Intellectually chicken. Why can’t American conservatives present a coherent vision of the world without hatred, wars and demographic aquiescence. Are they so stuck on throwing the flag over the lies, deceit, stinking excrement and skulduggery of the Bush maladministration? What is their plan? Fighting against healthcare, education and fighting for wars?
Granted the liberal vision requires taxes, but it can be done. Without taxes we get the theoretical halcyon of the conservatives — Somalia, why don’t they move there. Why depend on publicly educated citizens, roads, dams, sewers, and safe drinking water. These people can go straight-away to Somalia and stop living a life of hypocracy. In Somalia, there is no worry about wasting your taxes on a bunch of taxpayer funded crap like education and roads.
Ed,
Your hated and ranting against conservatives has reached a point where serious dialog with you about it is pointless.
You lack of understanding of the facets of liberalism and conservatism, their changes, application in politics and social applications and beliefs is only trumped by your outright hated of conservatives to the point of blindness.
As in your last post regarding this same topic (though it at least had some substance) you refuse to consider anything other then you non-factual, unable to back up bias and seething hatred that once again comes through clearly here. I used to think you bought some decent ideas and debate to the table, but now it is obvious your intellectual immaturely prohibits any meaningful debate.
Ed,
Your hated and ranting against conservatives has reached a point where serious dialog with you about it is pointless.
You lack of understanding of the facets of liberalism and conservatism, their changes, application in politics and social applications and beliefs is only trumped by your outright hated of conservatives to the point of blindness.
As in your last post regarding this same topic (though it at least had some substance) you refuse to consider anything other then you non-factual, unable to back up bias and seething hatred that once again comes through clearly here. I used to think you bought some decent ideas and debate to the table, but now it is obvious your intellectual immaturely prohibits any meaningful debate.
Yes Alpha, I am very angry with conservatives. Many have hidden behind the flag and and have a very large segment of this country’s population believing in intelligent design, Bush’s was in Iraq is something patriotic and that global warming is the figment of imaginative science. Why is there an alliance between fiscal conservatives and the so called fundamentalist “Christians?” Are education and income earnings similar? Many conservatives are used to what they call “liberal wimps.” People who got the sand kicked in their face. People called wimps because of civil disobedience. I am not a wimp.
But that is only since the start of the battle for civil rights and the Viet Nam war, which in many ways was a liberal war. This is only a couple of generations, and yet the modern American conservative has forgotten or never experienced many liberals who woul be just as aggressive in standing up for a position as they themselves have been. I have had friends in the miltary and a friends son die in Iraq (3rd generation marine corps).
There appears to be two threads in human culture and human history; one that is liberal and one that is conservative and sometimes reactionary. These threads seem to be defining limits for human ways of life, which includes the great middle. Liberals have created Democracy and have had many proposed plans for the betterment of humanity. In some of those cases conservatives allowed those things to happen. I am asking “are conservatives ready to be initiators of a plan that would better humanity and this planet?” If so what is it?
The lack of plan(s) coupled with the waste of human lives in Iraq, is exceptionally frustrating. Most conservatives want to talk about tax cuts (that’s when I think of a crap hole like Somalia) when there is a war going on that quite frankly sucks.
I know you were in the military, this may surprise you but I am glad you survived what ever action you saw. We are closer in our political viewpoints, than I am to a Kuwaiti liberal. I am not sure why this is lost here. I want a conservative to open up about any plan they have, or know of, that would better humanity. My experiences indicate, that most conservatives will kick sand in the faces of “polite” liberals. That is why I have not been polite.
We are now engaged in an economic war with China over global markets and planetary leadership, and we must, I believe, do so while addressing global warming. We can’t treat the potential oxidation of coal for three hundred years as a resource, under these conditions, nor can can we, to some degree, treat oil the same way. All this and some idiot war infuriating the Islamic world. If there is some thing Bush will unite and continue to incite, is the Islamic practitioners, Shi’a and Sunni, in a unified hatred of all that is American, liberal and conservative.
In the past, conservatives were helpful in questioning some of the utopias, pie in the sky and social blunders such as attempts to create a true communist world which ended with the ascension of Stalin (who was worse than the attempt) in the USSR and the death of Mao Tse Tung in China. Why is it so difficult to answer the question, even in a general sense. Perhaps answering in parts would be easier. What would America do to face this future?
I am ultimately pragmatic. Anything useful and hopefully without mass casualties, will be supported by me with all vigor. A dialectic could be helpful, it has been in the past, at least in the west. Why don’t conservatives present an idea? I do not hate conservatives. If you and Mitch, as well as others, do not have a plan. Guess what — I do as many liberals do, and I will write it out for you. I am not afraid to present a vision in the forum of public debate. Now belly up or button up yer britches and skedaddle. (not written with hatred)
Yes Alpha, I am very angry with conservatives. Many have hidden behind the flag and and have a very large segment of this country’s population believing in intelligent design, Bush’s was in Iraq is something patriotic and that global warming is the figment of imaginative science. Why is there an alliance between fiscal conservatives and the so called fundamentalist “Christians?” Are education and income earnings similar? Many conservatives are used to what they call “liberal wimps.” People who got the sand kicked in their face. People called wimps because of civil disobedience. I am not a wimp.
But that is only since the start of the battle for civil rights and the Viet Nam war, which in many ways was a liberal war. This is only a couple of generations, and yet the modern American conservative has forgotten or never experienced many liberals who woul be just as aggressive in standing up for a position as they themselves have been. I have had friends in the miltary and a friends son die in Iraq (3rd generation marine corps).
There appears to be two threads in human culture and human history; one that is liberal and one that is conservative and sometimes reactionary. These threads seem to be defining limits for human ways of life, which includes the great middle. Liberals have created Democracy and have had many proposed plans for the betterment of humanity. In some of those cases conservatives allowed those things to happen. I am asking “are conservatives ready to be initiators of a plan that would better humanity and this planet?” If so what is it?
The lack of plan(s) coupled with the waste of human lives in Iraq, is exceptionally frustrating. Most conservatives want to talk about tax cuts (that’s when I think of a crap hole like Somalia) when there is a war going on that quite frankly sucks.
I know you were in the military, this may surprise you but I am glad you survived what ever action you saw. We are closer in our political viewpoints, than I am to a Kuwaiti liberal. I am not sure why this is lost here. I want a conservative to open up about any plan they have, or know of, that would better humanity. My experiences indicate, that most conservatives will kick sand in the faces of “polite” liberals. That is why I have not been polite.
We are now engaged in an economic war with China over global markets and planetary leadership, and we must, I believe, do so while addressing global warming. We can’t treat the potential oxidation of coal for three hundred years as a resource, under these conditions, nor can can we, to some degree, treat oil the same way. All this and some idiot war infuriating the Islamic world. If there is some thing Bush will unite and continue to incite, is the Islamic practitioners, Shi’a and Sunni, in a unified hatred of all that is American, liberal and conservative.
In the past, conservatives were helpful in questioning some of the utopias, pie in the sky and social blunders such as attempts to create a true communist world which ended with the ascension of Stalin (who was worse than the attempt) in the USSR and the death of Mao Tse Tung in China. Why is it so difficult to answer the question, even in a general sense. Perhaps answering in parts would be easier. What would America do to face this future?
I am ultimately pragmatic. Anything useful and hopefully without mass casualties, will be supported by me with all vigor. A dialectic could be helpful, it has been in the past, at least in the west. Why don’t conservatives present an idea? I do not hate conservatives. If you and Mitch, as well as others, do not have a plan. Guess what — I do as many liberals do, and I will write it out for you. I am not afraid to present a vision in the forum of public debate. Now belly up or button up yer britches and skedaddle. (not written with hatred)
Ed,
Vitriol is a sure sign of intellectual depravity. Suggesting people who hold views contrary yours be relegated to a place where they would almost certainly be “cleansed” from the earth is unjustifiable.
Yet, Ed, you have achieved this void. The evidence is your yearning to send conservative Americans to Mogadishu, a place where “your opposition” can wallow in low taxes, absent education, un-potable water, and, presumably, where they can try to survive among people who would sooner drag American carcasses through the streets than look at them.
Funny? I pity those who would think so.
Absurd?
Abso-f*****g-lutely.
Your acid rhetoric reveals your nature. It grows from the idiocy that spawned Ward Churchill’s spew. You don’t want dialog. You want to inflame.
[Now belly up or button up yer britches and skedaddle. (not written with hatred)]
I’ll be here long after you leave.
Cheers,
Ed,
Vitriol is a sure sign of intellectual depravity. Suggesting people who hold views contrary yours be relegated to a place where they would almost certainly be “cleansed” from the earth is unjustifiable.
Yet, Ed, you have achieved this void. The evidence is your yearning to send conservative Americans to Mogadishu, a place where “your opposition” can wallow in low taxes, absent education, un-potable water, and, presumably, where they can try to survive among people who would sooner drag American carcasses through the streets than look at them.
Funny? I pity those who would think so.
Absurd?
Abso-f*****g-lutely.
Your acid rhetoric reveals your nature. It grows from the idiocy that spawned Ward Churchill’s spew. You don’t want dialog. You want to inflame.
[Now belly up or button up yer britches and skedaddle. (not written with hatred)]
I’ll be here long after you leave.
Cheers,
I simply ask the conservatives answer a basic question and a follow up; What, not who (you {Mitch} did do that, although those you wrote contributed to history and yes Churchill was a Tory and as such a conservative within the spectrum of contemporary English politics but not when compared to absolute monarchists, classic “royalists” and dictatorships, you mentioned Thatchers leadership, but what did that do as an answer to the first question) did conservatives do in history to enhance the well being and advance of humanity, followed by; What is your plan to advance humanity from where we are now, if you see it from only a national “American” perspective then start there. I am ignoring the ad hominem attacks, I don’t care about that. The button up yer britches was not if you had read the very next sentence written with hatred. I am attacking conservativism, because I don’t believe they have an answer. I would like to see how Global warming is going to be addressed, (there is more than enough science if there is disagreement here then do we have to go back to whether the Gallilean moons Europa, Io Ganymede and Callisto move or not?), how we reconcile the insidious virulence starting to sweep Islam of any sense to say nothing of common sense with the rest of humanity/ America in particular, how does the USA engage with China’s ascension, other topics.
