"Dirty Wars"

[Shane Wahl]

1. We should be clear about what "meddling" means. Influence by use of money, other material gain, political support, military use et cetera? Since this word is being used here to argue that we are creating terrorists because we've "meddled," it seems important to know what you all mean. Why?

 

2. Because we've exerted (meddled) influence in almost every corner of the world and I don't believe every corner of the world has put anything like a "fatwa" for meddling in their zones of influence in the past.

 

3. Therefore, while it may be a contributing cause, I don't think "meddling" can be shown to be the primary cause for the creation of terrorism.

 

4. The more likely causes are ignorance perpetuated by lack of education, religious and culturally fixed view about the West (which they find obscene and encroaching on their religious/cultural values), and the fact the violence and conquest is how their religion began and spread.

 

5. Just for illustration, and do correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we Vietnam was meddled with a great deal in their history -- China was always their greatest foe, then the French came, then Soviet influence, then The USA came. Yet, we have normalized relations with all of Vietnam and they are possibly our greatest ally in the region even after so much carpet bombing, money, US military presence et cetera. We've "meddled" plenty there, yet somehow it only took a couple decades after this conflict to normalize relations throughout.

 

Also, I would guess that the culture and religious views of SE Asia are/were just as foreign as those of the Middle East and central Asia.

 

I think this points to something other than "meddling" as the sole or primary cause of terrorism exported from that region.

 

I am not going to say that such interference, occupation, and invasion/occupation is the primary problem. The primary problem involves a middle ages, pre-printing press level of knowledge about the world. People do not know what is going on in the very populations being massacred. But meddling does not solve any problems. Overthrow the democratically elected leader to institute a monster. And then that monster gained more power!?

 

OBL said, clearly, that U.S. occupation of Saudi Arabia, and the support of American forces in the ensuing war against Saddam was enough to radicalize muslims around the world.

[Shane Wahl]

Winning the war on terror *is not the objective* of the war on terror. Servicemen and servicewomen should begin to understand this. Exacerbate the problem of terrorism--that is the chief objective. Full stop.

 

The answer to the problem is a slow answer. Killing people is the quick answer and it is no answer at all. The real answer involves an end goal . . . equality for women. Once that is had, they can develop a culture with much less repression of sexuality.

[Shane Wahl]

Also:

 

1. Are we all aware, again, of the direct involvement of the overthrowing on a democratically elected Iranian leader and the subsequent radicalization of the Iranian population after the Shah was clearly a damned monster to the Iranians?

 

2. The "enemy of my enemy" is a bogus way to conduct a foreign policy. Are people really not aware, here, of the footage of Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands in 1983?

 

3. Supporting both sides in a war is not good policy, right? Yet, this is the history of U.S. involvement in Iran-Iraq.

 

4. The United States encouraged radical Islam when it deemed necessary in Afghanistan in the 1980s and Bosnia in the 1990s.

 

5. The United States props up an Israeli government that is wildly barbaric to Palestinians in the region.

 

6. The support of the Saudi regime only exacerbates the situation. And it is only because of oil that we blind-eye this monstrous regime.

[TheLeviathan]

5. The United States props up an Israeli government that is wildly barbaric to Palestinians in the region..

 

You really killed an otherwise good post with this baffling line. And that's coming from someone more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause than most. This is just wrong and many other adjectives I'll leave unsaid.

[The Wise One]

Winning the war on terror *is not the objective* of the war on terror. Servicemen and servicewomen should begin to understand this. Exacerbate the problem of terrorism--that is the chief objective. Full stop.

 

The answer to the problem is a slow answer. Killing people is the quick answer and it is no answer at all. The real answer involves an end goal . . . equality for women. Once that is had, they can develop a culture with much less repression of sexuality.

 

Considering the core of the fundamentalist religion, male dominance and kill those that are different than me, have been in place for a millennium your real answer for an end game ought to be an interesting one

 

If every form of government that was brutal to some portion of the population was wiped out by a magic wand there would be very few governments left. Governments removed were as brutal to others as the governments that replaced them

[Shane Wahl]

You really killed an otherwise good post with this baffling line. And that's coming from someone more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause than most. This is just wrong and many other adjectives I'll leave unsaid.

