DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on July 16, 2007, 10:46:30 PM
-
London does a better job than Washington reaching out to them.
BY R. JAMES WOOLSEY AND NINA SHEA
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Islamist terrorism has led the American and British governments in the past month to launch separate public-diplomacy programs aimed at engaging Muslims at home and abroad. A quick comparison shows the two initiatives are headed in opposite directions. At least the Brits have finally got it right.
The Bush administration is building bridges to well-funded and self-publicized organizations that claim to speak for all Muslims, even though some of those groups espouse views inimical to American values and interests. After years of pursuing similar strategies--while seeing home-based terrorists proliferate--the Blair-Brown government is now more discerning about which Muslims it will partner with. Stating that "lip service for peace" is no longer sufficient, the British are identifying and elevating those who are willing to take clear stands against terrorism and its supporting ideology.
Thus, in a major address at a two-day government conference early last month (titled "Islam and Muslims in the World Today"), then-Prime Minister Tony Blair, with Gordon Brown in attendance and hosting a reception, vowed to correct an imbalance. He stated that, in Britain's Muslim community, unrepresentative but well-funded groups are able to attract disproportionately large amounts of publicity, while moderate voices go unheard and unpublished.
Mr. Blair emphasized that Islam is not a "monolithic faith," but one made up of a "rich pattern of diversity." The principal purpose of the conference, Mr. Blair stressed, was to "let the authentic voices of Islam, in their various schools and manifestations, speak for themselves." He was as good as his word.
Invitations to participate in the assembly were extended to the less-publicized, moderate groups, such as the Sufi Muslim Council, the British Muslim Foundation and Minhaj-ul-Quran. Notably absent from the program was the Muslim Council of Britain, a group that claims to represent that nation's Muslims but is preoccupied with its self-described struggle against "Islamophobia"--a term it tries to use to shut down critical analysis of anything Islamic, whether legitimate or bigoted.
Also dropped from the speaking roster was the leading European Islamist Tariq Ramadan, who, while denied a visa by the United States, has been a fixture at official conferences on Muslims in Europe. The grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mr. Ramadan is fuzzy on where he stands on specific acts of terror--and he infamously evaded a challenge by Nicolas Sarkozy to denounce stoning.
Mr. Blair committed funds to improve the teaching of Islamic studies in British universities; announced a new effort to develop "minimum standards" for imams in Britain; and, most significantly, declared that henceforth the government would be giving "priority, in its support and funding decisions, to those leadership organizations actively working to tackle violent extremism." Routine but vague press releases against terrorism would no longer do.
A few days later, British backbone was demonstrated again with the knighting of novelist Salman Rushdie. Since 1989, when Iran's mullahs pronounced one of his works "blasphemous," Mr. Rushdie has lived under the shadow of a death threat, the first fatwa with universal jurisdiction against a Muslim living in the West. With the news that Britain would honor him, extremist Muslims rioted. But many Western Muslim reformers, increasingly threatened by death threats and murderous fatwas themselves, cheered the Brits. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Dutch parliamentarian who was born a Muslim in Somalia, wrote: "The queen has honored the freedom of conscience and creativity cherished in the West."
On the eve of his departure from office, Mr. Blair gave a television interview taking on those he once courted--British Islamists who have been quick to level charges of Islamophobia and oppression against Britain and the United States: "The reason we are finding it hard to win this battle [against terror] is that we're not actually fighting it properly. We're not actually standing up to these people and saying, 'It's not just your methods that are wrong, your ideas are absurd. Nobody is oppressing you. Your sense of grievance isn't justified.' . . . Some of what is written on this is loopy-loo in its extremism."
Contrast this with the Bush administration's new approach. On June 27, President Bush delivered his "Muslim Initiative" address at the Washington Islamic Center in tribute to the 50th anniversary of that organization's founding, by Saudi Arabia. Wahhabism is the state religion of Saudi Arabia, and its extremist ideology often flows with the kingdom's money. The Islamic Center is not an exception.