I am extremely interested, if there is a vision. and please save the tax cut, bible, and wars being benificial silliness for your rank and file followers. Do you have an answer or do any of you — that’s it.
I simply ask the conservatives answer a basic question and a follow up; What, not who (you {Mitch} did do that, although those you wrote contributed to history and yes Churchill was a Tory and as such a conservative within the spectrum of contemporary English politics but not when compared to absolute monarchists, classic “royalists” and dictatorships, you mentioned Thatchers leadership, but what did that do as an answer to the first question) did conservatives do in history to enhance the well being and advance of humanity, followed by; What is your plan to advance humanity from where we are now, if you see it from only a national “American” perspective then start there. I am ignoring the ad hominem attacks, I don’t care about that. The button up yer britches was not if you had read the very next sentence written with hatred. I am attacking conservativism, because I don’t believe they have an answer. I would like to see how Global warming is going to be addressed, (there is more than enough science if there is disagreement here then do we have to go back to whether the Gallilean moons Europa, Io Ganymede and Callisto move or not?), how we reconcile the insidious virulence starting to sweep Islam of any sense to say nothing of common sense with the rest of humanity/ America in particular, how does the USA engage with China’s ascension, other topics.
I am extremely interested, if there is a vision. and please save the tax cut, bible, and wars being benificial silliness for your rank and file followers. Do you have an answer or do any of you — that’s it.
Ed,
I really don’t give a rat’s ass about global warming.
When I can’t imagine ways al Qaeda can plant a suit-case nuke inside the U.S. Capitol, I’ll start thinking about doing more than my fair share to recycle.
If my daughters have to wear Burqas and cannot go to school, I don’t give a f**k how hot it is outside (even if they do).
If I have to pay a tithe and subject myself to humiliation to fulfill the Qur’anic commandment that unbelievers “feel themselves subdued” (Sura 9:29), I no longer enjoy the freedom extended to me by the U.S. Constitution.
In the klieg-light, ashen countenance that is the face of the United States after 9/11—an assault by a religious ideology afflicted with a sclerotic view of what it wants and how to get it—the U.S. Congress before Nov. 2, 2006 nauseated me. The new congress makes me puke.
I value multiculturalism and religious tolerance.
If you cannot frame the significance of 9/11 in terms of Islam, perhaps you’ll find its implications more palatable filtered through the prism of France, where any notion of French identity is now functionally taboo. In France, and Europe generally, Islam has made secular multiculturalism an Achilles heel that is epic in scope.
How shall you deal with the threat Islam poses?
And, “Who is John Galt?”
You request that I refrain from any kind of “tax cut, bible, and wars being benificial [sic] silliness.”
I have done so, and ignored your insults.
Now answer my questions.
Cheers,
Ed,
I really don’t give a rat’s ass about global warming.
When I can’t imagine ways al Qaeda can plant a suit-case nuke inside the U.S. Capitol, I’ll start thinking about doing more than my fair share to recycle.
If my daughters have to wear Burqas and cannot go to school, I don’t give a f**k how hot it is outside (even if they do).
If I have to pay a tithe and subject myself to humiliation to fulfill the Qur’anic commandment that unbelievers “feel themselves subdued” (Sura 9:29), I no longer enjoy the freedom extended to me by the U.S. Constitution.
In the klieg-light, ashen countenance that is the face of the United States after 9/11—an assault by a religious ideology afflicted with a sclerotic view of what it wants and how to get it—the U.S. Congress before Nov. 2, 2006 nauseated me. The new congress makes me puke.
I value multiculturalism and religious tolerance.
If you cannot frame the significance of 9/11 in terms of Islam, perhaps you’ll find its implications more palatable filtered through the prism of France, where any notion of French identity is now functionally taboo. In France, and Europe generally, Islam has made secular multiculturalism an Achilles heel that is epic in scope.
How shall you deal with the threat Islam poses?
And, “Who is John Galt?”
You request that I refrain from any kind of “tax cut, bible, and wars being benificial [sic] silliness.”
I have done so, and ignored your insults.
Now answer my questions.
Cheers,
Mitch,
the problem isn’t Islam it is a virulent herecy within Islam– Wahabism, zero tolerance for any interpretation but their own selective pickings. It is political, evil and stone age. For them, I have all the tolerance reserved for rabid wolverines in a kindergarten. To me this is the enemy, without question or reservation. They have been based in Saudi Arabia, they took over Meccah in 1978, they saw what happenned in iran earlier that year, they were linked to the Islamic Brotherhood going back to around 1920. If this venom can be neutralised the legitimate body of Islam can moderate. They must be destroyed, Al Qeada is the pinnacle of Wahabism.
I too have been shocked by the situation in France. Countries should if not must tell immigrants you are welcome to live here but not welcome to tell us how to live, if you don’t like it don’t come and if you are here get out. I Totally support that position.
We have given other countries a chance to gain and undermine our global position, by wasting whatever has been expended in Iraq (time, lives, currency, resources, etc.).
I do not know who John Galt is( was). I have refrained from using partial expletives or issuing commands to answer questions. I am asking for answers and ideas. I believe our country is at a crossroads for survival, if we can’t engage in dialog, how are we to solve what seems to be in the future. Also global warming represents agrave threat to the bread basket of this nation. I encourage you to check this out for yourself.
I hope we can continue this dialog.
cheers to you too.
Mitch,
the problem isn’t Islam it is a virulent herecy within Islam– Wahabism, zero tolerance for any interpretation but their own selective pickings. It is political, evil and stone age. For them, I have all the tolerance reserved for rabid wolverines in a kindergarten. To me this is the enemy, without question or reservation. They have been based in Saudi Arabia, they took over Meccah in 1978, they saw what happenned in iran earlier that year, they were linked to the Islamic Brotherhood going back to around 1920. If this venom can be neutralised the legitimate body of Islam can moderate. They must be destroyed, Al Qeada is the pinnacle of Wahabism.
I too have been shocked by the situation in France. Countries should if not must tell immigrants you are welcome to live here but not welcome to tell us how to live, if you don’t like it don’t come and if you are here get out. I Totally support that position.
We have given other countries a chance to gain and undermine our global position, by wasting whatever has been expended in Iraq (time, lives, currency, resources, etc.).
I do not know who John Galt is( was). I have refrained from using partial expletives or issuing commands to answer questions. I am asking for answers and ideas. I believe our country is at a crossroads for survival, if we can’t engage in dialog, how are we to solve what seems to be in the future. Also global warming represents agrave threat to the bread basket of this nation. I encourage you to check this out for yourself.
I hope we can continue this dialog.
cheers to you too.
Ed,
I too hope this exchange continues.
[the [sic] problem isn’t Islam it is a virulent herecy [sic] within Islam…]
On this we may have some common ground. As a person who believes in God, I too cling to this hope, even though I see daily evidence of its futility.
I know there are Muslims who value peace and condemn the barbarity they see done in in Islam’s name. When I was in Graduate School at London University, I’d save my money during the week and dine on samosas at a Pakistani family restaurant in a neighborhood north of Euston Station. The people I befriended embraced me and looked forward to my Friday evening visits. My memories of these people define my preferred view of Muslims.
(As an aside… I lived in Connaught Hall, on the southwest corner of Tavistock Square. The bus explosion that rocked London on 11/7 left the northeast corner of Tavistock Square in bloody ruin. Surely you’ve seen the pictures… The statue of a man famous for his Ahimsa graces the center of Tavistock Square, which to me makes the events of that fateful day ironic.)
Have you ever seen a Jama’at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad beheading video?
Regarding children… At what age do you teach a child to handle an automatic weapon? At what age do you instill hatred? Which should be taught first?
[If this venom can be neutralised the legitimate body of Islam can moderate. They [al Qaeda] must be destroyed.]
On this, we could not agree more.
How should we do this?
Cheers,
Ed,
I too hope this exchange continues.
[the [sic] problem isn’t Islam it is a virulent herecy [sic] within Islam…]
On this we may have some common ground. As a person who believes in God, I too cling to this hope, even though I see daily evidence of its futility.
I know there are Muslims who value peace and condemn the barbarity they see done in in Islam’s name. When I was in Graduate School at London University, I’d save my money during the week and dine on samosas at a Pakistani family restaurant in a neighborhood north of Euston Station. The people I befriended embraced me and looked forward to my Friday evening visits. My memories of these people define my preferred view of Muslims.
(As an aside… I lived in Connaught Hall, on the southwest corner of Tavistock Square. The bus explosion that rocked London on 11/7 left the northeast corner of Tavistock Square in bloody ruin. Surely you’ve seen the pictures… The statue of a man famous for his Ahimsa graces the center of Tavistock Square, which to me makes the events of that fateful day ironic.)
Have you ever seen a Jama’at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad beheading video?
Regarding children… At what age do you teach a child to handle an automatic weapon? At what age do you instill hatred? Which should be taught first?
[If this venom can be neutralised the legitimate body of Islam can moderate. They [al Qaeda] must be destroyed.]
On this, we could not agree more.
How should we do this?
Cheers,
John Galt; hero of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged…appropriate.
As usual, we try to treat the symptoms instead of eliminating the cause.
Aside from a small minority of groups whose ideology is hate clothed in religion, I believe terrorism is a reaction to abuse and oppression. Where was al-Qaeda in the 1800’s? How did Wahhabism come into being? In response to what set of circumstances? In order to defeat the enemy we must first understand their motivation.