 

Israelis and Palestinians Killed since 9/29/2000

 

http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/BE07C80CDA4579468525734800500272

 

Not sure what is really that baffling.

[Shane Wahl]

Considering the core of the fundamentalist religion, male dominance and kill those that are different than me, have been in place for a millennium your real answer for an end game ought to be an interesting one

 

If every form of government that was brutal to some portion of the population was wiped out by a magic wand there would be very few governments left. Governments removed were as brutal to others as the governments that replaced them

 

So we wage these wars to replace one brutal government with another. Sounds like an utter waste of time, money, and lives.

 

What got the West out of the dark ages, and how does it happen again for these societies?

[The Wise One]

Israelis and Palestinians Killed since 9/29/2000

 

Israeli-Palestinian fatalities since 2000 - OCHA Special Focus (31 August 2007)

 

Not sure what is really that baffling.

 

The Palestinaian and Israel have gone on since long before 2000

[TheLeviathan]

Israelis and Palestinians Killed since 9/29/2000

 

Israeli-Palestinian fatalities since 2000 - OCHA Special Focus (31 August 2007)

 

Not sure what is really that baffling.

 

So they've killed more....how does that make them "barbaric"? This sounds like a lefty talking points on steroids.

 

Israel has done plenty of wrong, no doubt about it. They've also got zero chance of diplomatic solutions because they're surrounded by zealots with no interest in peace. So yeah, their better military is better at killing their enemies than the motley bunch that insists they die.

 

But yeesh, if Israel is barbaric, Obama makes Ghengis Kahn look like a choir boy.

[The Wise One]

So we wage these wars to replace one brutal government with another. Sounds like an utter waste of time, money, and lives.

 

What got the West out of the dark ages, and how does it happen again for these societies?

 

Point 1. I guess you would have to say that Bush, unlike most of the middle east coups, couldn't find any way to have someone else do the fighting. If they would have armed the Kurds they could have probably avoided a lot of maimed Americans in Iraq. Then Turkey would be worried because they have a large Kurdish population.

 

2. What brought the West out the dark ages? The ability to subjugate other populations. How long have women been equals in the West. Has not happened yet.

[twinsnorth49]

So they've killed more....how does that make them "barbaric"? This sounds like a lefty talking points on steroids.

 

Israel has done plenty of wrong, no doubt about it. They've also got zero chance of diplomatic solutions because they're surrounded by zealots with no interest in peace. So yeah, their better military is better at killing their enemies than the motley bunch that insists they die.

 

But yeesh, if Israel is barbaric, Obama makes Ghengis Kahn look like a choir boy.

 

Anyone who takes a negative view of Israel aggression is a Liberal lefty....on steroids, got it. Yet another clichéd belief that everything Israel does is in response to a shower of rocket fire from Hamas, which justifies the slaughter of whoever gets in the way.

 

Yes Israeli civilians suffer but to ignore how much of it comes at the hand of Israeli provocation is incredibly naive. Not everything comes in response to the alleged terrorists and there is plenty of revisionist history written about Israeli aggression.

 

If Obama makes Khan look like a choir boy then Sharon made him look like Jesus himself.

 

Surrounded by zealots? The original zealots were the Jews, a term that still applies to Likud.

[Shane Wahl]

So they've killed more....how does that make them "barbaric"? This sounds like a lefty talking points on steroids.

 

Israel has done plenty of wrong, no doubt about it. They've also got zero chance of diplomatic solutions because they're surrounded by zealots with no interest in peace. So yeah, their better military is better at killing their enemies than the motley bunch that insists they die.

 

But yeesh, if Israel is barbaric, Obama makes Ghengis Kahn look like a choir boy.

 

They have killed more by the thousands. And more women and children by the thousands. I am not sure what isn't barbaric about that.

 

The Israeli government is also engaged in zealotry. Notice two nuances here. The focus on the Israeli government, and the word "also."

[Shane Wahl]

Point 1. I guess you would have to say that Bush, unlike most of the middle east coups, couldn't find any way to have someone else do the fighting. If they would have armed the Kurds they could have probably avoided a lot of maimed Americans in Iraq. Then Turkey would be worried because they have a large Kurdish population.