A few years ago when we were with Freedom House, concerned Muslims brought us Saudi educational material they collected from the Washington Islamic Center that instructed Muslims fundamentally to segregate themselves from other Americans. One such text stated: "To be dissociated from the infidels is to hate them for their religion, to leave them, never to rely on them for support, not to admire them, to be on one's guard against them, never to imitate them, and to always oppose them in every way according to Islamic law."
Though Mr. Bush's remarks were intended for all American Muslims, the administration left the invitation list to Washington Islamic Center's authorities. Predictably, they excluded the truly moderate, who are not Saudi-founded or funded: the Islamic Supreme Council of America, the American Islamic Congress, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, the Center for Eurasian Policy, the Center for Islamic Pluralism, the Islam and Democracy Project, the Institute for Gulf Affairs, the Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia and many others.
These organizations are frequently shut out of U.S. government events and appointments on the basis that they are considered insignificant or "controversial" by the petro-dollar-funded groups. The administration makes a terrible mistake by making such Wahhabi-influenced institutions as the Washington Islamic Center the gate keepers for all American Muslims.
The actual substance of Mr. Bush's mosque speech--particularly good on religious freedom--was overshadowed by the announcement of its single initiative: America is to send an envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference. Based in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, the OIC was created explicitly to promote hostility to Israel, and its meetings largely consist of ritualistic Israel-bashing. At one last year, Iran's president called for the "elimination of the Zionist regime." It has no mechanism for discussing the human rights of its member states, and thus has never spoken out against Sudan's genocide of Darfuri Muslims. It is advancing an effort to universalize Islamic blasphemy laws, which are applied as often against speech critical of the governments of OIC member states as against profanities. Last month the OIC council of foreign ministers termed Islamophobia "the worst form of terrorism." Currently no Western power holds either member or observer status at the OIC.
The Bush administration is now actively considering whether its public diplomacy should reach out to Muslim Brotherhood groups. While such groups may pay lip service to peace, they do not denounce terror by Hamas, a Brotherhood offshoot. It keeps as its motto: "Allah is our objective, the Prophet is our leader, the Koran is our law, jihad is our way, dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope." By choosing those whose definition of terror does not include the murder of Jews, honor killings and lethal fatwas against Muslim dissidents and reformers, the U.S. government makes them look strong--particularly in the shame-and-honor culture of the Middle East--and strengthens their hand against the real moderates and reformers.
Great Britain, as we have been reminded recently, has much work ahead in defeating Muslim terror, as well as in overcoming the misguided form of multiculturalism of its recent past. Not all of Britain's measures will be right for America, with our First Amendment. But the British Labour Party socialists appear to have done one major thing right that this American Republican administration has not: Reach out to Muslim leaders who are demonstrably moderate and share our values, even though they may not have petrodollar-funded publicity machines.
While we don't have a Queen to dub knights, Americans do have distinct way of honoring our heroes. Mr. President, confer the Medal of Freedom on one of our own outstanding Muslim-American citizens. For a selection of honorees, look at who was not invited to your recent speech. If Islamists charge "Islamophobia," repeat after Tony: "Loopy loo. Loopy loo."
London does a better job (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010338)
-
Ludicrous.
As if any Muslim organization could gain respect and stature in the eyes of Muslims by accepting praise and cash from the U.S.A.
Let's look at it realistically: a U.S. administration renowned for its close ties to the fundamentalist Christian right, for its invasion of two Muslim countries, for its numerous crimes and atrocities against Muslim prisoners and Muslim civilians, decides to single out a Muslim organization, pat it on the head, give it a shitload of cash and tell it - - in front of the world - - "Oh, but you guys are GOOD Muslims. We LIIIIKE you. You're OUR kind of Muslims."
Ever hear the phrase "kiss of death?"
If there's to be any outreach to any Muslims, it has to be under cover, out of the public eye. Any agreements they reach, can't be publicized. That's just the way it is. Because of Bush, respect and affection for the U.S.A. are at an all-time low all over the world, and most of all in the Arab and Muslim world.
