"Stop the war now" - I'd rather die tommorow

[Bettina]

All I'm saying is that there has been plenty of public debate which emphasized the notion that "the terrorists hate us because they hate our freedom' date='" whether or not it is explicitly said that this is the only reason. I distinctly remember more than one Bush speach to that effect, and (believe it or not) I do listen to conservative talk radio sometimes, and that's the [i']only[/i] reason they ever mention at all.

 

However, I think it's quite fair to say that that is silly. mooeypoo, all those things you mention, about how they see our capitalism and our secularism as decadent and immoral - yes, yes they do. That's why they do all they can to establish oppressive, Taliban-like theocracies in the Islamic world. But there's a big difference between that and going outside the Islamic world to attack others. They attack us not because we're a free society, but because they see us as meddling in their society. They'd rather be insulated in their own little medieval world, not having to deal with infidels like us at all. Sweden has nothing to do with them, and hence, they couldn't care less how many Swedes doom themselves to eternal torment.

 

IMO they were already isolated. What they feared, is that the wests "meddling" might interfere or undermine their oppressive, Taliban-like way of life. That "meddling" is called...freedom....and they hate us for it.

 

I will try to find the link that reported a top Taliban official quoting that freedom was evil and should be destroyed at its root.

 

Bettina

[Sayonara]

IMO they were already isolated. What they feared, is that the wests "meddling" might interfere or undermine their oppressive, Taliban-like way of life. That "meddling" is called...freedom....and they hate us for it.

Freedom for who?

 

If someone makes a choice for you, you cannot truly be said to be free to choose.

 

Perhaps it was the meddling itself that was resented, rather than the intended results.

[Jim]

All I'm saying is that there has been plenty of public debate which emphasized the notion that "the terrorists hate us because they hate our freedom' date='" whether or not it is explicitly said that this is the only reason. I distinctly remember more than one Bush speach to that effect, and (believe it or not) I do listen to conservative talk radio sometimes, and that's the [i']only[/i] reason they ever mention at all.

 

However, I think it's quite fair to say that that is silly. mooeypoo, all those things you mention, about how they see our capitalism and our secularism as decadent and immoral - yes, yes they do. That's why they do all they can to establish oppressive, Taliban-like theocracies in the Islamic world. But there's a big difference between that and going outside the Islamic world to attack others. They attack us not because we're a free society, but because they see us as meddling in their society. They'd rather be insulated in their own little medieval world, not having to deal with infidels like us at all. Sweden has nothing to do with them, and hence, they couldn't care less how many Swedes doom themselves to eternal torment.

 

Well of course Bush can't speak like an academic but the point is much deeper than merely saying "they hate us for freedom."

 

Even without US "meddling," there would be a conflict inside of the Islamic world as to what has gone awry between conservative forces who believe that only a return to basic family values will return the Islamic world to its historic position and liberal reformers who believe that the cause, at least in part, of the Islamic world's decline is the tyrants who have failed in every measure except to perpetuate their own power. What I don't get is why liberals in this country assume that the radical militant conservatives of Islam are only acting because they were provoked in some way. Secular conservatives in this country who are far less radical certainly don't get that benefit of the doubt.

 

The conservative, for want of a better word, "fascist" forces of Islam seek to gain and hold power as despots always do - repression, propaganda, the primitivistic appeal of a return to a day of by-gone glory, and by the generation of a galvanizing threat which requires drastic collective action. We worry about these kind of appeals in this country but in a country like Iran there is not a free press or a tradition of dissent to keep such appeals in check. The reassuring message from such despots is that it is not our fault but, instead, that of an external enemy who, through their meddling keep the natural value of our culture from rising to the top and, perhaps some day, dominating the world.

 

Bin Laden used our presence in Saudi Arabia as a hot button to justify violence but we were invited into that country and, as it turned out, our presence helped rebuff a secular government's invasion of Kuwait. For the life of me, I do not know why we believe that this was an entirely sincere motivation. If we had not been in Saudi Arabia, Bin Laden would have sought his required enemy elsewhere.

 

My point here is that in a despotic religious structure, you cannot assume that the terrorist attacks will cease if we only refrain from "meddling." That assumption gives the despots in these structures entirely too much benefit of the doubt.

 

In any event, we have no choice but to meddle to some degree unless we are willing to let Israel be wiped off of the map and to sacrifice our strategic interests in this region.

[Bettina]

Freedom for who?