 

2. What brought the West out the dark ages? The ability to subjugate other populations. How long have women been equals in the West. Has not happened yet.

 

I don't know how to respond to the first point. The actual record is pretty clear about certain people in the Bush Administration wanting war with Iraq immediately after Sept. 11. And they wanted it during the Clinton years. Project for the New American Century is very clear about that desire.

 

The second point is more interesting, certainly. I agree that women are not equal, ultimately in the West. So? The status of women in the West is radically different than women in much of the rest of the world. The point is that the answer *takes time* and is not simply a matter of killing our way to solving the problem.

 

But those powers that be know that war is no solution. BUT war certainly is the solution to their need to keep producing terrorists to further justify military spending and future wars in this "indefinite" period of warfare that Americans have somehow accepted as OK.

[TheLeviathan]

They have killed more by the thousands. And more women and children by the thousands. I am not sure what isn't barbaric about that.

 

The Israeli government is also engaged in zealotry. Notice two nuances here. The focus on the Israeli government, and the word "also."

 

And how many American civilians have the Afghanis killed versus the Obama administration? Again, I'd like to hear your adjective for Obama.

 

i agree there is zealotry on both sides. And I am all for a Palestinian state which includes part of what is being argued over. But none of that changes the fact that the Israeli government is the only one over there even remotely interested in peace. And the simple evidence for that is if the sides were reversed and the military might reversed - there isn't any question the barbarism would be ten fold. The restraint shown by Israel wouldnt be shared by their enemies.

[TheLeviathan]

Yet another clichéd belief that everything Israel does is in response to a shower of rocket fire from Hamas, which justifies the slaughter of whoever gets in the way.

 

First, lets be honest, the real provocation came from Europeans dumping the Jews in the middle of a hot bed after WW2 and thinking that was going to work. Since then real risk of all out war on Israel has been a constant risk. Have thy been far too aggressive at times? Absolutely. Barbaric? That's hyperbole.

 

Again, I'm very sympathetic to the Palestinian issue, they got screwed losing their turf. But I can't call a nation barbaric for defending themselves in the face of constant threats by a group of people with no interest in anything but religious blood feuding.

 

The difference is simple to me, one side wants the others to all die and one just wants to be left the hell alone. Doesn't mean they don't overstep themselves terribly too often, but that motivation is very relevant IMO.

[Shane Wahl]

And how many American civilians have the Afghanis killed versus the Obama administration? Again, I'd like to hear your adjective for Obama.

 

i agree there is zealotry on both sides. And I am all for a Palestinian state which includes part of what is being argued over. But none of that changes the fact that the Israeli government is the only one over there even remotely interested in peace. And the simple evidence for that is if the sides were reversed and the military might reversed - there isn't any question the barbarism would be ten fold. The restraint shown by Israel wouldnt be shared by their enemies.

 

Am I allowed around here to use such adjectives about the President? Of course he has a barbaric foreign policy. Good lord. Drone strikes on American citizens, for crying out loud.

 

Anyway, the Israeli government is not remotely interested in peace. There is no possible justification for such a claim. The Israeli people, yes, but not that government.

[Shane Wahl]

 

The difference is simple to me, one side wants the others to all die and one just wants to be left the hell alone. Doesn't mean they don't overstep themselves terribly too often, but that motivation is very relevant IMO.

 

Speaking of hyperbole!

[Shane Wahl]

Anyway, I would like to know what *good* has come about because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

To me it has been a success for only that segment of the population that benefits from unending war (the Pentagon, relevant defense industries, and ideologues . . . oh and terrorist leaders).

[TheLeviathan]

Speaking of hyperbole!

 

I don't think it is at all. Tht entire region, particularly Israel's most ardent enemies have no interest in anything but Israel's death. You can't simply ignore that.

 

I wouldn't call them barbaric, they are aggressive, but to some degree understandably so. But if their ratios of citizen deaths is barbaric, Obama may not have a term severe enough to describe him.

[Squirrel]

I don't think it is at all. Tht entire region, particularly Israel's most ardent enemies have no interest in anything but Israel's death. You can't simply ignore that.