-
If there's to be any outreach to any Muslims, it has to be under cover, out of the public eye.
I expect you are right , I wouldn't be surprised if this were already happening.
-
<<I expect you are right , I wouldn't be surprised if this were already happening.>>
I'd be amazed if it weren't.
-
I do believe in Tee's pervasive effort to demonize anything & everything America, he fails to address the issue of the authors. Whether it's done publically or "undercover", it's the WHO they're reaching out or not reaching out to, that is the issue. They could be working out of the public eye all hours of the day, but if they're publically appearing to reach out to those organizations that are not just not moderate, but routinely bash American interests abroad and Israel, doesn't bode well in expecting said groups to then turn around and denouce militant Islam terrorist organizations and their tactics.
And as the article accurately references, its the Brits who are doing a much greater job in the role of WHO to reach out to
-
I stand by my opinion. A public recognition by the British or American governments of ANY Muslim organization is bound to wreck its credibility in Muslim eyes. It's the exact equivalent of an award for righteousness and probity bestowed upon an American organization by Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda.
If the issue is WHO they're reaching out to and the reaching out is all done in secret, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. The discussion was initiated because of a very foolish article claiming that the British government's PUBLIC overtures to "moderate" Muslim organizations was some kind of brilliant policy advance.
-
The discussion was initiated because of a very foolish article claiming that the British government's PUBLIC overtures to "moderate" Muslim organizations was some kind of brilliant policy advance.
No one claimed "brilliant", simply from a public standpoint, the Brits are doing it right, compared to the U.S.
-
I concur with Sirs. At least the Brts are reaching out. Many in the West do not.
And on a related note, Muslim moderates should exert control over their more radical brethren on a range of issues if they expect positive action from the West as in increased immigration quotas (A friend of mine works at State and several Muslim countries are pushing hard for this). Quietly is perfectly acceptable if that is what is required to get this accomplished.
-
<<No one claimed "brilliant", simply from a public standpoint, the Brits are doing it right, compared to the U.S.>>
"Brilliant" was a little bit of sarcasm on my part. There is nothing particularly "right" (let alone "brilliant") in having the British government anoint a "moderate" Muslim organization with its seal of approval. Any Muslims who are already moderates may be encouraged in their moderation, but as far as "reaching out" to those Muslims who are suspicious of the British and American governments (with excellent reason, I hasten to add!) that move is not going to convince any of them of the bona fides of the "moderates" so honoured. When the killers of hundreds of thousands of Muslims and the invaders and occupiers of Muslim lands and Muslim oil fields confer their blessings on those Muslims they consider to be "good Muslims," this is going to be an obvious problem for the recipients of such blessings and will create real credibility problems for them.
-
<<No one claimed "brilliant", simply from a public standpoint, the Brits are doing it right, compared to the U.S.>>
"Brilliant" was a little bit of sarcasm on my part. There is nothing particularly "right" (let alone "brilliant") in having the British government anoint a "moderate" Muslim organization with its seal of approval.
No one is "anointing" anyone, or is that more of your sarcasm? It is absolutely right to reach out and support those moderate muslim organizations that don't share in the ideology that permeates militant Islam and its egregiously violent acts, targeting innocent men, women, & children. Why you're trying to "pfffft" the effort being demonstrated by the Brits, tends to give the impression you're actually supportive of said ideology. And that just can't be true, right
-
I am merely suggesting what seems to be the obvious, that any British government support for any Muslim organization is the "kiss of death" for it in the eyes of any Muslims who are not already moderates. So it's not reaching out to anybody who isn't already on their side, in fact it's needlessly pissing off the already pissed-off.
-
I am merely suggesting what seems to be the obvious, that any British government support for any Muslim organization is the "kiss of death" for it in the eyes of any Muslims who are not already moderates.
