist masterminds/spiritual leaders, but they are not recruiting thousands of Muslim youths on the premise of 'fighting democracy'. Have you EVER heard Bin Laden -- or any of his deputies -- proclaiming in an 'Al-Qaeda production' video that they are fighting "American democracy", or is their rhetoric directed at 'American-imposed' democracy (i.e. Western, liberal democracy), or democracy imposed by 'Crusaders and Jews'? The simple fact is that the majority of the Muslim world WANT democracy, DESIRE democracy, but only on their own initiative and by their own doing, not an American implant. The key word here being 'American' democracy, not the very existence of democracy itself. Are Muslim extremists opposed to democracy? Probably yes, because they have a different interpretation of Islam and want nothing short of a Taliban-like society. Is this, however, the 'cause' they have proclaimed over and over again in their propoganda campaigns as why they are attacking the West? No. In other words: some of them could very well be opposed to democracy, but that's not one of their declared 'grievances' (I am speaking about Al-Qaida here) as to why they carried out 9/11. BTW, yes, you're right: radical Islam is opposed to any form of democracy, they are totalitarian in nature/philosophy. No, but it shows that he's -- on some level -- a 'rational' actor, a person who puts his 'interests' ahead of his 'emotions' or 'ideals'. In short, Bin Laden accepted the help of 'Great Satan' himself in order to overcome what he believed (or had to believe) at the time was a greater evil. I never claimed there was 'no conflict' between radical Islam and democracy, you're drawing way too many conclusions to suit your arguments, which I assume is what led to your initial argument that justifying Hezbollah's existence in 1980s was the same as justifying their actions. I disagree, but you're free to believe that, but let's say (for the sake of argument) that you are correct, that it's a factor that drives their attacks against us, how likely do you think preaching against the very essence of democracy is going to gain them 'recruits'? What do they capitalize on to recruit new followers to the cause? Isn't it Iraq, Palestine, American presence in the Gulf, and whole nine yards? Even if what you're saying is true, it has very little to no appeal among the people who actually do the fighting, and that would explain why they haven't brought it up in any of their videos. I would say that yes, they are opposed to democracy in their region, but I doubt they are interested or could care less about democracy in America; they are concerned about American democracy spreading to their neck of the woods.
Already have, you must have missed it. Terrorism (i.e. the targeting of civilians by ANY group/state/individual for political gains) can NEVER be justified, period. May be a better questions would be as follows: if Hezbollah did not come into existence in response to the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, then why did they come into existence specifically during that time period? Why were they obsessed with 'Israel' and hell-bent (at least in philosophy) on destroying it if their existence was not a direct response to Israel's invasion of Lebanon? Obviously, Iran took advantage of that situation to establish a powerbase in southern Lebanon (which had a connection to the Shi'a state based solely on the fact that the southern Lebanese were largely Shi'as, and Iran sees itself as the 'guardian' of Shi'a Islam), and that was done through Hezbollah, but that doesn't mean that Hezbollah was NOT created in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and the 'ganging up' of the Israelis and some Maronite Christian militias against the Shi'a Lebanese and the PLO led to the Iranians and the Lebanese Shi'as to create/arm Hezbollah as a militia to fight the Israelis (this was made even more of a necessity due to the fact that Lebanon was divided along ethnic lines, with multiple militias vying for power/control of various parts of the country, and no Lebanese army anywhere to be found). Again, Hezbollah is no 'boy scouts', and they are violent and an extremist group that is well-connected and well-armed, and have no doubt committed their share of atrocities, most likely terrorism as well. Those 'actions' I cannot justify, but their inception back in the early 1980s was nothing unusual nor unexpected, given the utter choas in the country at the time and the extraordinary measures that had to be taken. Hezbollah was no more 'justified' in coming into existence than the Maronite militias or the Druze militias, for given the ethnic war that was breaking out, each had to protect 'their own', and militias became the popular way to do so since the central government in that country had more or less unraveled and became irrelevant. BTW, for those interested, a good read on the Lebanese civil war is "From Beirut to Jerusalem" by Thomas Friedman, I highly recommend it, and you will likely see a lot of parallels between Lebanon in the late 1970's-1980s and Iraq of today. Very interesting book.