 

If someone makes a choice for you' date=' you cannot truly be said to be free to choose.

 

Perhaps it was the meddling itself that was resented, rather than the intended results.[/quote']

 

Could be, but not in all cases. Ask the once professional women in Afghanistan if the Taliban life was their choice. I read about women doctors who suddenly were stripped of their title, forced to wear a head to toe burka, and imprisoned in their homes. Their daughters forced out of school after eight years old... All because they were female.

 

Read the link below...especially section 10.

 

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/afgan/afgtoc.htm

 

I'm glad we meddled and I hope we keep on meddling to stop the spread of Islamofacists.

 

Bettina

[budullewraagh]

A few points:

 

Jim, please do speak for Bush. As you said, it's difficult for him to be articulate. Interpret away!

 

Bettina, your logic makes no sense. If I were to stand on a busy street corner with a microphone and I were to continuously advertise my island as a great place to stay, with no running water, no shelter and daily executions, but different from such terrible places as the Ritz Carlton hotel, how many people do you think would come to my island? No, the average Muslim doesn't join a group that says "Hi, we want you to fight for us, with high likelihood of you dying, in order to try to bother those terrible "free" people and in order to make sure that we can continue to oppress you and your family." Put yourself in the shoes of the average Muslim in, say, Syria. Your government is oppressing you and you hate it. You're poor and if you have a job you make barely enough to survive. What do you do? You join a radical group and get food, shelter and acceptance. Plus, you also kill those people who killed your new best friend's dad.

 

@Jim: Of course terrorists won't stop if we stop. If the US were to become an isolationist state, maybe in 50 years terrorist groups seeking to destroy the US would stop getting support in the form of new members for the reason that the US has done bad things to Muslims. Eventually they would change their goals away from destroying the US and towards other things, but as I said, this would be a long time from now and no politician wants to just back off.

 

It should be understood, however, that every innocent killed in the US' and Israel's "meddlings" legitimizes terrorist attacks against the US and Israel. If I were some guy from Iran and my uncle Mahmoud, an innocent civilian, was killed in some Israeli attack in Lebanon I'd be far more likely to support the fight against Israel than I would otherwise. Had Israel not been self-destructive and actually cared about civilians, it wouldn't have effectively won me over for terrorist groups.

 

Come to think of it, my whole poverty case is mirrored in Freakonomics. Check out the part on crack gangs in Chicago- apparently a great number of these gang members actually really oppose the concept of doing crack. However, because there are great benefits in being in such gangs, they stay.

 

As a footnote, I'd like to commend Sayo for an excellent post.

[Sayonara]

Could be, but not in all cases. Ask the once professional women in Afghanistan if the Taliban life was their choice. I read about women doctors who suddenly were stripped of their title, forced to wear a head to toe burka, and imprisoned in their homes. Their daughters forced out of school after eight years old... All because they were female.

Surely, if anything, that reinforces what I said?

[Bettina]

Surely, if anything, that reinforces what I said?

 

I must have missed something. I don't get what budullewraagh is talking about, I can't find your post that he referenced, and I don't get the meaning of what you just said.

 

I must be tired.

 

Bee

[Chupacabra]

Oh my' date=' I missed that one. You have sharp eyes Basc.

 

Iran... Iraq... they're all the same, right? (chuckle)[/quote']

 

Sorry, I really mixed it up. Yet, there could well be such plans.

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050313-iran-aim.htm

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/22/wnuke22.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/09/22/ixportaltop.html

[Jim]

No, the average Muslim doesn't join a group that says "Hi, we want you to fight for us, with high likelihood of you dying, in order to try to bother those terrible "free" people and in order to make sure that we can continue to oppress you and your family." Put yourself in the shoes of the average Muslim in, say, Syria. Your government is oppressing you and you hate it. You're poor and if you have a job you make barely enough to survive. What do you do? You join a radical group and get food, shelter and acceptance. Plus, you also kill those people who killed your new best friend's dad.

 

One of the things you are completely missing here is the very human ability to perform horrible acts when under the influence of an authority figure. You only have to look as far as the Milgram experiment or a cursory history of the 20th century to know that people will check their morals and even their own self interests at the door when they buy into an authoritarian structure.

 

The Islamic Fascists (sorry, I still don't think we've come up with a better term to describe this subset of the entire Islamic population) use a tried and true combination of authoritarian techniques - suppression of dissent, appeal to the notion of by-gone days of glory (Pol Pot used this one to good effect), acceptance by a group and oppression of opposing view points.