You mean Islamic terrorists or radical muslims might be offended?? Say it ain't so. ::) Getting back to reality and practicality, the notion of supporting moderate Muslims who don't think blowing up mosques and killing innocent women and children is a good thing, is the right thing to do, both publically and behind the scenes
-
No, I mean that Muslims who are angry over the invasion of Muslim lands and the killing of hundreds of thousands of Muslims and the support given to the 40-year military occupation of the West Bank might be offended.
Oooops, I seem to have forgotten - - any Muslim who is offended by Bush and Blair's actions in the Muslim world must be a terrorist or a radical Muslim. Must be true because Bush says it's true. sirs says it's true. Who could now doubt this?
-
Oooops, I seem to have forgotten - - any Muslim who is offended by Bush and Blair's actions in the Muslim world must be a terrorist or a radical Muslim.
Actually, any muslim who practices the act of targeting and killing innocent women & children, including blowing up mosques, and those who advocates/supports such are terrorists or radical muslims. A distinct difference, I'm afraid to say
-
<<Actually, any muslim who practices the act of targeting and killing innocent women & children, including blowing up mosques, and those who advocates/supports such are terrorists or radical muslims. A distinct difference, I'm afraid to say>>
Well, I don't really believe that Brown thought he was going to convert many of THEM with his approaches to moderate Muslim groups. He was aiming at the larger Muslim community, obviously.
Unfortunately most right-wing fruitbats seem to think there is no difference between the people Brown was aiming at and the people you call "terrorists" or "radical Muslims." But in the real world, there IS a difference, and the tactics Brown was using were actually pretty stupid. These folks may not be out there planting bombs and blowing up schools and mosques, but they are well aware of Brown's, Blair's and Bush's invasions of Muslim lands, killing, maiming and torture of Muslims and their continuing support of the 40-year-old Israeli military occupation of three million Arabs. And they are NOT going to be impressed with any Muslim organization that receives Brown's blessing as an organization of "good" Muslims.
-
The Government of the US and GB should call evil , "evil" , unless there is a compelling reason not to.
Now should they call something good , "evil" too, because being disingenuous has a good reason?
-
<<The Government of the US and GB should call evil , "evil" , unless there is a compelling reason not to.>>
Oh but they do. They do it all the time. The Axis of Evil. The Evil-Doers. I'm sure you've heard this before. More than once. It's hilarious. Why? Because they themselves are so fucking evil that the rest of the world has a laughing fit every time they hear this bullshit.
-
<<Actually, any muslim who practices the act of targeting and killing innocent women & children, including blowing up mosques, and those who advocates/supports such are terrorists or radical muslims. A distinct difference, I'm afraid to say>>
Well, I don't really believe that Brown thought he was going to convert many of THEM with his approaches to moderate Muslim groups. He was aiming at the larger Muslim community, obviously. Unfortunately most right-wing fruitbats seem to think there is no difference between the people Brown was aiming at and the people you call "terrorists" or "radical Muslims."
Actually, since I'm apparently frequently lumped into this supposed fruitbat section, and DO recognize the difference, that pretty much blows that theory out of the water, now doesn't it. Nice, if not lame try, though
-
<<The Government of the US and GB should call evil , "evil" , unless there is a compelling reason not to.>>
Oh but they do. They do it all the time. The Axis of Evil. The Evil-Doers. I'm sure you've heard this before. More than once. It's hilarious. Why? Because they themselves are so fucking evil that the rest of the world has a laughing fit every time they hear this bullshit.
The US Government has a limit on what it can do , our founding fathers expected that the evil nature of government couldn't be forever avoided so they enacted a system of checks and balances which enable the people to hold a leash on the evil actions that all government is prone to.
There are no governments less evil than the US Government , but this is not a strong boast .
That the people have to be consulted is the key.
-
<<. . . our founding fathers expected that the evil nature of government couldn't be forever avoided so they enacted a system of checks and balances which enable the people to hold a leash on the evil actions that all government is prone to.>>
no argument from me there except that the checks and balances related to the government's control over its own people, not the government's actions internationally.