I don’t believe Muslims want to convert the world or destroy it, maybe they just want other nations and cultures to stay out of theirs. How do you get children to hate and kill an enemy? What are they taught about the western world? Could there be some legitimate culpability on our part?
There can be no peace without justice.
John Galt; hero of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged…appropriate.
As usual, we try to treat the symptoms instead of eliminating the cause.
Aside from a small minority of groups whose ideology is hate clothed in religion, I believe terrorism is a reaction to abuse and oppression. Where was al-Qaeda in the 1800’s? How did Wahhabism come into being? In response to what set of circumstances? In order to defeat the enemy we must first understand their motivation.
I don’t believe Muslims want to convert the world or destroy it, maybe they just want other nations and cultures to stay out of theirs. How do you get children to hate and kill an enemy? What are they taught about the western world? Could there be some legitimate culpability on our part?
There can be no peace without justice.
Mitch ( ), and Reckless comment follows after Mitch
(On this we may have some common ground. As a person who believes in God, I too cling to this hope, even though I see daily evidence of its futility.)
We are finding terra firma for all reasonable people. I believe if we, who have disagreements, take the time, a synthesis of information can be turned into a coherent policy or plan with very little dissent. We must be cold and very objective with the final result, regardless of the emotional heat defining what are “facts” that are put into a plan or policy.
(I know there are Muslims who value peace and condemn the barbarity they see done in in Islam’s name. When I was in Graduate School at London University, I’d save my money during the week and dine on samosas at a Pakistani family restaurant in a neighborhood north of Euston Station. The people I befriended embraced me and looked forward to my Friday evening visits. My memories of these people define my preferred view of Muslims.)
I am envious of your London experience. I grew up and worked in politics in Washington DC. My friends were, as are my family, collections of little United Nations. I too dined in a Pakistani restaurant and many others. I had friends from Pakistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Lebanon. We would go to the various embassies for dinners and discussion — food, family, and wherever home was. Some of my friends have never been able to return to their homes because of the virulent poison infecting theosocial dynamic where they were born and raised, something I cannot imagine. These too are the Muslims I have hope in, I place all stock in, for what that religion can offer people who for their own reasons find God in that way.
(Regarding children… At what age do you teach a child to handle an automatic weapon? At what age do you instill hatred? Which should be taught first?)
Being able to handle a gun doesn’t make you a killer though it does make the action much easier. I would like to believe the Mulims we knew would not instill hatred in their children, after all that would with the gun using abilities give theopsychosociopathic motivations to kill — certainly socially inherited.
[If this venom can be neutralised the legitimate body of Islam can moderate. They [al Qaeda] must be destroyed.]
(On this, we could not agree more.
How should we do this?)
We both have wondered how we could have had such good friends who happenned to be Muslim — why are they so different from the vicious insidious heretics engaging in gleeful beheadings and the like. Why is this evil beginning to pervade what we see of Islam in the media? We have had our own domestic purveyors of hatred based on race, religion or both. Why don’t the KKK, Nation of Islam and Branch Davidians not succeed here? Lack of homogeneity? Maybe a very good thing. I am not completely sure. those countries as you know are very demographically diverse, at least ethnically and there is the Shi’a / Sunni split.
Some angles for thought;
Spread Quoranic verses of peace and tolerance for general acceptance these could be done in the form of CDs since illiteracy is a major obstacle, CDs could also have questions challenging those who issue the Fatwas on why they reject the goodness of the book and concentrate on the hatred part (most religious hate groups do exactly that and raise their children with that crap — it becomes all they experience and then they recapitulate the hate). Why are those who speak of fatwas, parasitising the the poor and miserable?
Have public inter theological debates and discussions (for the reasonable only) within monotheism and then include other polytheistic religions for exposure, ask why can’t some omnipotent God reach souls any damn way they want to? Why did God reach you through Jeweh, Jesus, Mohammed, or Budha or a tree root in a stream?
Support reason within any religion and the people who are devout in that reason. Emphasise citizen development.
My liberalism ends where another entity (person society or religion) decides to actively intrude on my desire to leave that entity in peace. If that becomes the case, that flame must be extinguished.
Right now that is Al Qeada, not Iraqis, Pakistanis, Muslims or any other national, religious or ethnic origin. It is the diabolical adherents to this homocidal human toxin, a willful action. Anything distracting attention from this situation to me is aiding and abetting that self identified enemy. I do want this poison incinerated with laser like precision.
There are many more fissures to explore and find, none should be overlooked. Blind rage will have us ready to put on warboots only to experience the sting of the scorpion residing within.
Pawn to King 4
To Reckless
Me {}
John Galt; hero of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged…appropriate.
As usual, we try to treat the symptoms instead of eliminating the cause.
Aside from a small minority of groups whose ideology is hate clothed in religion, {that is exactly what Al Qeada is} I believe terrorism is a reaction to abuse and oppression {I believe you are correct, and that situation gives a lot of room for hate groups to develop independantly of and along side of those who legitimately seek to have those abuses addressed and rectified, the legitimate groups frequently mask and blur the prescence of the hate groups whose aim is political power, even on a small scale}. Where was al-Qaeda in the 1800’s? {Al Qeada is a recent incarnation of increasing Wahabist intolerant extremism, 1980s birth from the Mujahedeen fighters in Afghanistan we supported against the Soviet Union, that was inspired by the Islamic Brotherhood of anti secularists, who are are most usually wahabists} How did Wahhabism come into being?{a person by that root name Wahab, in the 1600s, considered the tolerance within Islam which refined or developed, medicine, education, sufism and al gebra (algebra) to be heretical whenever basic thought was not confined to a literal interpretation of the Al Quoran. this is where the first major decline within the Islamic empires and countries began. Going back to the stone age hobbled the competitive ability of those countries} In response to what set of circumstances? In order to defeat the enemy we must first understand their motivation.
I don’t believe Muslims want to convert the world or destroy it, maybe they just want other nations and cultures to stay out of theirs. How do you get children to hate and kill an enemy? { you teach them just as you would physics and philosophy} What are they taught about the western world? {They see what we have done indiscriminately aiding their sinister cause and call our ignorance willfull hatred, expended military hardware with “made in the USA ” doesn’t help our cause} Could there be some legitimate culpability on our part? {We went after all Muslims, in many Muslim’s eyes instead of the insidiously evil ones masquerading as Muslims}
There can be no peace without justice. {I couldn’t agree more.}
Mitch ( ), and Reckless comment follows after Mitch
(On this we may have some common ground. As a person who believes in God, I too cling to this hope, even though I see daily evidence of its futility.)
We are finding terra firma for all reasonable people. I believe if we, who have disagreements, take the time, a synthesis of information can be turned into a coherent policy or plan with very little dissent. We must be cold and very objective with the final result, regardless of the emotional heat defining what are “facts” that are put into a plan or policy.
(I know there are Muslims who value peace and condemn the barbarity they see done in in Islam’s name. When I was in Graduate School at London University, I’d save my money during the week and dine on samosas at a Pakistani family restaurant in a neighborhood north of Euston Station. The people I befriended embraced me and looked forward to my Friday evening visits. My memories of these people define my preferred view of Muslims.)
I am envious of your London experience. I grew up and worked in politics in Washington DC. My friends were, as are my family, collections of little United Nations. I too dined in a Pakistani restaurant and many others. I had friends from Pakistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Lebanon. We would go to the various embassies for dinners and discussion — food, family, and wherever home was. Some of my friends have never been able to return to their homes because of the virulent poison infecting theosocial dynamic where they were born and raised, something I cannot imagine. These too are the Muslims I have hope in, I place all stock in, for what that religion can offer people who for their own reasons find God in that way.
(Regarding children… At what age do you teach a child to handle an automatic weapon? At what age do you instill hatred? Which should be taught first?)
Being able to handle a gun doesn’t make you a killer though it does make the action much easier. I would like to believe the Mulims we knew would not instill hatred in their children, after all that would with the gun using abilities give theopsychosociopathic motivations to kill — certainly socially inherited.
[If this venom can be neutralised the legitimate body of Islam can moderate. They [al Qaeda] must be destroyed.]
(On this, we could not agree more.
How should we do this?)
We both have wondered how we could have had such good friends who happenned to be Muslim — why are they so different from the vicious insidious heretics engaging in gleeful beheadings and the like. Why is this evil beginning to pervade what we see of Islam in the media? We have had our own domestic purveyors of hatred based on race, religion or both. Why don’t the KKK, Nation of Islam and Branch Davidians not succeed here? Lack of homogeneity? Maybe a very good thing. I am not completely sure. those countries as you know are very demographically diverse, at least ethnically and there is the Shi’a / Sunni split.
Some angles for thought;
Spread Quoranic verses of peace and tolerance for general acceptance these could be done in the form of CDs since illiteracy is a major obstacle, CDs could also have questions challenging those who issue the Fatwas on why they reject the goodness of the book and concentrate on the hatred part (most religious hate groups do exactly that and raise their children with that crap — it becomes all they experience and then they recapitulate the hate). Why are those who speak of fatwas, parasitising the the poor and miserable?
Have public inter theological debates and discussions (for the reasonable only) within monotheism and then include other polytheistic religions for exposure, ask why can’t some omnipotent God reach souls any damn way they want to? Why did God reach you through Jeweh, Jesus, Mohammed, or Budha or a tree root in a stream?
Support reason within any religion and the people who are devout in that reason. Emphasise citizen development.
My liberalism ends where another entity (person society or religion) decides to actively intrude on my desire to leave that entity in peace. If that becomes the case, that flame must be extinguished.
Right now that is Al Qeada, not Iraqis, Pakistanis, Muslims or any other national, religious or ethnic origin. It is the diabolical adherents to this homocidal human toxin, a willful action. Anything distracting attention from this situation to me is aiding and abetting that self identified enemy. I do want this poison incinerated with laser like precision.