 

Islamic terrorism/facism/whateverism has all of these proven techniques coupled with the power of religion. If you have ever had a religious experience, or at least believed that you have, you'd understand the danger when religion is used to gain and maintain political power. This is not a theoretical concern. Human beings are most capable of manufacturing hell on earth when they think in their arrogance that we can bring heaven to this earth.

 

These young people are seduced and groomed to be heroes and martyrs who will live in heaven. It is a way to become instantly a significant person and go to heaven. You mention poverty as part of the problem, so I’m sure you understand how much it has helped to eliminate Saddam’s reward of first $10K and then $25k was to the families of terrorists:

 

Saddam Hussein has distributed $260,000 to 26 families of Palestinians killed in 29 months of fighting with Israel, including a $10,000 check to the family of a Hamas suicide bomber.

 

In a packed banquet hall on Wednesday, the families came one-by-one to receive their $10,000 checks. A large banner said: "The Arab Baath Party Welcomes the Families of the Martyrs for the Distribution of Blessings of Saddam Hussein."

 

That's a small fortune in poverty-stricken Gaza, reports CBS News Correspondent Robert Berger, and the donations have made him a hero on the Palestinian street. Israel accuses Saddam of financing Palestinian terror.

 

Good thing Saddam is gone, eh?

 

@Jim: Of course terrorists won't stop if we stop.

 

Yes, but you seem to be arguing that terrorism started because of our actions. I think that is wild speculation that ignores the last 1400 years or so of history. I also think that it treats the terrorists almost as subhuman, bereft of the moral responsibility to make their own decisions. You also ignore the comments I quoted from a recognized authority in the field and do not cite any contary authority.

 

This dynamic comes from a conflict within Islam as much as from external forces. The conservative elements of Islam use their religion to suppress the voices of reform and, of course, these elements require a foreign enemy. Bin Laden or someone like him would have found another justification for their rage even if we had never been in Saudi Arabia (in which event, Saddam would no sit happily astride the Kuwaiti and Iraqi oil fields probably already having developed nuclear weapons).

 

If the US were to become an isolationist state, maybe in 50 years terrorist groups seeking to destroy the US would stop getting support in the form of new members for the reason that the US has done bad things to Muslims. Eventually they would change their goals away from destroying the US and towards other things, but as I said, this would be a long time from now and no politician wants to just back off.

 

Heh, this discussion has become like the parable of the five blind men trying to describe an elephant after feeling different sections of the animal. Trying to get to the root causes of these issues just by perusing mass media reports of the last few years is a good way to go completely wrong.

 

Frankly, I'm not too interested in conclusions made on the basis of media reports. To form my opinions, I would want to read someone who has spent their entire life studying the history, language and attitudes of Islam. I've asked before if there is a counterpart to B. Lewis and have had no response nor could I find one with my own research to find an opposing point of view. I was hoping to find someone similarly qualified so that I could see where their POVs diverged. I really could not find a counterpart; therefore, I am inclined to trust his judgments. I've presented you his views on this issue and I've seen no rebuttal or contrary authority. Bottom line: Islam has problems it must sort out or we all will suffer. It is wrongheaded, however comforting, for them or us to think that their problems derive from an external source.

 

It should be understood, however, that every innocent killed in the US' and Israel's "meddlings" legitimizes terrorist attacks against the US and Israel. If I were some guy from Iran and my uncle Mahmoud, an innocent civilian, was killed in some Israeli attack in Lebanon I'd be far more likely to support the fight against Israel than I would otherwise. Had Israel not been self-destructive and actually cared about civilians, it wouldn't have effectively won me over for terrorist groups.

 

I assume you are talking perception, not reality, because I doubt you believe that Israel's recent actions "legitimize" terrorist attacks.

 

What do you think Israel should have done?

[budullewraagh]

No, I never missed the Milgram effect, nor did I miss the Zimbardo effect.

Of course people will put their morals on the back burner if they have to. The thing is, this only happens AFTER they submit to an authority. When they are poor and starving, they are not at the mercy of powerful Islamic extremist leaders. When they realize that they can gain security, stability and acceptance in an extremist group they compromise their morals, just as

the subjects of Milgram's experiment, Zimbardo's Stanford Prison experiment and members of crack gangs in Chicago compromise(d) theirs.