<<There are no governments less evil than the US Government , but this is not a strong boast .>>
It's pathetic. When I was a kid it was generally accepted that the U.S. government was the most virtuous on earth, now you're scraping the bottom looking for any one that's worse? Why aren't you more concerned with punishing those who have brought this kind of moral degradation to your country?
-
<<Actually, since I'm apparently frequently lumped into this supposed fruitbat section . . . >>
Don't flatter yourself. The fruitbats are hard-headed realists compared to you.
<< . . . and DO recognize the difference [between so-called "terrorists" and "radical Muslims" and the non-"terrorist" and non-"radical" Muslims] . . . >>
Well you sure had ME fooled. Your earlier posts in this thread gave no such indication.
<< . . . that pretty much blows that theory out of the water, now doesn't it. >>
Yeah, so I replaced it with a newer theory - - that you switched opinions as soon as I demonstrated the stupidity and absurdity of your first one.
-
<<. . . our founding fathers expected that the evil nature of government couldn't be forever avoided so they enacted a system of checks and balances which enable the people to hold a leash on the evil actions that all government is prone to.>>
no argument from me there except that the checks and balances related to the government's control over its own people, not the government's actions internationally.
<<There are no governments less evil than the US Government , but this is not a strong boast .>>
It's pathetic. When I was a kid it was generally accepted that the U.S. government was the most virtuous on earth, now you're scraping the bottom looking for any one that's worse? Why aren't you more concerned with punishing those who have brought this kind of moral degradation to your country?
You misunderstand me , from the very first and at every stage since the US government has been evil , it is in the nature of government to attract the power hungry , the greedy , the lieing , the selfish.
There never has been a government of virtue , and there never can be one.
The people of America are a part of the process and are the main brake against headlong descent twards absolutism. This is the case within and without our frounteers.
What virtue there has ever been should be credited to the people and to certain persons who were good , and to a lesser extent to a system that allows the people to toss the bums out on a regular basis.
-
<< . . . and DO recognize the difference [between so-called "terrorists" and "radical Muslims" and the non-"terrorist" and non-"radical" Muslims] . . . >>
Well you sure had ME fooled. Your earlier posts in this thread gave no such indication.
and of course, you can demonstrate this............................right? That any muslim who disagrees with Bush and Blair is a supposed terrorist and/or radical.....................right?
<< . . . that pretty much blows that theory out of the water, now doesn't it. >>
Yeah, so I replaced it with a newer theory - - that you switched opinions as soon as I demonstrated the stupidity and absurdity of your first one.
Perhaps when you can actually present an actual quote in context on my part validating your ludicrous opinion of my supposed "original opinion", you might have a leg to stand on. Until then, the only fruitbat in this conversation, is the one on the other end of the computer
[/quote]
-
You're too hard on America. No one expected a purely virtuous government. It was always virtuous, but only in comparison to its neighbours. Now it's down to the same level as the rest of the world. That can't be good.
Also the American people are good because the Constitution is good. They're not inherently better than anyone else. In some regions the people are a whole lot worse than most other people anywhere else on earth. But because of the Constitution they can no longer act out on their worst impulses.
I look on the U.S. Constitution as the unique gift of some unique men at a unique time in human history when a certain critical number of people were receptive to those particular ideas. I believe if the Constitution were presented today to the American people without its historical and sentimental aura, it would be rejected. In fact, I recall a study in the 1960s when the ideas of the Constitution, without identifying their origin, were presented to a survey sample for comment and a large majority of the survey considered the ideas "subversive."
-
<<Perhaps when you can actually present an actual quote in context on my part validating your ludicrous opinion of my supposed "original opinion", you might have a leg to stand on>>
Nothing easier. In my post in this thread, I said:
<<I am merely suggesting what seems to be the obvious, that any British government support for any Muslim organization is the "kiss of death" for it in the eyes of any Muslims who are not already moderates. So it's not reaching out to anybody who isn't already on their side, in fact it's needlessly pissing off the already pissed-off.>>
So, basically, I had said that - - apart from Muslims who were already "moderates" - - any Muslim who wasn't a "moderate" would be offended by Brown's support of a "good Muslim" organization.