There are many more fissures to explore and find, none should be overlooked. Blind rage will have us ready to put on warboots only to experience the sting of the scorpion residing within.
Pawn to King 4
To Reckless
Me {}
John Galt; hero of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged…appropriate.
As usual, we try to treat the symptoms instead of eliminating the cause.
Aside from a small minority of groups whose ideology is hate clothed in religion, {that is exactly what Al Qeada is} I believe terrorism is a reaction to abuse and oppression {I believe you are correct, and that situation gives a lot of room for hate groups to develop independantly of and along side of those who legitimately seek to have those abuses addressed and rectified, the legitimate groups frequently mask and blur the prescence of the hate groups whose aim is political power, even on a small scale}. Where was al-Qaeda in the 1800’s? {Al Qeada is a recent incarnation of increasing Wahabist intolerant extremism, 1980s birth from the Mujahedeen fighters in Afghanistan we supported against the Soviet Union, that was inspired by the Islamic Brotherhood of anti secularists, who are are most usually wahabists} How did Wahhabism come into being?{a person by that root name Wahab, in the 1600s, considered the tolerance within Islam which refined or developed, medicine, education, sufism and al gebra (algebra) to be heretical whenever basic thought was not confined to a literal interpretation of the Al Quoran. this is where the first major decline within the Islamic empires and countries began. Going back to the stone age hobbled the competitive ability of those countries} In response to what set of circumstances? In order to defeat the enemy we must first understand their motivation.
I don’t believe Muslims want to convert the world or destroy it, maybe they just want other nations and cultures to stay out of theirs. How do you get children to hate and kill an enemy? { you teach them just as you would physics and philosophy} What are they taught about the western world? {They see what we have done indiscriminately aiding their sinister cause and call our ignorance willfull hatred, expended military hardware with “made in the USA ” doesn’t help our cause} Could there be some legitimate culpability on our part? {We went after all Muslims, in many Muslim’s eyes instead of the insidiously evil ones masquerading as Muslims}
There can be no peace without justice. {I couldn’t agree more.}
[Some of my friends have never been able to return to their homes because of the virulent poison infecting theosocial dynamic where they were born and raised, something I cannot imagine. These too are the Muslims I have hope in, I place all stock in, for what that religion can offer people who for their own reasons find God in that way.]
Now that is an elegant dance around the subject of spiritual belief.
I actually wanted to comment on something else you said, but when I came back to this thread tonight, this passage stood out like a sore thumb.
You attach a deep stigma to what you call a “theosocial dynamic.”
Anymore, my ability to say anything about my beliefs is as foreign to me as this “theosocial dynamic” is to you.
Having known the “it” that troubles, I can tell you that what is commonly condemned as “religion” is not the monster-under-the-bed you fear. The fuss put up against the name of “religion” is, in my mind, so mis-guided, so single-sighted, it dismisses an essential part of human existence…
I don’t ordinarily speak about my beliefs, but I will write this: The circle of thought that is spiritual in any family has been broken by the voice of those who dismisses spirituality out-of-hand.
This is a sadness to me…
Cheers,
[Some of my friends have never been able to return to their homes because of the virulent poison infecting theosocial dynamic where they were born and raised, something I cannot imagine. These too are the Muslims I have hope in, I place all stock in, for what that religion can offer people who for their own reasons find God in that way.]
Now that is an elegant dance around the subject of spiritual belief.
I actually wanted to comment on something else you said, but when I came back to this thread tonight, this passage stood out like a sore thumb.
You attach a deep stigma to what you call a “theosocial dynamic.”
Anymore, my ability to say anything about my beliefs is as foreign to me as this “theosocial dynamic” is to you.
Having known the “it” that troubles, I can tell you that what is commonly condemned as “religion” is not the monster-under-the-bed you fear. The fuss put up against the name of “religion” is, in my mind, so mis-guided, so single-sighted, it dismisses an essential part of human existence…
I don’t ordinarily speak about my beliefs, but I will write this: The circle of thought that is spiritual in any family has been broken by the voice of those who dismisses spirituality out-of-hand.
This is a sadness to me…
Cheers,
Great dialoge Edward, Reckless and Mitch…”it dismisses an essential part of human existence…
I don’t ordinarily speak about my beliefs, but I will write this: The circle of thought that is spiritual in any family has been broken by the voice of those who dismisses spirituality out-of-hand”.
CREATED….TO EVOLVE!!
Its time to leave the “divide and conquer” mentality behind and focus on the solutions we all need to evolve beyond these present troubles and times.
Let me once again state the one solution that I think would have the greatest impact on our country.
Evolve beyond the Democrats and the Republicans, get past the power of K-Street lobbyist money and start electing our office-holders on their individual “platform”.
Like cream, allow true leadership to rise to the top on its own merits.
I feel it is the simplist most effective thing we could do for ourselves and the rest of the world. Star Eagle
Great dialoge Edward, Reckless and Mitch…”it dismisses an essential part of human existence…
I don’t ordinarily speak about my beliefs, but I will write this: The circle of thought that is spiritual in any family has been broken by the voice of those who dismisses spirituality out-of-hand”.
CREATED….TO EVOLVE!!
Its time to leave the “divide and conquer” mentality behind and focus on the solutions we all need to evolve beyond these present troubles and times.
Let me once again state the one solution that I think would have the greatest impact on our country.
Evolve beyond the Democrats and the Republicans, get past the power of K-Street lobbyist money and start electing our office-holders on their individual “platform”.
Like cream, allow true leadership to rise to the top on its own merits.
I feel it is the simplist most effective thing we could do for ourselves and the rest of the world. Star Eagle
Mitch,
hopefully this is clearer.
10. Mitch.Mulhall | February 11th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
[Some of my friends have never been able to return to their homes because of the virulent poison infecting theosocial dynamic where they were born and raised, something I cannot imagine. These too are the Muslims I have hope in, I place all stock in, for what that religion can offer people who for their own reasons find God in that way.]
Now that is an elegant dance around the subject of spiritual belief.
{I have a liberal tolerance that is like a cliff there is an absolute cutoff, and it is complete. I am not qualified to tell anyone that their belief in God is the wrong way — until it includes killing requirements of humans to satisfy some agenda}
I actually wanted to comment on something else you said, but when I came back to this thread tonight, this passage stood out like a sore thumb.
You attach a deep stigma to what you call a “theosocial dynamic.”
{sorry I wasn’t clearer, it is their theosocial dynamic infected in their country or in some cases village of origin and upbringing, not ours. We have problems, that since the civil war, have been soluble with meaningful dialogue, legislation and resultant statutory law ,to protect the evolution. I do think it it is time for another round of national debate on where in the heck are we going though.}
Anymore, my ability to say anything about my beliefs is as foreign to me as this “theosocial dynamic” is to you.
Having known the “it” that troubles, I can tell you that what is commonly condemned as “religion” is not the monster-under-the-bed you fear. The fuss put up against the name of “religion” is, in my mind, so mis-guided, so single-sighted, it dismisses an essential part of human existence…
{it is essential and it is to me a part of humanity along with artistic creations, soaring musical compositions, majestic athletic achievements, and the quiet work of a carpenter 2000 years ago, the hug of a child. I object to human sacrifice, whether on the battlefield or on the altar of law, in the name of religion or not}
I don’t ordinarily speak about my beliefs, but I will write this: The circle of thought that is spiritual in any family has been broken by the voice of those who dismisses spirituality out-of-hand.
{Sorry again a point of clarification, due to nebulous writing on my part, Not all religions are spiritual and not all that is spiritual is religion. I don’t consider my self religious at all, but faithfully spiritual. God chose to reach me through Christ, and I accepted. I imagine God could have reached me another way too. I feel an awareness when hiking, running, or doing a lot of things such as writing/typing right now.
This is a sadness to me…
Cheers,
Mitch,
hopefully this is clearer.
10. Mitch.Mulhall | February 11th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
[Some of my friends have never been able to return to their homes because of the virulent poison infecting theosocial dynamic where they were born and raised, something I cannot imagine. These too are the Muslims I have hope in, I place all stock in, for what that religion can offer people who for their own reasons find God in that way.]
Now that is an elegant dance around the subject of spiritual belief.
{I have a liberal tolerance that is like a cliff there is an absolute cutoff, and it is complete. I am not qualified to tell anyone that their belief in God is the wrong way — until it includes killing requirements of humans to satisfy some agenda}
I actually wanted to comment on something else you said, but when I came back to this thread tonight, this passage stood out like a sore thumb.
You attach a deep stigma to what you call a “theosocial dynamic.”
{sorry I wasn’t clearer, it is their theosocial dynamic infected in their country or in some cases village of origin and upbringing, not ours. We have problems, that since the civil war, have been soluble with meaningful dialogue, legislation and resultant statutory law ,to protect the evolution. I do think it it is time for another round of national debate on where in the heck are we going though.}
Anymore, my ability to say anything about my beliefs is as foreign to me as this “theosocial dynamic” is to you.
Having known the “it” that troubles, I can tell you that what is commonly condemned as “religion” is not the monster-under-the-bed you fear. The fuss put up against the name of “religion” is, in my mind, so mis-guided, so single-sighted, it dismisses an essential part of human existence…
{it is essential and it is to me a part of humanity along with artistic creations, soaring musical compositions, majestic athletic achievements, and the quiet work of a carpenter 2000 years ago, the hug of a child. I object to human sacrifice, whether on the battlefield or on the altar of law, in the name of religion or not}
I don’t ordinarily speak about my beliefs, but I will write this: The circle of thought that is spiritual in any family has been broken by the voice of those who dismisses spirituality out-of-hand.