 

 

But you can ignore Israel's goal of Palestinian eradication? This is not a matter of them being 'understandably aggressive.'

[Shane Wahl]

Not every Arab and/or every Muslim in the region wants Israel wiped out. Just be clear on that.

[TheLeviathan]

Not every Arab and/or every Muslim in the region wants Israel wiped out. Just be clear on that.

 

No, not every. But enough that the region is basically hopeless. And personally I'm not confused by terrorists using human shields and then turning them into exactly the talking point they are hoping to create.

 

I have trouble sympathisizing with those "civilians" who facilitate terrorism, endorse female subjugation, excuse rape, teach religious blood feuding, etc. There is a clear difference in the intentions of the Israelis versus those around them. It appears we value that difference differently.

 

That said, I think they should relinquish the turf they took in wars. Problem is those that oppose them won't appreciate it at all in any meaningful way. It boggles my mind how much sympathy mindless hate is getting versus over aggression.

[Shane Wahl]

PCHR Report on Extrajudicial Killings - IHL

In fairness to Obama, he is simply following the little brother's lead in extrajudicial killings.

[twinsnorth49]

First, lets be honest, the real provocation came from Europeans dumping the Jews in the middle of a hot bed after WW2 and thinking that was going to work. Since then real risk of all out war on Israel has been a constant risk. Have thy been far too aggressive at times? Absolutely. Barbaric? That's hyperbole.

 

Again, I'm very sympathetic to the Palestinian issue, they got screwed losing their turf. But I can't call a nation barbaric for defending themselves in the face of constant threats by a group of people with no interest in anything but religious blood feuding.

 

The difference is simple to me, one side wants the others to all die and one just wants to be left the hell alone. Doesn't mean they don't overstep themselves terribly too often, but that motivation is very relevant IMO.

 

Wow, I'm just utterly shocked at your complete lack of understanding of the Middle East and your stereotypical beliefs on Islam.. I don't know you but you always seemed like an intelligent person, the beliefs you state in this post are overwhelmingly false however.

 

The vast, vast majority of Arabs have no interest in the eradication of Israel and just want peace.

 

Do you appreciate when the rest of the world portrays all of you as extreme, right wing, war mongering, Imperialist, Fundamentalist Christians?

 

That's pretty much your view of Arabs and Muslims.

[TheLeviathan]

The vast, vast majority of Arabs have no interest in the eradication of Israel and just want peace.

 

Well, I prefer to deal in reality. Most muslims are good people and I'd welcome every rational one that wants to be done with their country's archaic laws to our country. They are truly wonderful people when they have contemporary views.

 

But the reality is that in many of these countries rape is still an effective way to get a wife. Old religious feuds are still alive and well. The fact is, for all the claims of the masses of moderate, peace-lovers - the region and the leadership there is hopelessly stuck in the middle ages. That's why I have little faith in the ability to change hearts and minds and I don't blame the Israelis for feeling the same.

 

The reason there is conflict there isn't because of a blood-thirsty Israeli government, it's because of the terrorists and zealots that surround them. Hopefully those that are moderate and rational someday win out in those countries, we've just seen ample evidence the last few years that they will not. At least not for a long damn time.

[twinsnorth49]

Well, I prefer to deal in reality. Most muslims are good people and I'd welcome every rational one that wants to be done with their country's archaic laws to our country. They are truly wonderful people when they have contemporary views.

 

But the reality is that in many of these countries rape is still an effective way to get a wife. Old religious feuds are still alive and well. The fact is, for all the claims of the masses of moderate, peace-lovers - the region and the leadership there is hopelessly stuck in the middle ages. That's why I have little faith in the ability to change hearts and minds and I don't blame the Israelis for feeling the same.

 

The reason there is conflict there isn't because of a blood-thirsty Israeli government, it's because of the terrorists and zealots that surround them. Hopefully those that are moderate and rational someday win out in those countries, we've just seen ample evidence the last few years that they will not. At least not for a long damn time.

 

Reality? What reality? You continue to frame Islam and Muslims in the context of the most extreme, and often wrong, interpretations.