Your response to that was:
<<You mean Islamic terrorists or radical muslims might be offended?? >>
In other words, a Muslim could be a "moderate," but if he or she was NOT a moderate, then he or she could only be an Islamic terrorist or a radical Muslim. They're either on your side or they're terrorists and/or radicals.
-
You're too hard on America. No one expected a purely virtuous government. It was always virtuous, but only in comparison to its neighbours. Now it's down to the same level as the rest of the world. That can't be good.
Also the American people are good because the Constitution is good. They're not inherently better than anyone else. In some regions the people are a whole lot worse than most other people anywhere else on earth. But because of the Constitution they can no longer act out on their worst impulses.
I look on the U.S. Constitution as the unique gift of some unique men at a unique time in human history when a certain critical number of people were receptive to those particular ideas. I believe if the Constitution were presented today to the American people without its historical and sentimental aura, it would be rejected. In fact, I recall a study in the 1960s when the ideas of the Constitution, without identifying their origin, were presented to a survey sample for comment and a large majority of the survey considered the ideas "subversive."
We are still more virtuous than our neighbors , the neighbors just don't always agree with this when they don't need something from us.
Winston Chirchill can be quoted many times with complements twards the USA , its government , its people..... but do any of these quotes date from earlyer than the rise of Natziism?
-
<<We are still more virtuous than our neighbors , the neighbors just don't always agree with this when they don't need something from us.>>
You're just completely ignoring what's been happening.
<<Winston Chirchill can be quoted many times with complements twards the USA , its government , its people..... but do any of these quotes date from earlyer than the rise of Natziism?>>
I'm sure he said some nice things about his Allies or future Allies when he was First Lord of the Admiralty in WWI. Future allies I guess since at that point the U.S.A. was not in the war.
Winston's mother was American. I'm sure he was favourably disposed to the U.S. all his life.
-
<<Perhaps when you can actually present an actual quote in context on my part validating your ludicrous opinion of my supposed "original opinion", you might have a leg to stand on>>
Nothing easier. In my post in this thread, I said: <<I am merely suggesting what seems to be the obvious, that any British government support for any Muslim organization is the "kiss of death" for it in the eyes of any Muslims who are not already moderates. So it's not reaching out to anybody who isn't already on their side, in fact it's needlessly pissing off the already pissed-off.>>
So, basically, I had said that - - apart from Muslims who were already "moderates" - - any Muslim who wasn't a "moderate" would be offended by Brown's support of a "good Muslim" organization.
Your response to that was: <<You mean Islamic terrorists or radical muslims might be offended?? >>
In other words, a Muslim could be a "moderate," but if he or she was NOT a moderate, then he or she could only be an Islamic terrorist or a radical Muslim. They're either on your side or they're terrorists and/or radicals.
So, you used my words, and reinvented them to apply to your way of thinking. Your words have fluctuation as in"basically", while mine have this supposed concreteness to them. It couldn't possibly have been that I actually meant what I actually said. Pretty much what I thought. Next time, try to use a quote that can actually demonstrate what you say I say, like ......oh perhaps this quote "Actually, any muslim who practices the act of targeting and killing innocent women & children, including blowing up mosques, and those who advocates/supports such are terrorists or radical muslims. A distinct difference, I'm afraid to say". That way, you won't look so feebly desperate
-
<<So, you used my words . . . >>
Yes, I did.
<< . . . and reinvented them to apply to your way of thinking. >>
Uh, reinvented? I gave them their ordinary English meaning.
<<Your words have fluctuation as in"basically" . . . >>
Really? How did "basically" change the meaning of what I said? That shouldn't be a hard question to answer. My original post in its exact words was this:
<<I am merely suggesting what seems to be the obvious, that any British government support for any Muslim organization is the "kiss of death" for it in the eyes of any Muslims who are not already moderates. >>
Then, when I inserted the word "basically" into a reprise of my original quotation, the line read like this (again, my exact words):
<<So, basically, I had said that - - apart from Muslims who were already "moderates" - - any Muslim who wasn't a "moderate" would be offended by Brown's support of a "good Muslim" organization.>>
So, where is the "fluctuation" that you pretend to see in my words?
