This guy's nuts

[heyjude]

". For hundreds of years Islam was on the vanguard of advancement and progression, but in the last 200 years or so virtually all progress has stopped. What went wrong? Failed leadership and religious indoctrination."

What went wrong was European conquest of the ME. And ensuing destruction, corruption, and exploitation. When Europeans pulled out, the US moved in. And we are responsible for the conditions in Iraq.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

What went wrong was European conquest of the ME. And ensuing destruction, corruption, and exploitation. When Europeans pulled out, the US moved in. And we are responsible for the conditions in Iraq.

This is incredible. The history of Islamic defeats at the hands of the West --in trade, technology, printing, science, philosophy, political development, modernization, diplomacy, war-- stretches back to the Ottonan Sultans of 600 years ago.

Things have gone badly wrong in the Muslim Middle East and compared with its millennial rival, Christendom, the world of Islam had become poor, weak, and ignorant. And with the European imports of fascism and nationalism, the Arabs (much like you) blame everyone but themselves for their failures. This includes blaming Britain, the Jews (Israel after 1948), and the U.S. today.

The answer is for Muslims to abandon grievance and victimhood, settle their differences, and join their talents, energies and resources in a common endeavor to again make the region a major center of civilization. Not blaming the U.S.

 

[jb_1430]

If the US had been occupied and governed by a foreign country for 150 years, setting up puppets to do their bidding, and exploiting every thing we had of value, how do you think you would feel? How would you feel if every time we tried to get out from under, we were bombed, our friends and families killed, our homes destroyed?

Do you realize that Saudia Arabia has been ruled by the house of Saud for most of the last 3 centuries? Our occupation consist of one Air force base in Saudi Arabia, we are there at the invitation of the government so its not an occupation,and we have never bombed them. AND we could only be so lucky if we could get them to do our bidding. And we dont exploit anything of value, we buy it. They exploited us by allowing us to build the oil industry in Saudi Arabia, and then nationalizing it for pennies on the dollar.

 

[Dr.Who]

State Dpmt: Tancredo ‘absolutely crazy.’ Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) today stood by his previous argument that the U.S. should threat to bomb Mecca in order to “deter” future attacks on the homeland. Tom Casey, a deputy spokesman for the State Department, told CNN that the congressman’s comments were “reprehensible” and “absolutely crazy.” thinkprogress.org

This is a perfect way to alienate 10 billion Islamists. Only 1% of muslims are radicals. Tancredo is going to make sure they all are. Keep in mind, it was a Bushie that said he was crazy.

He is crazy. But the extremists are not made to be extremists because we have done anything legitimately wrong to them. If that were the case they would not be extreme - they would be rational. Threatening to bomb Mecca with any sincerity would make them our enemies but they would not be extremists.

Extremists are not made by our actions. They are made by the propaganda and recruitment practices of other extremists.

 

[vyo476]

Would you prefer preemption?

I think I'd prefer not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Look, this is war. You either have to fight it 100% or you don't fight it at all. We can win this war militarily. We still do military well, we just don't do politics and bureaucracy well.

Yes, this is "war." In this war, we can't seem to tell who the enemy combatants, where they are, or when they'll strike. This is not war in the classical sense, it's guerrilla war. I've studied guerrilla warfare - you can't beat it ideologically.

When did we start insisting that we concern ourselves with ancient cities and holy sites? And secondly, a threat to bomb Mecca might actually make some of these "innocent bystanders" stand up to (what they claim) the minority of Islamic fundamentalists.

Let me get this straight. You expect to tell a whole mess of people who haven't done anything actively against the United States that we're going to bomb them and their holiest cities, and have them then turn around and do what we want.

Let's stop and think for a second how well that'd work with Americans.

We really can't "alienate" the Muslim community any more. They already hate us for some reason that they can't even agree on (only that it has nothing to do with their religion and something to do with our foreign policy).

Maybe it's because we've been treating them like children or second-class citizens in their own countries for the better part of a century.

If I was a peaceful Muslim and the U.S. provided me with a choice of allowing the terrorists to continue their war against the West with the possibility of my holy site being bombed or starting to take on the extremists in my own religion to preserve said holy site, I have a very easy decision.

I find it impossible to believe that a United States Marine would give in so easily to intimidation.

We're providing them with a choice. Either continue to allow the radical elements of your religion wage their war against the West but expect a serious response or actually do something about it before your religion is destoryed.

No, we're wrapping our hands around their sovereignty a little bit more and reaffirming that violations of our country will result in unilateral violations of whoever the hell we want.

If they are stupid enough to attack us after we issue a warning that says "if we are attacked by people in the name of Islam, we will take out Mecca" then they deserve to have their holy site obliterated.

Those who did the attacking deserve to lose everything. The rest of the Islamic community that did nothing do not deserve to lose anything.

Why? This is nothing new. Yes, our society has grown incredibly soft and possibly has lost the will to fight wars, but all options must remain on the table. Nothing else is working.

Perhaps our society has lost the will for indiscriminate slaughter and destruction. Perhaps our society dislikes the idea of launching an attack on a city full of innocent people as retribution for the actions of a few people who aren't even from there. Perhaps we, at least, should learn to reject barbarism - even when our enemies fail to do so.