 

Laws against your country? Are you referring to Sharia law? You need to examine what the actual meaning of Sharia law is, it is not a threat to America. Or perhaps you're talking about the Fatwas, passed down by so called religious leaders who have no influence on 95% of Muslims and only represent the radicals. The Caliphate was dissolved in 1923 and possibly represents the single biggest reason for the various splinter groups within the religion.

 

Rape is forbidden by Islamic law, you need to educate yourself on this common myth of Islam.

 

Age old religious feuds? Which ones? Between the Shias and the Sunnis? Mostly myth, considering 75% of Muslims are Sunni. Tribal feuds? Sure, not unlike many religions, is there such thing as a peaceful religion, even the Buddhists have endured their share of bloodshed.

 

The terrorists are not solely to blame for the conflict in the region, Israel is every bit as much to blame and the continuing storyline as them as victims endlessly responding to unprovoked attacks is wrong. Does Israel want peace? Only at the same price as the terrorists.

 

Just to be clear, the conflict had nothing to do with religion, it's territorial and unfortunately with the involvement of too many, mainly a political one, which just so happens to be the most detrimental issue.

[TheLeviathan]

You need to examine what the actual meaning of Sharia law is, it is not a threat to America.

 

Cmon, you respond to reality with posting talking point generalities like this?

 

Article 308 of Jordanian law allows a man to marry a woman to avoid being charged with rape. The same law existed in Morocco until last year. It exists in Afghanistan. Syria, Iraq, Palestine, and other places. Sometimes it is enforced even when not on the books. Here's an example:

 

Jordan (1960) / West Bank — Article 308

 

The Jordanian penal code is also applied in the West Bank.

المادة 292

من واقع انثى (غير زوجه) بغير رضاها سواء بالاكراه او بالتهديد او بالحيلة او بالخداع عوقب بالاشغال الشاقة المؤقتة مدة لا تقل عن خمس عشرة سنة

كل شخص اقدم على اغتصاب فتاة لم تتم الخامسة عشرة من عمرها يعاقب بالاعدام

وتكون العقوبة الأشغال الشاقة عشرين سنة إذا كانت المجني عليها قد أكملت الخامسة عشرة و لم تكمل الثامنة عشرة من عمرهاالمادة 308

إذا عقد زواج صحيح بين مرتكب إحدى الجرائم الواردة في هذا الفصل وبين المعتدى عليها أوقفت الملاحقة وإذا كان صدر حكم بالقضية علق تنفيذ العقاب الذي فرض على المحكوم عليه

Article 292

: Whoever has sexual intercourse with a woman, other than his wife, without her consent — whether through coercion, threat, deception, or fraud — is punished with hard labor for no less than 15 years. Any person who rapes a girl under 15-years-old is punished by death, and with hard labor for 20 years if the victim is between the ages of 15 and 18.

Article 308

: If a valid contract of marriage is made between the perpetrator of any of the offenses mentioned in this section, and the victim, the prosecution is suspended. If judgment was already passed, the implementation of the punishment upon the sentenced person is suspended.

So no, I'm educated on it just fine.

 

Age old religious feuds? Which ones? Between the Shias and the Sunnis? Mostly myth, considering 75% of Muslims are Sunni.

 

This feels like you just answered a question like "Is the color Aqua blue or green?" with "Rabbits don't wear hats". It's a completely tangential stat (if even correct) that has absolutely no bearing on the point being made. 80% of of Whales like plankton ok for a rebuttal?

 

This is an area still stuck in archaic blood feuds with the West, Israel, and often with each other too. Everyone's history has those, only one religion is still painfully and oppressively stuck in it now. Which is what we're talking about - the reality now.

 

The terrorists are not solely to blame for the conflict in the region, Israel is every bit as much to blame and the continuing storyline as them as victims endlessly responding to unprovoked attacks is wrong. Does Israel want peace? Only at the same price as the terrorists.

 

I didn't say they were solely Responsible for the conflict. Israel has been overly aggressive and resistant to democracy. I also don't blame them because those around them aren't interested in fair conclusions and compromises. They only "compromise" that would satisfy them is Israel being gone. I also won't allow terrorist strategies of hiding among civilians to deflect blame on their enemies as a way to sway my opinion about who the primary cause of violence is still emanating from.