 

I'm not saying that terrorism started because of our actions. What I am saying, however, is that terrorism is a very poorly defined word. On news reports we hear that Iraqi insurgents are "terrorists." This may and may not be true- any of the individuals that reports refer to may actually have no intentions of ever killing civilians and may only fire at enemy soldiers. We also never consider Israeli soldiers to be terrorists, but tell that to the Palestinians and Lebanese, whose children are being killed every day as "collateral" damage. The legitimacy of these claims lessens significantly if you really take a close look into the issues. For example, every time there are civilian casualties, Israel blames "terrorists" for using "human shields." This is not necessarily true in any scenario, but it's a good excuse. On the other hand, Israel is now using cluster missiles and actually asking for a rushed delivery of said missiles so they can use them against Hezbollah. If they actually cared at all about civilians they would use more precise weapons- they claim that Hezbollah hides amongst civilians, so why kill more innocents with more devastating explosive devices? THAT is terrorism, and THAT legitimizes the fight that Hezbollah brings to Israel's doorstep. Again, it's the "if they did it to my uncle Mahmoud, I can do it to them" mentality that is now extremizing the Muslim world. Again, Israel is going out of its way to kill civilians. And really, what do they have to gain from this war? In 1982 they were in Beirut in 2 days. This past month they've gained a few hundred yards. Furthermore, all they've done is ruined the infrastructure of Lebanon- Hezbollah has hardly been hurt. Lebanon is turning into another Iraq, except this time we're seeing a FAR weaker force than the US that is on the offensive. Really, the operation is pretty much doomed to fail, so I have to ask what the point is.

[gcol]

Budelwraagh:

 

......I'm not saying that terrorism started because of our actions. What I am saying, however, is that terrorism is a very poorly defined word.

.

 

Indeed. Terrorism does not come only from the bottom up, but as exemplified by Stalin, (and others, find your own examples if you accept the wider meaning of terrorism) from the top down also. The State can be guilty of terrorism when it is oppressive, dictatorial and espouses exra-judicial execution and population relocation. That might also include the social terrorism of the one child per family dictat of the Chinese authorities.

[Jim]

Budelwraagh:

 

.

 

Indeed. Terrorism does not come only from the bottom up' date=' but as exemplified by Stalin, (and others, find your own examples if you accept the wider meaning of terrorism) from the top down also. The State can be guilty of terrorism when it is oppressive, dictatorial and espouses exra-judicial execution and population relocation. That might also include the social terrorism of the one child per family dictat of the Chinese authorities.[/quote']

 

Indeed. The the label Islamic Terrorism is inadequate to describe the enemy.

[Jim]

Of course people will put their morals on the back burner if they have to. The thing is, this only happens AFTER they submit to an authority. When they are poor and starving, they are not at the mercy of powerful Islamic extremist leaders. When they realize that they can gain security, stability and acceptance in an extremist group they compromise their morals, just as the subjects of Milgram's experiment, Zimbardo's Stanford Prison experiment and members of crack gangs in Chicago compromise(d) theirs.

 

Some Muslims are born into authoritarian strucutures.

 

I'm not saying that terrorism started because of our actions. What I am saying, however, is that terrorism is a very poorly defined word.

 

I completely agree and have offered alternative labels for the enemy in the past.

 

 

Again, it's the "if they did it to my uncle Mahmoud, I can do it to them" mentality that is now extremizing the Muslim world.

 

This is where we disagree. What is making the Muslim world extreme is their own history and how they are coming to grips with their relative economic, military and scientific failures in light of their prior dominant position. It all begs the question "what went wrong?'

 

It is their answer to this question which divides Muslim culture.

 

Again, Israel is going out of its way to kill civilians. And really, what do they have to gain from this war? In 1982 they were in Beirut in 2 days. This past month they've gained a few hundred yards. Furthermore, all they've done is ruined the infrastructure of Lebanon- Hezbollah has hardly been hurt. Lebanon is turning into another Iraq, except this time we're seeing a FAR weaker force than the US that is on the offensive. Really, the operation is pretty much doomed to fail, so I have to ask what the point is.

 

You didn't answer my question. What would you have done in Israel's place?

[Pangloss]

No' date=' I never missed the Milgram effect, nor did I miss the Zimbardo effect.