{Sorry again a point of clarification, due to nebulous writing on my part, Not all religions are spiritual and not all that is spiritual is religion. I don’t consider my self religious at all, but faithfully spiritual. God chose to reach me through Christ, and I accepted. I imagine God could have reached me another way too. I feel an awareness when hiking, running, or doing a lot of things such as writing/typing right now.
This is a sadness to me…
Cheers,
Star Eagle,
Unfortunately our Supreme Court has interpreted an expansive view of first amendment rights (free speech, press [now including all media]) to include private political corruption of democratic ideals, through financial means. As you know and lament, this means the protection of the rights of a few who gleefully debase what the USA was founded for. When I tune into C-Span which I don’t do as often as I used to, I generally see a mass of greedy bastard mouthpieces acting in behalf of their constituent corruptors. As odious, loathesome and foul as they are, I don’t want Al Qeada to get rid of them, it our business to do it.
I ran for public office as a Green, taking no corporate money, and was summarilly crushed 85% to 15%. Politicians who who buy into the system, or are bought by the system, are like pedophiles in a kindergarten — incurable. The corruption of our democratic ideals is what is bringing us the ill will of the world in a very general way, and disgust in our own country.
I think the the elections should be publicly financed with no private or corporate money. Only the campaign committee chairman and the candidate should be allowed to make purchases of media time and print. A candidate is not a product to be marketed like a Happy Meal on a dollar menu, if the candidate wants certain issues as part of the platform and no 547s C3s etc would be allowed to function as renegade political issue purchasers, the candidate would have to compromise the time allowed for the special issue. the point is to force all politics throught the candidate and the election committee. The election season should be four weeks and no more. Election day should be a nationally observed holiday with election workers given six hours of off time to vote. Your first amendment rights would be as limited as your ability to blog. Once in office congressmen begin work on fundraising and $1000.00 dinners per plate and speech circuits, at some point, they may actually get around to thoughtful legislation, though the thoughtful part has, in recent years, with the tough three day workweek, been optional.
Star Eagle,
Unfortunately our Supreme Court has interpreted an expansive view of first amendment rights (free speech, press [now including all media]) to include private political corruption of democratic ideals, through financial means. As you know and lament, this means the protection of the rights of a few who gleefully debase what the USA was founded for. When I tune into C-Span which I don’t do as often as I used to, I generally see a mass of greedy bastard mouthpieces acting in behalf of their constituent corruptors. As odious, loathesome and foul as they are, I don’t want Al Qeada to get rid of them, it our business to do it.
I ran for public office as a Green, taking no corporate money, and was summarilly crushed 85% to 15%. Politicians who who buy into the system, or are bought by the system, are like pedophiles in a kindergarten — incurable. The corruption of our democratic ideals is what is bringing us the ill will of the world in a very general way, and disgust in our own country.
I think the the elections should be publicly financed with no private or corporate money. Only the campaign committee chairman and the candidate should be allowed to make purchases of media time and print. A candidate is not a product to be marketed like a Happy Meal on a dollar menu, if the candidate wants certain issues as part of the platform and no 547s C3s etc would be allowed to function as renegade political issue purchasers, the candidate would have to compromise the time allowed for the special issue. the point is to force all politics throught the candidate and the election committee. The election season should be four weeks and no more. Election day should be a nationally observed holiday with election workers given six hours of off time to vote. Your first amendment rights would be as limited as your ability to blog. Once in office congressmen begin work on fundraising and $1000.00 dinners per plate and speech circuits, at some point, they may actually get around to thoughtful legislation, though the thoughtful part has, in recent years, with the tough three day workweek, been optional.
[To me [al Qaeda] is the enemy, without question or reservation. They have been based in Saudi Arabia, they took over Meccah in 1978, they saw what happenned in iran earlier that year, they were linked to the Islamic Brotherhood going back to around 1920. If this venom can be neutralised the legitimate body of Islam can moderate. They must be destroyed, Al Qeada is the pinnacle of Wahabism.]
This is the statement I was looking for when I got diverted last night…
Correctly or not, I take this statement to mean that if you eliminate al Qaeda, the problem is solved. What troubles me is the implication that it is possible to be far more surgical in the War on Terrorism than the Bush Administration has been.
The problem with this thinking is:
• al Qaeda is a stateless entity;
• al Qaeda morphs into a malignancy of forms that changes beneath any analysis.
I contend both of these attributes are by design.
I think almost anyone will stipulate the former.
As for the latter, I give you this:
• Al-Barakaat (Al-Qaida front)
• Al-Wafa Humanitarian Organization (Al-Qaida front)
• Benevolence International Foundation (Al-Qaida front)
• Global Relief Foundation (Al-Qaida front) Abu Sayyaf (1991-present; Islamist separatists; the Philippines)
• Aden-Abyan Islamic Army (Yemen)
• Adolat – Uzbekistan
• Akramiya – Uzbekistan
• Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya (Late 1970s-present; Islamists; Egypt) Armed Islamic Group (1992-present; Islamists; Algeria)
• Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades
• Ansar al-Islam (December 2001-present; Islamists; Iraq)
• Al-Qaeda (1988-present; Islamists; Afghanistan, Pakistan, and worldwide)
• Asbat al-Ansar (early 1990s-present; Lebanese Sunni Islamists; southern Lebanon)
• Jama’at al-Tawhid wa’al-Jihad/Al-Qaeda in Iraq – Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s Sunni network, operating in Iraq
• Eastern Turkestan Islamic Movement – al-Qaeda linked separatist group in China’s Xinjiang Autonomous Region aiming to establish an Islamic state. Banned by China, along with related groups East Turkestan Liberation Organization, World Uighur Youth Congress and East Turkistan Information Center
• Egyptian Islamic Jihad – Egypt (active since the late 1970s)
• Hamas – West Bank, Gaza Strip.
• Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM) – Pakistan and Kashmir
• Hizb-an-nusra – Uzbekistan
• Hizb ut-Tahrir – (legal in Britain and Australia)
• Hezbollah – Lebanon
• Hizbul Mujahideen – Pakistan and Kashmir
• Hofstad Network – Netherlands
• Islamic Movement of Central Asia – Central Asia (affiliated with Al Qaeda)
• Jaish-e-Mohammed – Pakistan
• Jaish Ansar al-Sunna – Iraq
• Jama’at al-Jihad al-Islami
• Jemaah Islamiyah – Southeast Asia
• Jihad Rite – Australia (linked with Al Qaeda. Founded in 2001)
• Lashkar-e-Jhangvi – Pakistan
• Lashkar-e-Toiba – Pakistan
• Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group – Morocco and Spain
• Moro Islamic Liberation Front – (Islamic separatists; the Philippines)
• Palestinian Islamic Jihad – Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip
• Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat – Algeria
• Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan
• Takfir wal-Hijra – Egypt/Sudan/Algeria
• Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat- e-Mohammadi (TNSM)
• Kurdish-Hizbullah
Cheers,
[To me [al Qaeda] is the enemy, without question or reservation. They have been based in Saudi Arabia, they took over Meccah in 1978, they saw what happenned in iran earlier that year, they were linked to the Islamic Brotherhood going back to around 1920. If this venom can be neutralised the legitimate body of Islam can moderate. They must be destroyed, Al Qeada is the pinnacle of Wahabism.]
This is the statement I was looking for when I got diverted last night…
Correctly or not, I take this statement to mean that if you eliminate al Qaeda, the problem is solved. What troubles me is the implication that it is possible to be far more surgical in the War on Terrorism than the Bush Administration has been.
The problem with this thinking is:
• al Qaeda is a stateless entity;
• al Qaeda morphs into a malignancy of forms that changes beneath any analysis.
I contend both of these attributes are by design.
I think almost anyone will stipulate the former.
As for the latter, I give you this:
• Al-Barakaat (Al-Qaida front)
• Al-Wafa Humanitarian Organization (Al-Qaida front)
• Benevolence International Foundation (Al-Qaida front)
• Global Relief Foundation (Al-Qaida front) Abu Sayyaf (1991-present; Islamist separatists; the Philippines)
• Aden-Abyan Islamic Army (Yemen)
• Adolat – Uzbekistan
• Akramiya – Uzbekistan
• Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya (Late 1970s-present; Islamists; Egypt) Armed Islamic Group (1992-present; Islamists; Algeria)
• Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades
• Ansar al-Islam (December 2001-present; Islamists; Iraq)
• Al-Qaeda (1988-present; Islamists; Afghanistan, Pakistan, and worldwide)
• Asbat al-Ansar (early 1990s-present; Lebanese Sunni Islamists; southern Lebanon)
• Jama’at al-Tawhid wa’al-Jihad/Al-Qaeda in Iraq – Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s Sunni network, operating in Iraq
• Eastern Turkestan Islamic Movement – al-Qaeda linked separatist group in China’s Xinjiang Autonomous Region aiming to establish an Islamic state. Banned by China, along with related groups East Turkestan Liberation Organization, World Uighur Youth Congress and East Turkistan Information Center
• Egyptian Islamic Jihad – Egypt (active since the late 1970s)
• Hamas – West Bank, Gaza Strip.
• Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM) – Pakistan and Kashmir
• Hizb-an-nusra – Uzbekistan
• Hizb ut-Tahrir – (legal in Britain and Australia)
• Hezbollah – Lebanon
• Hizbul Mujahideen – Pakistan and Kashmir
• Hofstad Network – Netherlands
• Islamic Movement of Central Asia – Central Asia (affiliated with Al Qaeda)
• Jaish-e-Mohammed – Pakistan
• Jaish Ansar al-Sunna – Iraq
• Jama’at al-Jihad al-Islami
• Jemaah Islamiyah – Southeast Asia
• Jihad Rite – Australia (linked with Al Qaeda. Founded in 2001)
• Lashkar-e-Jhangvi – Pakistan
• Lashkar-e-Toiba – Pakistan
• Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group – Morocco and Spain
• Moro Islamic Liberation Front – (Islamic separatists; the Philippines)
• Palestinian Islamic Jihad – Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip
• Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat – Algeria
• Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan
• Takfir wal-Hijra – Egypt/Sudan/Algeria
• Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat- e-Mohammadi (TNSM)
• Kurdish-Hizbullah
Cheers,
Mitch,
[To me [al Qaeda] is the enemy, without question or reservation— they were linked to the Islamic Brotherhood going back to around 1920.