 

Again, if you surrounded Israel with non-archaic, moderate, modern governments - they wouldn't be having any issues. I can't say the same about any of their neighbors. And that says much more to me than anything else.

[twinsnorth49]

Most of those codes are based on the French Penal code of 1810, articles 354-357 for your reference. To be sure, the Otttomans had similar codes but largely the current codes still in existence were a result of blending Islamic systems with Colonial ones the Europeans brought, they have no basis in Islamic Law or Islam as a whole. Some of the same laws exist in Latin America as well, but you probably knew that too.

 

You're absolutely correct that these laws are draconian and archaic, many countries have officially repealed them and the others are expected to follow. Having said that, it's a pretty big misreprsentation to say that rape is an effective way to get a wife, it is not and statistically speaking rape has a lower rate of occurrence in Muslim countries than many Western countries, including Canada and the US.

 

The fact that a judge decided that this would be an acceptable decision in the case is perverse but that is where the blame should lie. People were justifiably outaged by it, mainly because most were unaware of the law itself. The decision itself will likely serve as the catalyst for it's repeal due to the public outrage that followed and continues today.

 

This law has nothing to do Islam as a religion or Muslims in general, it is once again an extreme view held by very few.

 

My "general talking point" on Sharia law was to do with with your "general talking point" that Muslim countries have archaic laws against your country Which laws and who enacted them? My assumption was that you hold the widely held misbelief that Muslims are at "religious war" with the US, usually thought of as Sharia law or Fatwas or Jihad. This of course is false and again only represents the extremists who do not speak for the majority, and the terms are again misrepresented.

 

My question of age old religious feuds still stands? Which ones? Sunnis represent 75% of Muslims and 25% are Shia, pretty one sided if there was any real dispute. My point was that, any feuds that do exist are territorial based or tribal based, not religious, which you seem to believe. Blood feuds with the West and Israel are driven by the radicals, you're still equating any Muslim living in the Middle East with terrorists.

 

Muslims are tolerant, throughout history they have been tolerant of other religions, even throughout their conquests of Christian and Jewish territories. Ironically, Muslims have rarely been treated with the same tolerance, from the Christian Crusades to Western Colonial rule, Muslims have been persecuted for centuries, because of thier beliefs.

 

The Palestinians do want fair conclusions and are open to compromise, Israel being gone is not the only solution that would satisfy them, again you only focus on the lunatics. Palestinian recognition and the return of some of their settlements is really what the goal for the majority is. The refusal by Israel to recognize that, expand their occupation through aggression and not compromise, is as much to blame for the violence as the extremists who claim to represent Palestine.

 

Look, I'm not defending terrorism, far from it. I just take umbrage with the belief that the radicals represent Muslims and Islam in many peoples minds, they don't and the vast majority denounce them. The cause of the conflict is not a religious one, it's a political and socio-economic one brought about by Colonial and post Colonial rule and exacerbated by the occupation of Palestine.

 

This topic is far to big to be discussed in such a forum, it's too complex and has many historical roots. It also has so many myths, fallacies and misinterpretations that it's impossible to have an intelligent discussion on it.

[TheLeviathan]

The whole problem is you are arguing a scarecrow. My point has been all along that the nations surrounding Israel are archaic and stuck in centuries old blood feuds. You made it about religion. I was consistent in talking about leadership as well, not the general populace. Religion plays a factor, usually as a tool of the leadership to justify archaic s practice. Whether it is "true" to the religion or not is irrelevant to me. All religions could use that escape clause and I don't buy it for them either.

 

it boils down to this for me: If Israel gave up all lands not originally given to them, demilitarized, opened their borders, and shared economic resources.....would they have peace? And the answer, in my eyes to anyone not living in a dream world, is no...they wouldn't.

 

If, on the other hand, Their neighbors committed 100% to eradicating terrorism, compromising on territory, and disavowing all acts of hostility....would there be peace? Yes, I think there would be.

 

Thats the whole point. Blame Israel when deserved, but don't kid yourself about where the problems truly lie.