From the "horse's mouth", so to speak... http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm Praise be to Allah who created the creation for his worship and commanded them to be just and permitted the wronged one to retaliate against the oppressor in kind. To proceed: Peace be upon he who follows the guidance: People of America this talk of mine is for you and concerns the ideal way to prevent another Manhattan, and deals with the war and its causes and results. Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 - may Allah have mercy on them. No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours. No one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure. Whereas thinking people, when disaster strikes, make it their priority to look for its causes, in order to prevent it happening again. But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred. So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider. I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind. The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced. I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy. The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond. In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors. And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children. And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance. This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children - also in Iraq - as Bush Jr did, in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages. So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs, should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary? Is defending oneself and punishing the aggressor in kind, objectionable terrorism? If it is such, then it is unavoidable for us. This is the message which I sought to communicate to you in word and deed, repeatedly, for years before September 11th. And you can read this, if you wish, in my interview with Scott in Time Magazine in 1996, or with Peter Arnett on CNN in 1997, or my meeting with John Weiner in 1998. You can observe it practically, if you wish, in Kenya and Tanzania and in Aden. And you can read it in my interview with Abdul Bari Atwan, as well as my interviews with Robert Fisk. The latter is one of your compatriots and co-religionists and I consider him to be neutral. So are the pretenders of freedom at the White House and the channels controlled by them able to run an interview with him? So that he may relay to the American people what he has understood from us to be the reasons for our fight against you? If you were to avoid these reasons, you will have taken the correct path that will lead America to the security that it was in before September 11th. This concerned the causes of the war. As for it's results, they have been, by the grace of Allah, positive and enormous, and have, by all standards, exceeded all expectations. This is due to many factors, chief among them, that we have found it difficult to deal with the Bush administration in light of the resemblance it bears to the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half which are ruled by the sons of kings and presidents. Our experience with them is lengthy, and both types are replete with those who are characterised by pride, arrogance, greed and misappropriation of wealth. This resemblance began after the visits of Bush Sr to the region. At a time when some of our compatriots were dazzled by America and hoping that these visits would have an effect on our countries, all of a sudden he was affected by those monarchies and military regimes, and became envious of their remaining decades in their positions, to embezzle the public wealth of the nation without supervision or accounting. So he took dictatorship and suppression of freedoms to his son and they named it the Patriot Act, under the pretence of fighting terrorism. In addition, Bush sanctioned the installing of sons as state governors, and didn't forget to import expertise in election fraud from the region's presidents to Florida to be made use of in moments of difficulty. All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies. This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the mujahidin, bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat. All Praise is due to Allah. So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah. That being said, those who say that al-Qaida has won against the administration in the White House or that the administration has lost in this war have not been precise, because when one scrutinises the results, one cannot say that al-Qaida is the sole factor in achieving those spectacular gains. Rather, the policy of the White House that demands the opening of war fronts to keep busy their various corporations - whether they be working in the field of arms or oil or reconstruction - has helped al-Qaida to achieve these enormous results. And so it has appeared to some analysts and diplomats that the White House and us are playing as one team towards the economic goals of the United States, even if the intentions differ. And it was to these sorts of notions and their like that the British diplomat and others were referring in their lectures at the Royal Institute of International Affairs. [When they pointed out that] for example, al-Qaida spent $500,000 on the event, while America, in the incident and its aftermath, lost - according to the lowest estimate - more than $500 billion. Meaning that every dollar of al-Qaida defeated a million dollars by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs. As for the size of the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars. And even more dangerous and bitter for America is that the mujahidin recently forced Bush to resort to emergency funds to continue the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is evidence of the success of the bleed-until-bankruptcy plan - with Allah's permission. It is true that this shows that al-Qaida has gained, but on the other hand, it shows that the Bush administration has also gained, something of which anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Halliburton and its kind, will be convinced. And it all shows that the real loser is ... you. It is the American people and their economy. And for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration notice. It never occurred to us that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face those great horrors alone, the time when they most needed him. But because it seemed to him that occupying himself by talking to the little girl about the goat and its butting was more important than occupying himself with the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers, we were given three times the period required to execute the operations - all praise is due to Allah. And it's no secret to you that the thinkers and perceptive ones from among the Americans warned Bush before the war and told him: "All that you want for securing America