Of course people will put their morals on the back burner if they have to. The thing is, this only happens AFTER they submit to an authority. When they are poor and starving, they are not at the mercy of powerful Islamic extremist leaders. When they realize that they can gain security, stability and acceptance in an extremist group they compromise their morals, just as

the subjects of Milgram's experiment, Zimbardo's Stanford Prison experiment and members of crack gangs in Chicago compromise(d) theirs.

 

I'm not saying that terrorism started because of our actions. What I am saying, however, is that terrorism is a very poorly defined word. On news reports we hear that Iraqi insurgents are "terrorists." This may and may not be true- any of the individuals that reports refer to may actually have no intentions of ever killing civilians and may only fire at enemy soldiers. We also never consider Israeli soldiers to be terrorists, but tell that to the Palestinians and Lebanese, whose children are being killed every day as "collateral" damage. The legitimacy of these claims lessens significantly if you really take a close look into the issues. For example, every time there are civilian casualties, Israel blames "terrorists" for using "human shields." This is not necessarily true in any scenario, but it's a good excuse. On the other hand, Israel is now using cluster missiles and actually asking for a rushed delivery of said missiles so they can use them against Hezbollah. If they actually cared at all about civilians they would use more precise weapons- they claim that Hezbollah hides amongst civilians, so why kill more innocents with more devastating explosive devices? THAT is terrorism, and THAT legitimizes the fight that Hezbollah brings to Israel's doorstep. Again, it's the "if they did it to my uncle Mahmoud, I can do it to them" mentality that is now extremizing the Muslim world. Again, Israel is going out of its way to kill civilians. And really, what do they have to gain from this war? In 1982 they were in Beirut in 2 days. This past month they've gained a few hundred yards. Furthermore, all they've done is ruined the infrastructure of Lebanon- Hezbollah has hardly been hurt. Lebanon is turning into another Iraq, except this time we're seeing a FAR weaker force than the US that is on the offensive. Really, the operation is pretty much doomed to fail, so I have to ask what the point is.[/quote']

 

I'm actually pretty sympathetic to this, right up to the point where you start talking about throwing in the towel. What's the point? Doomed to fail? "Another Iraq"? Wow. Why bother to get out of bed in the morning? Why don't we just slit our throats right now?

 

It isn't just you, either -- that's the entire Democratic party line. We're doomed to fail, we cannot possibly succeed, and so we should not try.

 

I guess my question to that position is: How's that working out so far? I mean, that's what we've been doing for most of the last 50 years, right? We didn't invade Kuwait. We didn't invade Afghanistan in the 1980s. We didn't stop the Taliban in the 1990s. And yet we paid the price for that avoidance on 9/11.

 

I'm no right-winger and I don't agree with our reasons for invading Iraq. But dammit, I REFUSE to throw in the towel, especially after only 2500 casualties. If we can't handle a bloody nose then we have no right to call ourselves lovers of freedom. EXPLOITERS of freedom -- of the freedom our ancestors won for us with their blood -- is what we would be then.

[aguy2]

The Islamic Fascists (sorry' date=' I still don't think we've come up with a better term to describe this subset of the entire Islamic population) [/quote']

 

The more I think about the appropriate nomenclature for our adversaries the more I agree to that something "Islamic Fascists" would do.

 

It may seem like a small thing, but do you think a term like "Fascist Muslims" might be just a little better? The term would seem to make it more clear that our adversary is 1st and foremost a "Fascist" that also happens to be a "Muslim". I think reversing the order of priority would tend to re-enforce the attitude that we are at war with a powerful radical minority, and that we are not at war with all those that suspect that Gabrial's messages to Mohammad are legitimate and worthy.

aguy2

[Saryctos]

No' date=' I never missed the Milgram effect, nor did I miss the Zimbardo effect.

Of course people will put their morals on the back burner if they have to. The thing is, this only happens AFTER they submit to an authority. When they are poor and starving, they are not at the mercy of powerful Islamic extremist leaders. When they realize that they can gain security, stability and acceptance in an extremist group they compromise their morals, just as

the subjects of Milgram's experiment, Zimbardo's Stanford Prison experiment and members of crack gangs in Chicago compromise(d) theirs.