A Report on Mesopotamia by T.E. Lawrence
By Ex.-Lieut.-Col. T.E. Lawrence
Sunday Times
August 22, 1920
[Mr. Lawrence, whose organization and direction of the Hedjaz against the Turks was one of the outstanding romances of the war, has written this article at our request in order that the public may be fully informed of our Mesopotamian commitments.]
The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiques are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows. It is a disgrace to our imperial record, and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure. We are to-day not far from a disaster.
The sins of commission are those of the British civil authorities in Mesopotamia (especially of three ‘colonels’) who were given a free hand by London. They are controlled from no Department of State, but from the empty space which divides the Foreign Office from te India Office. They availed themselves of the necessary discretion of war-time to carry over their dangerous independence into times of peace. They contest every suggestion of real self- government sent them from home. A recent proclamation about autonomy circulated with unction from Baghdad was drafted and published out there in a hurry, to forestall a more liberal statement in preparation in London, ‘Self-determination papers’ favourable to England were extorted in Mesopotamia in 1919 by official pressure, by aeroplane demonstrations, by deportations to India.
The Cabinet cannot disclaim all responsibility. They receive little more news than the public: they should have insisted on more, and better. They have sent draft after draft of reinforcements, without enquiry. When conditions became too bad to endure longer, they decided to send out as High commissioner the original author of the present system, with a conciliatory message to the Arabs that his heart and policy have completely changed.*
Yet our published policy has not changed, and does not need changing. It is that there has been a deplorable contrast between our profession and our practice. We said we went to Mesopotamia to defeat Turkey. We said we stayed to deliver the Arabs from the oppression of the Turkish Government, and to make available for the world its resources of corn and oil. We spent nearly a million men and nearly a thousand million of money to these ends. This year we are spending ninety-two thousand men and fifty millions of money on the same objects.
Our government is worse than the old Turkish system. They kept fourteen thousand local conscripts embodied, and killed a yearly average of two hundred Arabs in maintaining peace. We keep ninety thousand men, with aeroplanes, armoured cars, gunboats, and armoured trains. We have killed about ten thousand Arabs in this rising this summer. We cannot hope to maintain such an average: it is a poor country, sparsely peopled; but Abd el Hamid would applaud his masters, if he saw us working. We are told the object of the rising was political, we are not told what the local people want. It may be what the Cabinet has promised them. A Minister in the House of Lords said that we must have so many troops because the local people will not enlist. On Friday the Government announce the death of some local levies defending their British officers, and say that the services of these men have not yet been sufficiently recognized because they are too few (adding the characteristic Baghdad touch that they are men of bad character). There are seven thousand of them, just half the old Turkish force of occupation. Properly officered and distributed, they would relieve half our army there. Cromer controlled Egypt’s six million people with five thousand British troops; Colonel Wilson fails to control Mesopotamia’s three million people with ninety thousand troops.
We have not reached the limit of our military commitments. Four weeks ago the staff in Mesopotamia drew up a memorandum asking for four more divisions. I believe it was forwarded to the War Office, which has now sent three brigades from India. If the North-West Frontier cannot be further denuded, where is the balance to come from? Meanwhile, our unfortunate troops, Indian and British, under hard conditions of climate and supply, are policing an immense area, paying dearly every day in lives for the wilfully wrong policy of the civil administration in Baghdad. General Dyer was relieved of his command in India for a much smaller error, but the responsibility in this case is not on the Army, which has acted only at the request of the civil authorities. The War Office has made every effort to reduce our forces, but the decisions of the Cabinet have been against them.
The Government in Baghdad have been hanging Arabs in that town for political offences, which they call rebellion. The Arabs are not at war with us. Are these illegal executions to provoke the Arabs to reprisals on the three hundred British prisoners they hold? And, if so, is it that their punishment may be more severe, or is it to persuade our other troops to fight to the last?
We say we are in Mesopotamia to develop it for the benefit of the world. All experts say that the labour supply is the ruling factor in its development. How far will the killing of ten thousand villagers and townspeople this summer hinder the production of wheat, cotton, and oil? How long will we permit millions of pounds, thousands of Imperial troops, and tens of thousands of Arabs to be sacrificed on behalf of colonial administration which can benefit nobody but its administrators?
*Sir Percy Cox was to return as High Commissioner in October, 1920 to form a provisional Government.
Perhaps its time to acknowledge that 86 years of Imperial rule has only served to severely complicate the region.
Perhaps its time to try a new approach to this region.
Mmmnnn…Star Eagle
Mitch,
[To me [al Qaeda] is the enemy, without question or reservation— they were linked to the Islamic Brotherhood going back to around 1920.
A Report on Mesopotamia by T.E. Lawrence
By Ex.-Lieut.-Col. T.E. Lawrence
Sunday Times
August 22, 1920
[Mr. Lawrence, whose organization and direction of the Hedjaz against the Turks was one of the outstanding romances of the war, has written this article at our request in order that the public may be fully informed of our Mesopotamian commitments.]
The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiques are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows. It is a disgrace to our imperial record, and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure. We are to-day not far from a disaster.
The sins of commission are those of the British civil authorities in Mesopotamia (especially of three ‘colonels’) who were given a free hand by London. They are controlled from no Department of State, but from the empty space which divides the Foreign Office from te India Office. They availed themselves of the necessary discretion of war-time to carry over their dangerous independence into times of peace. They contest every suggestion of real self- government sent them from home. A recent proclamation about autonomy circulated with unction from Baghdad was drafted and published out there in a hurry, to forestall a more liberal statement in preparation in London, ‘Self-determination papers’ favourable to England were extorted in Mesopotamia in 1919 by official pressure, by aeroplane demonstrations, by deportations to India.
The Cabinet cannot disclaim all responsibility. They receive little more news than the public: they should have insisted on more, and better. They have sent draft after draft of reinforcements, without enquiry. When conditions became too bad to endure longer, they decided to send out as High commissioner the original author of the present system, with a conciliatory message to the Arabs that his heart and policy have completely changed.*
Yet our published policy has not changed, and does not need changing. It is that there has been a deplorable contrast between our profession and our practice. We said we went to Mesopotamia to defeat Turkey. We said we stayed to deliver the Arabs from the oppression of the Turkish Government, and to make available for the world its resources of corn and oil. We spent nearly a million men and nearly a thousand million of money to these ends. This year we are spending ninety-two thousand men and fifty millions of money on the same objects.
Our government is worse than the old Turkish system. They kept fourteen thousand local conscripts embodied, and killed a yearly average of two hundred Arabs in maintaining peace. We keep ninety thousand men, with aeroplanes, armoured cars, gunboats, and armoured trains. We have killed about ten thousand Arabs in this rising this summer. We cannot hope to maintain such an average: it is a poor country, sparsely peopled; but Abd el Hamid would applaud his masters, if he saw us working. We are told the object of the rising was political, we are not told what the local people want. It may be what the Cabinet has promised them. A Minister in the House of Lords said that we must have so many troops because the local people will not enlist. On Friday the Government announce the death of some local levies defending their British officers, and say that the services of these men have not yet been sufficiently recognized because they are too few (adding the characteristic Baghdad touch that they are men of bad character). There are seven thousand of them, just half the old Turkish force of occupation. Properly officered and distributed, they would relieve half our army there. Cromer controlled Egypt’s six million people with five thousand British troops; Colonel Wilson fails to control Mesopotamia’s three million people with ninety thousand troops.
We have not reached the limit of our military commitments. Four weeks ago the staff in Mesopotamia drew up a memorandum asking for four more divisions. I believe it was forwarded to the War Office, which has now sent three brigades from India. If the North-West Frontier cannot be further denuded, where is the balance to come from? Meanwhile, our unfortunate troops, Indian and British, under hard conditions of climate and supply, are policing an immense area, paying dearly every day in lives for the wilfully wrong policy of the civil administration in Baghdad. General Dyer was relieved of his command in India for a much smaller error, but the responsibility in this case is not on the Army, which has acted only at the request of the civil authorities. The War Office has made every effort to reduce our forces, but the decisions of the Cabinet have been against them.
The Government in Baghdad have been hanging Arabs in that town for political offences, which they call rebellion. The Arabs are not at war with us. Are these illegal executions to provoke the Arabs to reprisals on the three hundred British prisoners they hold? And, if so, is it that their punishment may be more severe, or is it to persuade our other troops to fight to the last?
We say we are in Mesopotamia to develop it for the benefit of the world. All experts say that the labour supply is the ruling factor in its development. How far will the killing of ten thousand villagers and townspeople this summer hinder the production of wheat, cotton, and oil? How long will we permit millions of pounds, thousands of Imperial troops, and tens of thousands of Arabs to be sacrificed on behalf of colonial administration which can benefit nobody but its administrators?
*Sir Percy Cox was to return as High Commissioner in October, 1920 to form a provisional Government.
Perhaps its time to acknowledge that 86 years of Imperial rule has only served to severely complicate the region.
Perhaps its time to try a new approach to this region.
Mmmnnn…Star Eagle
I agree with you Edward about the Supreme Court but I really have to believe that there is a solution to circumvent them too.
For one, I see this next election (08) as being key. I have begun the dialoge now because if people see that we have a viable option to the present insane system they will begin to consider change.
If everyone remains stuck we are toast. The divide and conquer system will have done its work. Maybe it is inevitable but I have to do my part to push for a better way.