<< while mine [my words] have this supposed concreteness to them. >>
You'll have to explain that one to me. Who's doing the supposing? You or I?
<<It couldn't possibly have been that I actually meant what I actually said. >>
Anything's possible. Usually, I think you mean whatever stupid thing you happen to be uttering at the time, till the total absurdity of it is painfully exposed, at which point you start to back-track frantically, as you are doing here - - "I didn't say this, you didn't say that, I said X, you said Y" in some kind of pathetic kerfuffle, trying to becloud the issues and even the sequences of the thread itself, hoping desperately that nobody will take the trouble to trace back through the thread to see who actually said what.
<<Pretty much what I thought. >>
Funny, you and thinking don't seem to go together very naturally.
<< Next time, try to use a quote that can actually demonstrate what you say I say, like ......oh perhaps this quote "Actually, any muslim who practices the act of targeting and killing innocent women & children, including blowing up mosques, and those who advocates/supports such are terrorists or radical muslims. A distinct difference, I'm afraid to say". >>
Actually, I'll use the quote that best illustrates your narrow-minded either-or way of thinking, and that's the one I already used. The quote that you'd like me to use is way off the mark, because my original remarks did not refer to "terrorists" or their supporters but clearly on their face, to anyone familiar with the English language, referred to Muslims who were not moderates - - again, in my exact words, since you seem to have trouble remembering what they are, reproduced here, "any Muslims who are not already moderates," or as I rephrased them, "basically . . . apart from Muslims who were already "moderates" - - any Muslim who wasn't a "moderate."
So it should be clear from everything I wrote in this thread that Brown's actions would succeed only in pissing off any Muslims who weren't already "moderates" - - clearly, this would include Muslims who were "terrorists" and radicals, as well as Muslims who were neither "terrorists" nor radicals but at the same time were not "moderates" either.
Now, how did you respond to my claim that Brown was pissing off those Muslims? In your own words,
<<You mean Islamic terrorists or radical muslims might be offended?? >>
Very simply, sirs, you responded to my claim that Brown would offend any Muslim who was not a "moderate" with the clear and unmistakeable inference that any Muslim who is not a "moderate" has to be either a "radical Muslim" or a "terrorist." Clearly a ridiculous and untenable allegation, from which you are now back-pedalling madly.
<<That way, you won't look so feebly desperate>>
Uhh, yeah. Thank you for your concern, sirs, but I am not the one who is looking feeble and desperate here.
-
<<We are still more virtuous than our neighbors , the neighbors just don't always agree with this when they don't need something from us.>>
You're just completely ignoring what's been happening.
<<Winston Chirchill can be quoted many times with complements twards the USA , its government , its people..... but do any of these quotes date from earlyer than the rise of Natziism?>>
I'm sure he said some nice things about his Allies or future Allies when he was First Lord of the Admiralty in WWI. Future allies I guess since at that point the U.S.A. was not in the war.
Winston's mother was American. I'm sure he was favourably disposed to the U.S. all his life.
"I'm sure he said some nice things about his Allies or future Allies when he was First Lord of the Admiralty in WWI. Future allies I guess since at that point the U.S.A. was not in the war."
That would be my point.
Charles DeGalle might be a better example, after his need for US assistance was less, he became much less complementary.
We are watching our "allies " become armchair quarterbacks all over the world , except for those ones that are in more direct theat , where we still get asked for help we still find that a freind in need is a freind indeed.
-
<<So, you used my words and reinvented them to apply to your way of thinking.. . . >>
Yes, I did.