and removing the weapons of mass destruction - assuming they exist - is available to you, and the nations of the world are with you in the inspections, and it is in the interest of America that it not be thrust into an unjustified war with an unknown outcome." But the darkness of the black gold blurred his vision and insight, and he gave priority to private interests over the public interests of America. So the war went ahead, the death toll rose, the American economy bled, and Bush became embroiled in the swamps of Iraq that threaten his future. He fits the saying "like the naughty she-goat who used her hoof to dig up a knife from under the earth". So I say to you, over 15,000 of our people have been killed and tens of thousands injured, while more than a thousand of you have been killed and more than 10,000 injured. And Bush's hands are stained with the blood of all those killed from both sides, all for the sake of oil and keeping their private companies in business. Be aware that it is the nation who punishes the weak man when he causes the killing of one of its citizens for money, while letting the powerful one get off, when he causes the killing of more than 1000 of its sons, also for money. And the same goes for your allies in Palestine. They terrorise the women and children, and kill and capture the men as they lie sleeping with their families on the mattresses, that you may recall that for every action, there is a reaction. Finally, it behoves you to reflect on the last wills and testaments of the thousands who left you on the 11th as they gestured in despair. They are important testaments, which should be studied and researched. Among the most important of what I read in them was some prose in their gestures before the collapse, where they say: "How mistaken we were to have allowed the White House to implement its aggressive foreign policies against the weak without supervision." It is as if they were telling you, the people of America: "Hold to account those who have caused us to be killed, and happy is he who learns from others' mistakes." And among that which I read in their gestures is a verse of poetry. "Injustice chases its people, and how unhealthy the bed of tyranny." As has been said: "An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure." And know that: "It is better to return to the truth than persist in error." And that the wise man doesn't squander his security, wealth and children for the sake of the liar in the White House. In conclusion, I tell you in truth, that your security is not in the hands of Kerry, nor Bush, nor al-Qaida. No. Your security is in your own hands. And every state that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security. And Allah is our Guardian and Helper, while you have no Guardian or Helper. All peace be upon he who follows the Guidance.
Alright Hayes, since you're determined to play the semantics game, we'll look at this closely. This is the tigermission quote that set off the entire chain of events. I don't care what he said afterwards. This is the original quote: "No, they are not a bunch of boy scouts, but Hezbollah came into being out of necessity, so blame the Israelis for that one." NewYorker then said, " Well, i would say that this is a case of making excuses for terrorism." I don't care what anyone said afterwards, that was the accusation I took issue with before Captain Semantics came flying in to the rescue. In essence, the claim that necessity = justification of actions. In this case, the actions in question are "terrorism." The only way your understanding of this works is if the group was formed out of the blue to simply commit terrorism. It wasn't. Why else was it formed after the Isreal invasion? Because it was out of necessity. Furthermore, from the Wikipedia entry on Hezbollah, it says " In addition to its military wing, Hezbollah maintains a civilian arm, which runs hospitals, various news services, and eductional facilities." They don't just solely commit terrorism. They had other needs such as these - hence, OUT OF NECESSITY. How is it's mission to spread violence? Just because it uses violence doesn't mean it's mission is to spread violence. Wow, now I know why you have so much fun with semantics. This is fun. If their mission was to spread violence, they would randomly walk down the street and set everything on fire. Their mission was to spread the Iranian Revolution. Furthermore, from Wikipeida: "Hezbollah is an active participant in the political life and processes of Lebanon, and its scope of operation is far beyond its initial militant one. In 1992, it participated in elections for the first time, winning 12 out of 128 seats in parliament. It won 10 seats in 1996, and 8 in 2000. In the general election of 2005, it won 23 seats nationwide, and an Amal-Hezbollah alliance won all 23 seats in Southern Lebanon. Since the end of the Israeli occupation in southern Lebanon on May 22, 2000, Hezbollah has been involved in activities like building schools, clinics, and hospitals." That doesn't seem to go too well with your claims that they are only a terrorist organization or that saying they came into existance out of necessity justifies terrorism. What you are doing is counterproductive to intellectual discussion. Noone can make any attempt at analysis of any of the problems in the world. You're simply just playing semantics to accuse people of things they obviously didn't mean. You accused me of supporting Saddam while delving into the definition of "support" and now you're accusing Tiger of justifying terrorism. You can't be serious. When Bush says "they hate us for our freedoms" he is saying the attacks are being carried out SOLELY due to a hatred of American freedoms. And you're defending that statement? Wow. Your statements above as well as those quotes you provided are completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter that they may also not view our lifestyle and democracy favorably. When George Bush says "they hate us for our freedoms" he means that there is no other reason for the terrorist attacks and that is the SOLE reason for Muslim agression against the West. It is an attempt to discredit any other analysis. I never made the claim that they also don't like democracy. I made the claim that it's not the SOLE reason while trying to draw the connection of you accusing Tiger of justifying terrorism by drowning out any objective analysis. You and I both know there are many other reasons. If hating freedom was the reason, why did they pick the United States? You mention Spain and England but fail to mention their role as an ally in Iraq. What about other free nations? I honestly threw that out as a joke as I thought only people like T_J still subscriped to this intellectually bankrupt school of thought. If you seriously are defending the claim that we were attacked and our allies are being attacked because they hate our freedom, you seriously need to re-examine your entire paradigm.