(As odious, loathesome and foul as Al Queda is), if we don’t get our act together…we really won’t have anyone besides ourselves to blame for our inability to adapt.
It really is a new day in an old world and if we can’t find the kind of leaders and ideas to carry us beyond these eye for an eye days we will seriously suffer the consequences of our ineptitude.
Do any of you see the leaders and the ideas we need in the current crop of candidates. Perhaps. But even by some twist of fate if that candidate were to actually be elected, would that candidate be able to govern in any effective way. Perhaps. But only if that candidates Party controled both houses of Congress. But wait, haven’t the Republicans been doing that. Nevermind!
So… it is time for a new dynamic way of thinking and leading in this country.
Edward, I believe that it will have to be a groundswell of “we the people” that will carry the day for changing the system. Probably by the vote itself.
One example. Here in Eagle Co. we had the chance this past election to pass what was called “Home Rule”. It would have eliminated Republicans and Democrats in all County elections.
Next we carry that to the State level and next to the Federal. It will have to be coupled with a viable system of Government financed elections. A system that is both Constitutional and popular with the masses.
I never say that any of this is goint to be easy, but I do believe that we today stand on the precipice of real change. But like the Revolutioin of “76″ was a far longer endeavor than one year, so too is this Evolution today.
As those great minds of yesteryear dialogued for many a day and night I challenge all of you out there to go beyond the simple and obvious bitching and try and find solutions for these problems.
Cheers indeed…Star Eagle
I agree with you Edward about the Supreme Court but I really have to believe that there is a solution to circumvent them too.
For one, I see this next election (08) as being key. I have begun the dialoge now because if people see that we have a viable option to the present insane system they will begin to consider change.
If everyone remains stuck we are toast. The divide and conquer system will have done its work. Maybe it is inevitable but I have to do my part to push for a better way.
(As odious, loathesome and foul as Al Queda is), if we don’t get our act together…we really won’t have anyone besides ourselves to blame for our inability to adapt.
It really is a new day in an old world and if we can’t find the kind of leaders and ideas to carry us beyond these eye for an eye days we will seriously suffer the consequences of our ineptitude.
Do any of you see the leaders and the ideas we need in the current crop of candidates. Perhaps. But even by some twist of fate if that candidate were to actually be elected, would that candidate be able to govern in any effective way. Perhaps. But only if that candidates Party controled both houses of Congress. But wait, haven’t the Republicans been doing that. Nevermind!
So… it is time for a new dynamic way of thinking and leading in this country.
Edward, I believe that it will have to be a groundswell of “we the people” that will carry the day for changing the system. Probably by the vote itself.
One example. Here in Eagle Co. we had the chance this past election to pass what was called “Home Rule”. It would have eliminated Republicans and Democrats in all County elections.
Next we carry that to the State level and next to the Federal. It will have to be coupled with a viable system of Government financed elections. A system that is both Constitutional and popular with the masses.
I never say that any of this is goint to be easy, but I do believe that we today stand on the precipice of real change. But like the Revolutioin of “76″ was a far longer endeavor than one year, so too is this Evolution today.
As those great minds of yesteryear dialogued for many a day and night I challenge all of you out there to go beyond the simple and obvious bitching and try and find solutions for these problems.
Cheers indeed…Star Eagle
Star Eagle,
In case there is any confusion, you should know that the passage you apparently attribute to me (“To me [al Qaeda] is the enemy, without question or reservation— they were linked to the Islamic Brotherhood going back to around 1920…”) was written by Edward Troy.
That said, for the record, on this Edward and I agree.
One adage that gets a lot of mileage these days is, “history repeats itself.” Using this aphorism as a premise, many pundits hold up Vietnam as an example of what happens when we fail to learn from history.
Edward Troy also writes, “…to defeat [al Qaeda] we must first understand their motivation.”
One force that drives al Qaeda, in particular, and radical Islam generally, is the defeat of Russian forces in Afghanistan by Mujahideen fighters in 1989. This “defeat” of the former Soviet Union is the fire in al Qaeda’s belly. To understand this fire, you have to go back a few decades. A good question to start with is, “What is Khalq?”
The Khalq (“Masses”) was one of two factions of the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) during the mid- to late-70s. The other was the Parcham (“Banner”). Both factions wanted a socialist Afghanistan but they disagreed about how to achieve one. The Parcham believed Afghanistan was not industrialized enough for a true proletarian revolution to succeed. The Khalq wanted an immediate, violent overthrow of the Afghan government and an instantaneous adoption of Soviet-style communism.
After an April, 1978 coup d’état in which President Mohammed Daoud Khan and his family were assassinated, Khalq leader Nur Muhammed Taraki stepped into the Presidency of Afghanistan. Hafizullah Amin, a Khalq, and Babrak Karmal, a Parcham, assumed presumably co-equal roles as “Deputy Prime Minister.”
Post-coup civil unrest forced the Taraki to seek assistance from the Soviet Union. In a meeting with Leonid Breznev, Taraki agreed Amin should be “removed.” On Taraki’s return he immediately requested a meeting with Amin. When Amin showed up for the meeting, a gun fight ensued. Amin escaped unhurt, but returned with Palace Guards and arrested Taraki. A few days later, on September 14, 1979, Amin assumed the Presidency, announcing that Taraki had died of an “undisclosed illness.”
Amin’s Presidency lasted three short months.
On December 22, 1979, Soviet advisors insisted Afghani tanks and other military equipment undergo maintenance. Then, the Soviets isolated Kabul by severing all communications links to areas outside the capital. When Amin realized what was going on, he moved the presidential offices to the Tajbeg Palace on the outskirts of Kabul.
Five days later, about 500 KGB OZNAZ (назначения, or Special Forces alpha group) dressed in Afghan military uniforms stormed Tajbeg Palace and killed Amin and about 200 elite guard.
If the Soviets supported a socialist Afghanistan, why assassinate Amin?
During Amin’s brief, three-month reign, he executed tens of thousands of people. Estimates vary widely, but it is generally accepted that Amin killed between 18,000 and 45,000 “political opponents.” When Amin released a list of 18,000 PDPA members killed “for the death of Taraki,” tens of thousands Afghani refugees fled over the southern border into Pakistan. (It is worthy to note that the children of these refugees were educated in Pakistani madrassas; some would return to Afghanistan as Taliban—the “Students.”)
The Soviets concluded that Amin’s rule constituted perilous footing for the fledgling socialist state.
That was December 27, 1979. I was a first semester college freshman on Christmas break. I could not imagine a Soviet Union that did not rival the United States.
The next morning, the Vitebsk parachute division landed at the Bagram airport, and the deployment of Soviet troops in Afghanistan was underway.
Soviet forces were wholly unprepared for the tactics of Mujahideen. To me, battles between the heavily armed Soviet military and the Mujahideen were like using an elephant gun to kill a mouse. The Soviets used artillery extensively, and in some areas they conducted scorched-earth campaigns that obliterated whole villages.
Civilian casualties around Mujahideen strongholds made the U.S. and Europe take notice of Soviet tactics. In a fit of pique, then President Jimmy Carter boycotted the 1980 Summer Olympics, and when the Soviets threatened to veto any UN Security Council action, Carter really got mad… That same year, Afghani Warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar—who would become a close associate of Osama bin Laden—established the Maktab al-Khadamat (Office of Services, MAK), a military force committed to defeating Soviet occupation and establishing an Islamic State.
The MAK and other organizations grew out of “covert U.S. operations” (read, “CIA”) to destabilize the budding socialist government in Afghanistan. When the Soviets cleaned Afghanistan’s house, these operations evolved into Operation Cyclone, a plan assist Afghani rebels in driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan.
Two U.S. Presidents later, the Soviet Union announced it was withdrawing forces from Afghanistan.
Almost one year later, on February 7, 1990, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union agreed to give up its monopoly on power…
I contend al Qaeda grew out of the Mujahideen’s success in driving the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan.
When you drive a formidable superpower from your lands and then witness it shrivel up into a shell of its former self, what do you do next?
Is it possible that you inflate the importance of your role in the superpower’s demise? And at what point do you yearn to do it again?
This last December, just before Christmas, a video released in Pakistan shows Gulbuddin Hekmatyar as he proclaims “the fate [the] Soviet Union faced is awaiting America as well.”
I think you can take that statement at face value.
Cheers,
Star Eagle,
In case there is any confusion, you should know that the passage you apparently attribute to me (“To me [al Qaeda] is the enemy, without question or reservation— they were linked to the Islamic Brotherhood going back to around 1920…”) was written by Edward Troy.
That said, for the record, on this Edward and I agree.
One adage that gets a lot of mileage these days is, “history repeats itself.” Using this aphorism as a premise, many pundits hold up Vietnam as an example of what happens when we fail to learn from history.
Edward Troy also writes, “…to defeat [al Qaeda] we must first understand their motivation.”
One force that drives al Qaeda, in particular, and radical Islam generally, is the defeat of Russian forces in Afghanistan by Mujahideen fighters in 1989. This “defeat” of the former Soviet Union is the fire in al Qaeda’s belly. To understand this fire, you have to go back a few decades. A good question to start with is, “What is Khalq?”
The Khalq (“Masses”) was one of two factions of the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) during the mid- to late-70s. The other was the Parcham (“Banner”). Both factions wanted a socialist Afghanistan but they disagreed about how to achieve one. The Parcham believed Afghanistan was not industrialized enough for a true proletarian revolution to succeed. The Khalq wanted an immediate, violent overthrow of the Afghan government and an instantaneous adoption of Soviet-style communism.
After an April, 1978 coup d’état in which President Mohammed Daoud Khan and his family were assassinated, Khalq leader Nur Muhammed Taraki stepped into the Presidency of Afghanistan. Hafizullah Amin, a Khalq, and Babrak Karmal, a Parcham, assumed presumably co-equal roles as “Deputy Prime Minister.”