 

I'm not saying that terrorism started because of our actions. What I am saying, however, is that terrorism is a very poorly defined word. On news reports we hear that Iraqi insurgents are "terrorists." This may and may not be true- any of the individuals that reports refer to may actually have no intentions of ever killing civilians and may only fire at enemy soldiers. We also never consider Israeli soldiers to be terrorists, but tell that to the Palestinians and Lebanese, whose children are being killed every day as "collateral" damage. The legitimacy of these claims lessens significantly if you really take a close look into the issues. For example, every time there are civilian casualties, Israel blames "terrorists" for using "human shields." This is not necessarily true in any scenario, but it's a good excuse. On the other hand, Israel is now using cluster missiles and actually asking for a rushed delivery of said missiles so they can use them against Hezbollah. If they actually cared at all about civilians they would use more precise weapons- they claim that Hezbollah hides amongst civilians, so why kill more innocents with more devastating explosive devices? THAT is terrorism, and THAT legitimizes the fight that Hezbollah brings to Israel's doorstep. Again, it's the "if they did it to my uncle Mahmoud, I can do it to them" mentality that is now extremizing the Muslim world. Again, Israel is going out of its way to kill civilians. And really, what do they have to gain from this war? In 1982 they were in Beirut in 2 days. This past month they've gained a few hundred yards. Furthermore, all they've done is ruined the infrastructure of Lebanon- Hezbollah has hardly been hurt. Lebanon is turning into another Iraq, except this time we're seeing a FAR weaker force than the US that is on the offensive. Really, the operation is pretty much doomed to fail, so I have to ask what the point is.[/quote']

 

I hope that when you say 'x' legitimizes something, that you are saying that from their point of view, and not yours. The idea that any civilian casualties gives their kin a legitimate right to take reprisal killings is something I cannot grasp.

 

Also, Cluster missles will have less of an impact on the physical structures of the towns. Infact they are more than likely the safest way to shred the enemy and their vehicles but not go into the homes of civilians. Rather that, then a 30 foot diameter crater that destabilizaes the foundation of an appartment complex both killing it's inhabetants and making the whole thing have to be rebuilt.

 

@Jim: Please don't appologize for your viewpoints, I would hope that people should feel free to speak their minds on this forum. Appologizing for something you believe to be true is exactly the kind of things that liberals want, but noone needs.

 

At this point in time I think the best way to get a lasting resolution to this problem is for Isreal to just occupy everything. They would probably have a much easier time cleaning out terrorist organizations in a city under their control, than having to deal with the goddamn UN everytime they cross a border. Maybe they would give control back to the occupied gov'ts, but they may not want to. One thing this would definately do for the countries in the surrounding area is solidify them as a nation state. They may not be Isreal to most, but they sure as hell would be "the new Lebanon".

[mooeypoo]

That's why they do all they can to establish oppressive, Taliban-like theocracies in the Islamic world. But there's a big difference between that and going outside the Islamic world to attack others. They attack us not because we're a free society, but because they see us as meddling in their society.

I only half agree with you (I tend to do that a lot don't I? ) == here's why:

 

1. Islamic Terrorists existed long before anyone "meddled" with middle-eastern states' affairs.

2. That is not what they are FLAT OUT SAYING in their own media.

3. They also attack states that are seemingly FOR them (like Spain and Egypt).

 

For instance; The islamic fundamentalists are AGAINST (virtually HATE) egypt, since they view it as "folding" to western civilization, and giving up their values. Look up historic remarks from terrorists (Bin Laden might be the current threat, but he wasn't always that.. many others used to threaten our existance, some of which were Hammas, Islamic Jihad, Hizbullah and so on).

 

Again - Claiming this is the ONLY reason is oversimplifying things, and as I keep repeating, the matters are not as "black and white" as many of the governments (specifically, as it seems, american leadership) wants us to believe. It's very deep into the GRAY area, taking many issues that fundamentalist muslims take advantage of to promote their fighting.

 

Let me ask you, though, a different approach of a question:

 

Let's assume that America will withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, and Israel will give back the "occupied" territories (go back to the 1967 borders, giving up Golan Heights, Half of Jerusalem, Gaza strip and the West Bank) -- Do you REALLY think the terrorism will stop?

 

I can tell you out of sad experience that it most likely won't. In 2000 (when I joined the military, actually, days before my bootcamp), the Second Intifada started violently with the abduction of three soldiers in the lebaneze border, and palestinian riots in Gaza and the West bank.

A few days before that (I will try to bring sources, I don't have much time to look it up.. I promise I will though, and you can also look it up yourselves so that you see I'm not biased in this ) Prime Minister Barak made an offer to the Palestinians: In that peace offer, a very major issue was addressed. He offered them to take half of jerusalem.