I think what he meant was that they should remove all their military presence from the countries listed above... and your counter question then would be, should the saudis (army) leave the US and the rest of the word? and the answer is Hell yes the problem is not terrorists wanting a muslim only society, there were many non muslims before and during OBL's stay in saudi, he didnt get Pissed off until the nonmuslims started establishing bases albeit for the help of the arabs.
The problem is, the us forces are curently occupie some of the holliest sites in islam . this Infuriates millions of muslim who believe they are getting a raw deal. the problem can be solved quiet easily. moveout of saudi and stop supporting the corrupt and Oppressive Saudi Royal Family.
You still haven't answered my question - I feel like you're dancing around it. Do you or do you know feel that what Hezbollah currently does and represents....is that justifiable? Not that they came into existence or anything else - I'm talk now - the past few years. What is your stance on Hezbelloh today?!?!? And, you still have no outlined what the U.S. has done to oppress and "force" our values on the Islamic world. In fact, we have worked to create peace and stability, even opposing Israeli expansion. So please explain this to me because I feel you are avoiding my questions...
I think you missed one of my posts (above) so I'll just cross reference here and you can go back if necessary. See: AQ says democracy ie rule by the people is idolatry. Lol, yes. I have seen them say that. See above: the greatest threat to Islam is American democracy. Don't confuse the issue by talking about what the 'majority of the muslim world wants.' That is not at issue here. We are talking about what a small radical segment wants. Wrong. Again see above: democracy is idolatry. Wrong. See above. I am not claiming it is the ONLY reason but to ignore the scope of thier ambition is folly. Look at bin laden: first it was about troops in SA, then it branched out to Israel, then Iraq. Now it IS an ideological battle for what's left. See above: bin laden = classic imperialist. I didn't say that. That doesn't mean the don't 'hate us for our freedoms.' bin laden is not static - he didn't, for example, originally list Israel, Iraq, or Afghanistan as reasons to attack the US. He's added to his list and it now encompasses the fundamentals of western democracies. Yep. That's not the question. The question is whether or not the statement 'they hate us for our freedoms' is accurate. When speaking of much of the leadership of radical islam (in many different organizations) the answer is yes. What slogans they use to recruit are irrelevant to this point.