Post-coup civil unrest forced the Taraki to seek assistance from the Soviet Union. In a meeting with Leonid Breznev, Taraki agreed Amin should be “removed.” On Taraki’s return he immediately requested a meeting with Amin. When Amin showed up for the meeting, a gun fight ensued. Amin escaped unhurt, but returned with Palace Guards and arrested Taraki. A few days later, on September 14, 1979, Amin assumed the Presidency, announcing that Taraki had died of an “undisclosed illness.”
Amin’s Presidency lasted three short months.
On December 22, 1979, Soviet advisors insisted Afghani tanks and other military equipment undergo maintenance. Then, the Soviets isolated Kabul by severing all communications links to areas outside the capital. When Amin realized what was going on, he moved the presidential offices to the Tajbeg Palace on the outskirts of Kabul.
Five days later, about 500 KGB OZNAZ (назначения, or Special Forces alpha group) dressed in Afghan military uniforms stormed Tajbeg Palace and killed Amin and about 200 elite guard.
If the Soviets supported a socialist Afghanistan, why assassinate Amin?
During Amin’s brief, three-month reign, he executed tens of thousands of people. Estimates vary widely, but it is generally accepted that Amin killed between 18,000 and 45,000 “political opponents.” When Amin released a list of 18,000 PDPA members killed “for the death of Taraki,” tens of thousands Afghani refugees fled over the southern border into Pakistan. (It is worthy to note that the children of these refugees were educated in Pakistani madrassas; some would return to Afghanistan as Taliban—the “Students.”)
The Soviets concluded that Amin’s rule constituted perilous footing for the fledgling socialist state.
That was December 27, 1979. I was a first semester college freshman on Christmas break. I could not imagine a Soviet Union that did not rival the United States.
The next morning, the Vitebsk parachute division landed at the Bagram airport, and the deployment of Soviet troops in Afghanistan was underway.
Soviet forces were wholly unprepared for the tactics of Mujahideen. To me, battles between the heavily armed Soviet military and the Mujahideen were like using an elephant gun to kill a mouse. The Soviets used artillery extensively, and in some areas they conducted scorched-earth campaigns that obliterated whole villages.
Civilian casualties around Mujahideen strongholds made the U.S. and Europe take notice of Soviet tactics. In a fit of pique, then President Jimmy Carter boycotted the 1980 Summer Olympics, and when the Soviets threatened to veto any UN Security Council action, Carter really got mad… That same year, Afghani Warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar—who would become a close associate of Osama bin Laden—established the Maktab al-Khadamat (Office of Services, MAK), a military force committed to defeating Soviet occupation and establishing an Islamic State.
The MAK and other organizations grew out of “covert U.S. operations” (read, “CIA”) to destabilize the budding socialist government in Afghanistan. When the Soviets cleaned Afghanistan’s house, these operations evolved into Operation Cyclone, a plan assist Afghani rebels in driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan.
Two U.S. Presidents later, the Soviet Union announced it was withdrawing forces from Afghanistan.
Almost one year later, on February 7, 1990, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union agreed to give up its monopoly on power…
I contend al Qaeda grew out of the Mujahideen’s success in driving the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan.
When you drive a formidable superpower from your lands and then witness it shrivel up into a shell of its former self, what do you do next?
Is it possible that you inflate the importance of your role in the superpower’s demise? And at what point do you yearn to do it again?
This last December, just before Christmas, a video released in Pakistan shows Gulbuddin Hekmatyar as he proclaims “the fate [the] Soviet Union faced is awaiting America as well.”
I think you can take that statement at face value.
Cheers,
Sorry for my confussion Mitch and thanks for your great info on Afghanistan.
I need sleep, I will respond soon.
Sorry for my confussion Mitch and thanks for your great info on Afghanistan.
I need sleep, I will respond soon.
Mitch I have no divergence from your historical discussion of Afghanistan. While in college in ’77, I proposed a union of effort by the US and the USSR to eliminate the rest of the worlds weaponry, or be exterminated. Then humanity could start new free of productive hobbling military crap. A world of R&D production and quality of life enhancing avocations.
yes there are a lot Of orgs that use terrorism. Most are poorly funded with the exception of Al Qeada. Knock off Al Qeada and the body of the rest will mostly die.
Mitch I have no divergence from your historical discussion of Afghanistan. While in college in ’77, I proposed a union of effort by the US and the USSR to eliminate the rest of the worlds weaponry, or be exterminated. Then humanity could start new free of productive hobbling military crap. A world of R&D production and quality of life enhancing avocations.
yes there are a lot Of orgs that use terrorism. Most are poorly funded with the exception of Al Qeada. Knock off Al Qeada and the body of the rest will mostly die.
Hey Mitch,
Thanks again for a great post on Afghanistan. Your knowledge is very helpful to me as I try and get a better grip on understanding this world.
A reflection of mine of that period is of three tee-shirts I bought at a Army surplus store. It showed a Mujahideen(a very Osama looking fellow) fighter standing on a mountain ridge firing his AK-47 at three rocket firing Soviet helicopter gunships.
I gave one to a beer drinking bar-room philosipher friend of mine who I used to match wits with as he was a firm believer in everything–Reagan. Of course I was more fair and balanced. I pointed out to him that I thought that this was going to be Russia’s version of Vietnam.
I did forsee the demise of Russia way back when I was arguing against our involvement in fighting over control of some jungle mountains and rice paddy’s (and lets not forget that essential deep water port) in Vietnam. My point being that we were bankrupting (economically, morally, socially, etc..) our country for nothing. The battle with communism was going to be economic in the long run.
Therefore in the early 70′s I thought that Russia would fall about now. I did not see at that time that they would foolishly go into Afghanistan and leave the field early due to having a one-tiered economy compared to our two-tiered system of govenment-private.
While our govenment has been seriously in the red since our private economy has had to provide ballast to keep us afloat. Enter China…but that is another story!
Bottom line with my beer drinking buddy was that I thought our involvement in Afghanistan was going to come back to haunt us down the line. Another example is our support of Saddam against Iran in the 80′s. Both seem to haunt us today, but then again… not if you look at it in the OIL-MONEY, MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX-MONEY context that many in this country and world do. Then it just makes sense in a neo-con kind of way, don’t ya know!
So Mitch, what do you think of the letter that T.E. Lawrence wrote back in 1920 to the people of London? And what do you think of the idea of moving into a election system that eliminates Democrats-Republicans and private money?
As much as I like history, I would like to add ideas for the future to these discussions. That is why I so appreciate Edward and reckless G’s post (wouldn’t they make a great ticket for President and V.P. in 2012), they are not afraid to acknowledge past failures and change our future stategies accordingly. Where-as alpha comes across as a brilliant but broken record.
Lastly Mitch, the best thing I can recomend as far as looking into the 9/11 conspiricy theory thing is for you to just get busy googling it. There is so much info out there and of course it is knee deep in b.s. in some places but I encourage you to especially look into some of the films for youself and pick through the evidence yourself and decide for yourself what you think.
It took me quite a while before the pieces started adding up for me but then again I was only focused on the Memorial and the scandel involved in that aspect of 9/11 and Ground Zero till just recently.
Anyway I trust your intelligence and look forward to hearing your perceptions of what you find in your personal research into 9/11. Star Eagle
Hey Mitch,
Thanks again for a great post on Afghanistan. Your knowledge is very helpful to me as I try and get a better grip on understanding this world.
A reflection of mine of that period is of three tee-shirts I bought at a Army surplus store. It showed a Mujahideen(a very Osama looking fellow) fighter standing on a mountain ridge firing his AK-47 at three rocket firing Soviet helicopter gunships.
I gave one to a beer drinking bar-room philosipher friend of mine who I used to match wits with as he was a firm believer in everything–Reagan. Of course I was more fair and balanced. I pointed out to him that I thought that this was going to be Russia’s version of Vietnam.
I did forsee the demise of Russia way back when I was arguing against our involvement in fighting over control of some jungle mountains and rice paddy’s (and lets not forget that essential deep water port) in Vietnam. My point being that we were bankrupting (economically, morally, socially, etc..) our country for nothing. The battle with communism was going to be economic in the long run.
Therefore in the early 70′s I thought that Russia would fall about now. I did not see at that time that they would foolishly go into Afghanistan and leave the field early due to having a one-tiered economy compared to our two-tiered system of govenment-private.
While our govenment has been seriously in the red since our private economy has had to provide ballast to keep us afloat. Enter China…but that is another story!
Bottom line with my beer drinking buddy was that I thought our involvement in Afghanistan was going to come back to haunt us down the line. Another example is our support of Saddam against Iran in the 80′s. Both seem to haunt us today, but then again… not if you look at it in the OIL-MONEY, MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX-MONEY context that many in this country and world do. Then it just makes sense in a neo-con kind of way, don’t ya know!
So Mitch, what do you think of the letter that T.E. Lawrence wrote back in 1920 to the people of London? And what do you think of the idea of moving into a election system that eliminates Democrats-Republicans and private money?
As much as I like history, I would like to add ideas for the future to these discussions. That is why I so appreciate Edward and reckless G’s post (wouldn’t they make a great ticket for President and V.P. in 2012), they are not afraid to acknowledge past failures and change our future stategies accordingly. Where-as alpha comes across as a brilliant but broken record.
Lastly Mitch, the best thing I can recomend as far as looking into the 9/11 conspiricy theory thing is for you to just get busy googling it. There is so much info out there and of course it is knee deep in b.s. in some places but I encourage you to especially look into some of the films for youself and pick through the evidence yourself and decide for yourself what you think.
It took me quite a while before the pieces started adding up for me but then again I was only focused on the Memorial and the scandel involved in that aspect of 9/11 and Ground Zero till just recently.
Anyway I trust your intelligence and look forward to hearing your perceptions of what you find in your personal research into 9/11. Star Eagle