 

The palestinian leader - Yasser Araffat - not only refused that offer (Which, basically, is his GOAL, remember? Half of Jerusalem including west bank, and Gaza he already had at that time with almost full control, part of steps to give it completely without sacrificing israeli safety) - he also declared INTIFADA on Israel.

 

We can debate why he did that, but it is besides the point at the moment. He did. The point is that while it is true the fight of muslims is about western civilization "meddling" in their affairs, the bigger point is that no matter WHAT western civilization does right now, it will be concidered meddling. In their view (and again: It's THEIR words), the fact we promote naked women (bathing suits, tv shows, etc etc), and the "western way" is taking over the world, is complete and utter blasphemy. It is something they vowed to fight against.

 

So yes, it's true, the fight is more than "Our freedom vs. Their oppression". But it IS a lot about the western civilization.

 

Sadly, I doubt there is an action we as "western world" can do (or stop doing) to make the muslim fundamentalists say "Oh, great, NOW you stopped meddling, and we can sit down like human beings and TALK". Sadly, I don't see that happening.

 

~moo

[Jim]

@Jim: Please don't appologize for your viewpoints' date=' I would hope that people should feel free to speak their minds on this forum. Appologizing for something you believe to be true is exactly the kind of things that liberals want, but noone needs.[/quote']

 

Heh, well, it wasn't exactly the sincerest of apologies.

[budullewraagh]

Jim, what are you saying about the authoritarian structures? Please elaborate.

 

And no, I completely disagree with your belief that Muslims now are just pissed off about their alleged lack of economic, military and scientific failures in recent years. Do you honestly think that a sort of "bad sportsmanship" stance would make people become this extreme? Especially when they have so many other reasons, namely their exploitation by the Western world? No way man.

 

If I were in Israel's position I CERTAINLY would not have invaded Lebanon. When I compared it to Iraq I was pointing out the cost (in lives and in money) of the entire operation. Yes, there has been some success in Iraq. Regardless, the cost has been tremendous. Now take that kind of situation and apply it to Israel. Do you honestly think that they will ever be able to fund an operation on that scale? Hezbollah is extremely skilled in the practice of waging war with Israel and it shows- Israel has hardly made any progress in the first month of fighting and Hezbollah continues to fire rockets into Israel. What would I have done? I would have negotiated. I would have asked the UN for some help. Why? Hezbollah is far less likely to attack UN troops than its sworn enemy. What else? I would have done what Israel has been very skilled at in its history- I would have hunted down leaders of Hezbollah and killed them. I would not have invaded Lebanon without any possibility of eliminating the enemy ESPECIALLY if it were to result in the extremization of a population. Think of it now, Pangloss- you say they should fight because it can yield positive results, just like in Iraq. I say that while Israel may and may not damage Hezbollah, they are also going to make a population support Hezbollah even more and even effectively recruit more Hezbollah militants. One step forward, two steps back. There are better ways to fight- make the Lebanese people hate Hezbollah. The war is uniting Lebanese civilians (kind of like what happens in every nation, the US included- consider 9/11) against Israel and in favor of Hezbollah. Once again, it's the "they're screwing us, so let's do it back to them" mentality.

 

Plus, the Lebanese believe that Hezbollah is actually defending them, which is actually true, considering the whole issue of Israel totally disregarding civilians. Cluster missiles are very imprecise and have a far greater area of effect than other forms of weapons, hands down. Incidentally, under the Arms Export Control Act, it's illegal for the US to give weapons to a nation that uses such weapons in violation of UN resolutions. Also, under the provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the sale of weapons to nations that "engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights" is prohibited.

 

Anyway, as far as occupation goes, it's ridiculous. Israel is still occupying the West Bank and that is what makes Palestinians hate them. Interestingly, since the election of Hamas members to the Palestinian government, there has been a cease-fire between Israel and militant Hamas. Well, aside from that week-long artillery barrage of Palestinian neighborhoods presented on World News Tonight (the reporter actually flinched several times as artillery shells exploded near him) in response to the kidnapping of Israeli Corporal Gilad Shalit, but that's it. Anyway, the point is that because of this ceasefire there IS hope for a lasting peace. Now all we need to do is stop giving them reasons to hate us and hope that we're lucky. A good way to ensure our success is to help Palestinians- that way, instead of us being at the root of Uncle Mahmoud's death, we'll be the cool people who got Uncle Mahmoud a job and a footing in life. Hey, it's better to receive aid from the US than Iran and the like, which give aid on the condition that recipients join and fight for extremist groups.