What? Man, you're lost. Its almost as if you don't read my posts at all before you jibberjabber this stuff. I don't deny the causal argument - Hezbollah was formed in response to the Israeli intervention of Lebanon. That is not in dispute. The concept of necessity is certainly in dispute, as is justification. No one is talking about that wing of Hezbollah. Its existence doesn't do anything to this dispute. Clearly both tigermission and newyorker are talking about the militant wing of Hezbollah. If your sillyness was right tigermission would be saying 'blame Israel for Hezbollah's hospitals, news services, and educational facilities.' I'm pretty sure Israel would take that, lol. Sigh. No it doesn't mean that. It means their method of achieving their goal was violence. As a non-state group organized to commit violence to achieve their goals they fit just about every definition of terrorist out there. Since violence is inextricably intertwined with their formation, justifying such justifies the violence. That is objectionable at least - and more importantly it is at least a logical leap for someone (in this case New Yorker) to take. Your response which was to attempt to shout him down, was absurd. And anti-, I might add, everything you CLAIM to support. Hmmm, methinks this doesn't help you. In fact it hurts you. It feeds the argument that their mission was NOT justified or confined to causing Israeli withdraw. You just keep digging... There is a very good reason tigermission has tried to tie his claim ONLY to hezbollahs formation instead of what they did after that. Can you guess why? It's because they've clearly taken terrorist action since then. Its what they've done since the Israeli withdraw from Lebanon that he DOES NOT want to claim is justified. But now you're defending the exact position he purposely shielded himself from, lol. Now YOU are defending a terrorist organization, lol. Congratulations. I disagree. Defending what one says, especially in this kind of forum, is almost more important that what one 'means.' There is no way for a reader on a bbs to know what you 'meant' only what you say. If you'll actually read the thread you'll see tigermission also advocates for MORE precision, not less. Further as this thread shows is that a greater understanding of what someone means can be drawn out when challenged. What New Yorker thought of Tigermission's statement is just as important as tigermissions statement. But you don't understand that his challenge provides more information for all of us, or that hashing out that challenge provides a benefit. You try to shout down anyone who doesn't agree with your narrow view by bullying and ridiculing and cursing. Oh you are sooooo supportive of intellectual discussion, lol. And I'm sure you didn't learn anything from the 'support' thread because that's not your objective. You want to backslap those that agree with you and shoutdown those that don't. No, that isn't the administration's position. No, they don't say that its the SOLE reason for conflict with bin laden. What the catchphrase DOES do is capture the current state of the conflict with bin laden and his ilk which is one between democracy and radical Islamic totalitarianism.
Funny, I thought I answered it multiple times in my previous posts. so here it is again in case you missed it: I hope that's "clear-cut" enough for you. And yes, that includes in the case of Hezbollah, Hamas, and everyone else who might have used terrorism and/or continue to do so.
My opinion is irrelevant, because I can set around all day and feed BS about this or that, but that won't change reality/circumstances on the ground. Would I like to see them disarmed and instead join in the political arena (which they have already done recently)? Yes. However, Israel still occupies certain parts of southern Lebanon, and that's what the dispute between the ISraelis and Hezbollah continues to be mainly about. I don't support their existence any more than I support the Mehdi army in Iraq. However, my general view is that the existence of militias rarely improves the situation in any given country, and in the case of Hezbollah, if they intend on keeping their arms, they should instead join the Lebanese civil force/military, because I believe militias are (long-term) dangerous to the stability of a state that wishes to remain as one cohesive entity (especially in Iraq now), for they undermine the authority of the central government to keep 'law and order'. I wouldn't want ethnic militias roaming around, because it will almost always lead to conflict at one point or another (usually the civil type). Sadly, however, reality is different. First and foremost, a peace deal between Lebanon and Israel (recognized by all Lebanese factions) will have to be drafted and agreed upon. Second, the Lebanese central government will have to become more authoritative and independent of Syria or anyone else outside of Lebanon, but as of now they are weak, corrupt, and maybe even criminal, and therefore they can't challenge Hezbollah or other militias, much like the PA is very weak and can't challenge the influence of Hamas in the occupied territories. IMO, unless the Lebanese government becomes stronger and asserts its influence/power on ALL of its territory (including southern Lebanon), and a peace accord is signed between the two-countries, then Hezbollah will never disarm, because they still view the Israeli threat as very real, and the threat of an attack by the Israelis is not out of the question. What I think they need to do is renounce their 'destruction of Israel' rhetoric and stop interfering in other people's business (i.e. in internal Palestinian affairs).
Ok, so you stand against Hezbelloh? Then you've answered my question. Still, you haven't mentioned what the U.S. has done to "force" it's values upon Muslims. Please give some specific examples. Thanks.
