In article <
[email protected]>,
"Tom Kunich" <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Greg, I finally came to the conclusion yesterday that what these people are
> doing is trying to pretend that THEY have no responsibility for the
> terrorism in the world. The same people who proclaim loudly that queers
> should have the right to "marry" other queers (being a homosexual is a death
> penalty in Islam), that women should have the right to wear anything that
> they like, that pay big bucks for satellite TV to watch "Friends"
> demonstrating every possible insult to the conservative Muslim populations
> of the world in their own languages and who think that "Guess" jeans (ain't
> they French?) that show a young girls ass-crack aren't the real cause of
> terrorism and instead blame it on pumping oil out of the ground which has
> brought about more social advancement in the Arab world than all past
> history.
You have -got- to be joking. If you spent the least amount of time
looking into the Islamic terrorist movement, you might discover that the
causes that are overwhelmingly listed are US foreign policy, US trade
policy and US support of Israel. Do the Islamic fundies hate western
culture? Of course they do! But so do Christian fundies. There is no way in
hell that the number one reason for Islamic terrorists is western culture.
Christ, think about why they attacked the World TRADE Center (twice,
remember?), and not Universal Studios or Tower Records. Don't you think
that building had some symbolism to them? Do you think Mohammed Atta yelled
out, "Take that, Rachel and Ross!" as the planes piled into the buildings
that day? To ascribe the motivations of al Qaeda or any other serious
terrorist organization to "Friends" is the most preposterous thing you've
come up with yet, even as a goddamn analogy.
So what's the solution to the culture issue, T? Women back in the home,
maybe even burqas? That worked wonders in Afghanistan.
Is it possible that by invading Iraq, Bush has inspired even more people
to take up the anti-US terorism cause? And he was able to supply them with
plenty of targets in Iraq, and they don't even have to do any sneaking into
the US to get those targets. Thoughtful.
Do you think that stunt Bush pulled last week where he gave Ariel Sharon
even more than he wanted won't have some effect? You know, Sharon seems to
be hinting that Arafat is the next to go - do you think that'll calm the
Palestinians down, Tom? (By the way, back in that Update on French
anti-Americanism thread, you tried to thoroughly lambaste me for saying
that the Iraqi people are glad that Saddam is gone, but that if we don't
leave soon, they'll take up arms against us. Soooo, after the events in
Fallujah a couple weeks ago (and in plenty of other places since), whattaya
say - maybe I wasn't so far off the mark, hmmm?)
Social advancement, in the Arab world? Sure, lots of US dough flows into
the Arab world due to the oil trade - how much positive effect does that
have on the general population of those countries? Or does it go to a
select few and the governments of those countries, who keep the population
in line with brutal and oppressive security? Ever consider why Osama bin
Laden has the house of Saud as one of his primary objectives?
You want root causes of terror against the west, that first, watershed
event? Try The Brits and US helping the Shah of Iran overthrow the
immensely popular Mohammed Mossadegh in August 1953.
> The very lifestyle that Liberals think they have improved the world with are
> the root cause of terrorism. It isn't SUV's driving down American roads - it
> is the sky black with airlines flying them all over the world to demonstrate
> their "enlightenment" to the downtrodden populations of third world
> countries.
>
> What it all boils down to is the Liberal belief that they are right no
> matter what history has to say about it. They will regale you with the dream
> of how they stopped the war in Vietnam but never mention the 3 million
> deaths the communists committed after the American pullout. Nor the 4
> million deaths in Cambodia or the 2 million in Laos. To the Liberals,
> pulling out of Vietnam was good regardless of the cost to anyone else. And
> they truly don't believe that the blood is on their hands.
How many would have died if the war had continued the way it been fought
from the first? They never really tried to "win". It was always an attempt
to maintain the status quo. Suppose they had tried to actually win the way
Nixon suggested? You know, he wanted to drop an atomic bomb or several on
Hanoi. How many casualties from that? What about from the retaliation that
would have been inevitable from the North Vietnamese' allies/backers? Would
that blood be acceptable, or would it, too, be on "Liberal's hands"?
Is there any evidence that the US being in Vietnam had any restraining
effect on Pol Pot in Cambodia? Of course not.
Chile? Guatemala? Yeah, you said that Chile was "only about 30,000".
Guatemala seems to have been at least 200,000 - and that's just the ones
that died while Rios Mont was in charge. The deaths kept on rolling after
he was eased out. Did Liberals cause those? John Negroponte still asserts
that there were no death squads. Strange that CIA guys seem to disagree
with him there.
Since we supplied the weapons to the Afghan rebels when they were
fighting the Russians, and then said, "See ya" once the Russians were
defeated, don't the people who supported that effort have just a bit of
blood on their hands, courtesy the Taliban? Not all the muj turned into
Taliban, so perhaps if there'd been a little more support for the guys who
became the Northern Alliance, the Taliban wouldn't have got power... After
Russia was gone, the powers that be just didn't give a damn anymore.
> The problem doesn't require a commission. You only have to read Osama's
> declaration of war against the USA. He said that when he saw that 10
> Americans killed in Somalia and the Americans run away he knew that he could
> win.
>
> Funny thing that the Liberals aren't advertising that so much.
Whose voices were the loudest in clamoring for the admin. to withdraw
from Somalia after that, Tom? Conservatives. They said the cost outweighed
any benefit to the US. Clinton should have ignored them, since we were
already there.
Funny to read you going on about "Liberals not wanting to take
responsibility" for their actions in the causes of terrorism, as you seem
to do a pretty damn good job of that yourself. Thanks for the glimpse into
your twisted psyche, Tom.
--
tanx,
Howard
Q: Can we call it a quagmire yet?
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