 

Also, I'd like to add that Arafat was just about as good of a representative of Palestine as Ann Coulter would be of the current US population.

[aguy2]

At this point in time I think the best way to get a lasting resolution to this problem is for Isreal to just occupy everything.

 

They may not be Isreal to most' date=' but they sure as hell would be "the new Lebanon".[/quote']

 

As in a 'unified secular Israeli/Lebonnese state'? That would be a pretty radical step, but it just might work. In the long term the 'de-zionation' of the Israeli state, through absorbtion of neighboring Muslims, Christians, and Druze, might prove to be a viable solution.

aguy2

[budullewraagh]

Like they'd ever be able to annex Lebanon.

[MM]

I only have faith in civilized people' date=' not terrorists. Check the link below.

 

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS22424.pdf

 

Ok, Now were back to square one. What should Israel do to protect its people?

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

Sorry for the delay, been away fishing

 

It's true that Lebanon and Syria stringently adhere to the boycott but they are the only ones in the Arab League and I also wrote that Israel would include trade in the peace agreements (with all parties in the now ongoing conflict) not just for economic purposes but for the future protection of it's people. I think Israel has played out it's military card, now it's time they also use their wits with a full spectrum of measures.

[Bettina]

Sorry for the delay' date=' been away fishing

 

It's true that Lebanon and Syria stringently adhere to the boycott but they are the only ones in the Arab League and I also wrote that Israel would include trade in the peace agreements (with all parties in the now ongoing conflict) not just for economic purposes but for the future protection of it's people. I think Israel has played out it's military card, now it's time they also use their wits with a full spectrum of measures.[/quote']

 

Except for very minimal trade between Egypt and Jordan who have peace treaties with Israel, I know of no other Arab states trading with Israel. No matter what measures Israel takes they will still be hated just because they live there.

 

By Israel playing that military card, it got what it wanted... a U.N. army of peacekeepers to patrol the Lebanon/Israel border. This will make it harder for Hezbollah to launch rocket attacks against Israel without bringing condemnation from the U.N. security council.

 

I know I kept asking you "what should Israel do now" and you failed to give me an answer but its only because I have no good answer myself....

 

I hope you let those fish go after you caught them.

 

Bettina

[MM]

Except for very minimal trade between Egypt and Jordan who have peace treaties with Israel' date=' I know of no other Arab states trading with Israel. No matter what measures Israel takes they will still be hated just because they live there.

 

By Israel playing that military card, it got what it wanted... a U.N. army of peacekeepers to patrol the Lebanon/Israel border. This will make it harder for Hezbollah to launch rocket attacks against Israel without bringing condemnation from the U.N. security council.

 

I know I kept asking you "what should Israel do now" and you failed to give me an answer but its only because I have no good answer myself....

 

I hope you let those fish go after you caught them.

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

What is it you don't understand, I did give you an answer what they should do now. The results may certainly not be seen until long from now but that I thought were understood.

 

Do I think the war could have been avoided, yes but that is another question although related cause what I'm looking for is active measurements for avoiding the next war. This is what I mean by Israel having played out the military card. A big military is not enough of a deterrent for these types of conflicts.

[Bettina]

What is it you don't understand' date=' I did give you an answer what they should do now. The results may certainly not be seen until long from now but that I thought were understood.

 

Do I think the war could have been avoided, yes but that is another question although related cause what I'm looking for is active measurements for avoiding the next war. This is what I mean by Israel having played out the military card. A big military is not enough of a deterrent for these types of conflicts.[/quote']

 

I did understand. I was referring to your first question in your earlier posts that you never answered. The war could not have been avoided because rockets were being fired into Israel from Lebanon. With Hamas on one side and then Hezbollah coming into play on the other was too dangerous to leave unchecked. Complaining to the U.N. and waiting for an answer would have taken months from my short experience. Israel stands alone in this world and they rightfully fear for their existance. Doing what they did was the only thing that gets the U.N. to wake up.

 

Your second question on what Israel should do now is easy. Pack up, leave, and let the U.N. handle Lebanon per the agreements. You have to at least do that but I don't believe the next war can be avoided. Fanatical Islam has no rules but the sword. Thats all they know.

 

Bee