Then what's the problem? If they formed after the Israeli intervention, then their formation was a necessity. Where is that distinction made before I intervened? Hezbollah as one single entity (not different branches) was formed after the Israeli intervention to serve multiple purposes. Again, how is that not necessity? How is it at all relevant what they have done since then when examining their initial mission? We're not analyzing the group's evolution and history. What is in question is the point of formation and why it came into formation. Their initial mission was clearly to spread the Iranian Revolution yet you seem to think because they took different actions later on that it alters the initial mission. I've noticed this trend with you that you don't think groups or individuals can be dynamic. You argued the neoconservative cause through their textbook definition. You've in numerous threads showed disgust with the claim that Cheney could not have bought into neoconservatism because that was not his original ideology. That's absurd. There are numerous people's revolutions throughout history which were fought for a good cause but after the winning side came to power, the leaders became corrupt and began exploitation of the weak. I'm certainly not arguing that Hezbollah's initial cause was justifiable, I am just demonstrating the pattern that groups and individuals are dynamic and evolve but that doesn't change what they initially declared as their mission. Why am I not surprised that you would stoop to this level? That is just ridiculous. I think most people would agree that when you accuse someone of justifying terrorism, you're not asking for a clarification but are rather attempting to discredit and silence their views. That's just as obvious as the intimidation tactics that the right wingers on this board try to use by labeling anyone on the left as "hating America" or "sympathizing with the terrorists." They're not probing for a clarification, they're trying to intimidate and silence. You are alone on this one. Take a poll and I'm sure the overwhelming majority on this board would agree with me on this. This just drips of irony coming from you of all people. The same person that is accusing war opposers of not supporting the troops. Or accusing me of supporting Saddam simply because I think it was in America's best interests to keep him in power at the moment. So, so ironic. How exactly do I shout down and bully when you are basically trying to discredit the entire voice of the war opposition by claiming they really don't support the troops? I'm the one bullying when you won't allow me to make an objective analysis on pre-war Iraq without calling me a Saddam lover? I'm the one bullying when you won't allow Tiger to examine the formation of Hezbollah without denouncing him as justifying terrorism? HA! These accusations are not only offensive but simply counterproductive in your attempts through intimidation to silence those who disagree with you. No, what it does is oversimplify a much more complex issue and attempt to discredit any dissent. "They hate us for our freedoms" literally means that we are void of any responsibility in this conflict and it's simply an issue of being hated for our freedoms. That is obviously not the case. Again, your paradigm of the world is just way too simple and optimistic. You seem to be asserting that this is as simple as us being hated only because of our freedoms while ignoring all other factors just like you for some reason seemed to think that the United States invaded Iraq out of some humanitarian concern. You really need to re-examine your paradigm.
I can let this all go. I'm not personally invested in the argument like you are. I will just point out, however, that it was you who brought up what Hezbollah has done since its inception, not me. Further your argument doesn't make any sense IMO. If their initial mission was to spread the Iranian Revolution - then saying their initial mission was justified mean spreading the Iranian Revolution was justified. Hence an argument that he was justifying terrorism was hardly offbase or at least not inconceivable. IMO tigermission handled this exactly as one should. He made a reasoned argument as to why it wasn't true that he was justifying terrorism. NewYorkers statement wasn't unreasonable. One can look at tigermission's statement and think he was justifying terrorism. Tigermission explained how that wasn't the case. No big deal. Your answer wasn't a reasoned argument but an emotional outburst designed to overgeneralize an argument as 'denouncments' etc. and denigrate as 'semantics.' Nope. You've just unsuprisingly misunderstood my arguments. Regarding Cheney et al my point is that IF he was a neoconservative then his motivation would be a neoconservative one - annexing Iraq would not be consistent with that. I don't think he is but if one did think that, it would be silly for them to then accuse him of being a realist. It's basic logic: A is not equal (the same as) B. If A then not B. Hide in the skirts of the 'crowd.' I don't care what a poll would say. Appealing to the crowd is a basic logically fallacy. If someone makes a point, as New Yorker did here, then there's nothing wrong with that. Tigermission came back and argued logically that he was not, in reality, saying that. What's the problem? YOU'RE OFFENDED? Well, whoop dee damn doo. Just goes to show how knee jerk you are - and how silly at times. Look at the 'Support' thread I started. I asked a question about what appeared to be a contradiction. I didn't ACCUSE anyone of anything. But I think your own sensitive ego may get in the way and that's the problem. You assert there are some arguments people should not DARE make - but who are you? If people want discussion and debate there are no limits as long as a claim comes with a warrant. Tigermission showed exactly what DOES happen in reasoned debate, in direct contrast to your response. He made reasoned articulate arguments in reponse. You on the other hand, attempted to shout down New Yorker. Cursing, overgeneralizing, and ridiculing instead of making an argument. I don't have to pull half truths out of the air like you do. The proof is right in this thread. And this is your problem. Because you find a point offensive doesn't make it invalid, nor unreasonable. Thank God. Tigermission and I seem to have had an in-depth discussion about the issue. I don't remember DENOUNCING anybody, lol. Again I think maybe you need to switch to decaf. Either that or come down off the mountain and join us regular folks in discussion. This thread is a good example of my point. Several people engaged in discussion. One person got all pissed off and rude and loud. Well, when I called it a 'catchphrase' that should indicate to you that I understand its a simplification. It is a valid point, however, as radical islam IS in conflict with our core belief in democracy and the freedoms that come from said democracy. As for your interpretation of the phrase absolving us of any responsibility etc, that is your opinion. You too often mistake your opinion for fact and take great license stating what you believe to be 'obvious, literal' etc. and too little time defending those assertions through reasoned argument. I also clearly stated that there are more specific reasons for our conflict, that the administration had also discussed as much. Obviously this catchphrase was given to Bush to keep his message simple (THAT is a 'necessity'). That doesn't mean, however, that there is no truth in the statement.
Isn't it strange that even the Muslims on this board can't: 1. Unequivocally state that groups like Hezbelloh are terrorist groups - and that they are completely against them? 2. Denouce the Anti-American and Anti-Israeli hate marches 3. Give one example of how America has "forced" the middle east to accept its values...
Actually what's strange is you lumping all the muslims on this board and the world together. 1) I wonder if we would unequivocally state that CIA or FBI under Hoover were/are terrorist groups. Of course we wont, but their history has not been pretty. People do admit that groups like Hezbelloah can/should be classified as terrorist groups. But it also being asked to look at WHY they came into exsistence in the first place. Look at the big picture. 2) It is no different than myself and the rest of Americans trying to denounce your Anti-Arab or Anti-Muslim rants. Not everyone will have the same opinion. Just accept that. Even we Americans have differing opinions on Muslims and Israel. Critisizing Israel should not be equated to hating on Jews. Just because someone critisizes Israel for its political moves, does not mean its hate-filled, although that is a common perception. We have rallies and marches in our own country against our own policies. So is Cindy Sheehan an American hater? You cannot expect the Plestinians to form peace rallies for Israel if they are being occupied by Israel. Once again, look at the big picture. 3) Iraq is a pretty good example. Iraqis did not exactly welcome us with open arms to establish democracy for them.
Saudi Arabia is by far the easiest off all to overthrow. If Al Qaeda in Iraq redirected it's efforts at Saudi Arabia, that country would fall quickly. If Muslims really wanted to overthrow the oppressive Saudis - it wouldn't be hard. The country has a military of 50K.
I see - so the CIA and FBI are the same as Al Qaeda and Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Hezbelloh according to your way of thinking. You see, you are making excuses for them. Your thinking is that because of the acts of Israel, it's understandable that groups are going to strap bombs on themselves and kill innocents as well as fly airplanes into buildings. It's not the terrorists fault - it's Israel's and America's. When you say "look at why they came into existence", I say NO! Because there is NO JUSTIFICATION FOR STRAPPING A BOMB ON YOURSELF AND WALKING ONTO A BUS FULL OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN. None. Zero. And if you think there is, then well I say you are part of the problem - and you're implicity supporting terrorism. No, comparing people who call for the destruction of America and Israel is not the same as protesting against the war. In this country, NO ONE HAS CALLED FOR WIPING IRAN OFF THE MAP! Our government doesn't start marches with "Death to Palestine, Death to Iran". I guess you see those marches as peace marches...after all, the world would be more peaceful if America and Israel were wiped off the map right? Iraq was the hands of that idiot in office and I think the world understands that most Americans regret the whole thing. But here's the news flash: Terrorism existed before that. So what was it that started the terrorism...what values were forced upon the middle east. So many Muslims have complained about that - so c'mon, tell us more about the values we forced and how they were forced!