<<It couldn't possibly have been that I actually meant what I actually said. >>
Anything's possible. Usually, I think you mean whatever stupid thing you happen to be uttering at the time, till the total absurdity of it is painfully exposed, at which point you start to back-track frantically, as you are doing here - - "I didn't say this, you didn't say that, I said X, you said Y" in some kind of pathetic kerfuffle, trying to becloud the issues and even the sequences of the thread itself, hoping desperately that nobody will take the trouble to trace back through the thread to see who actually said what.
This is the new art form of the left, when it comes to dialog and specifically accusations. Granted it's been going on for decades now, but it wasn't until Bush II, that we got into full swing. It "basically" entails making a completely bogus accusation (be it Bush claimed imminent threat, Bush claimed it would be a fast war, Bush's "Mission accomplished" meant the war in Iraq was over, sirs claims that all Muslims who don't support Bush or Blair are terrorists or radical muslims....yada, blah, etc. Garbage like that), then attempt to post evidence/quotes supposedly disproving why those claims are invalid.......when all the while they were never accurate to begin with. This most recent thread for all to see, just how desperate Tee gets. It doesn't get much clearer than "any muslim who practices the act of targeting and killing innocent women & children, including blowing up mosques, and those who advocates/supports such are terrorists or radical muslims. ". Yet the supposed smoking gun response is akin to "well, you changed your mind when your position was show to be a sham", when all the while his basis for that position, is himself trying to read my mind to something he said. Prince (no supporter of Bush's war in Iraq) also demonstrated how off the wall his claims about me were.
Now watch....
<< Next time, try to use a quote that can actually demonstrate what you say I say, like ......oh perhaps this quote "Actually, any muslim who practices the act of targeting and killing innocent women & children, including blowing up mosques, and those who advocates/supports such are terrorists or radical muslims. A distinct difference, I'm afraid to say". >>
Actually, I'll use the quote that best illustrates your narrow-minded either-or way of thinking, and that's the one I already used.
....See? Instead of using the CLEAR position I have in regards to what constitutes Islamic Terrorists & radical Muslims, Tee has to twist and distort another quote, to fit his made up mind of what I'm supposed to have been thinking & meaning. It's also performed nearly everytime the topic of imminent threat comes up, as well as when the "mission accomplished" distortion rears its ugly head yet again. It's also the foundation of why so many that don't agree with him are immediately labeled as some fascist.
But such perseverative distortion efforts rarely go unnoticed. Thankfully, not only do we have a slew of rational minds here in the saloon, but I'm guessing a whole host of other rationally minded people who simply stop by the saloon to catch up on what's being bandied about. Your efforts are appreciated Tee.
-
<<This is the new art form of the left, when it comes to dialog and specifically accusations.>>
Yawwwwnn.
<< Granted it's been going on for decades now, but it wasn't until Bush II, that we got into full swing. >>
Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnn.
<< It "basically" entails making a completely bogus accusation (be it Bush claimed imminent threat,>>
"We can't wait till the smoking gun becomes a mushroom cloud"
<< It "basically" entails making a completely bogus accusation (be it . . . Bush claimed it would be a fast war>>
"It could take six days or six weeks, it couldn't take six months"
<< It "basically" entails making a completely bogus accusation (be it . . . Bush's "Mission accomplished" meant the war in Iraq was over>>
"Mission Accomplished"
<<sirs claims that all Muslims who don't support Bush or Blair are terrorists or radical muslims>>
Actually, that was more like "sirs claims that all Muslims who aren't "moderates" are terrorists or radicals." Read the post again. I know you have trouble with reading and comprehension, so I made the wording particularly simple. Even you should be able to report accurately on what I posted. Well, alright, maybe not. Just read it again.
<<....yada, blah, etc. Garbage like that)>>
LOL
<< then attempt to post evidence/quotes supposedly disproving why those claims are invalid>>
Actually I didn't post any evidence at all that your last claim was invalid, it was so stupid and absurd that its invalidity was self-evident. The evidence that I posted consisted solely of verbatim quotes from our correspondence, since you were attempting to deny that you said what I said you said.
<<.......when all the while they were never accurate to begin with. >>
That's why I posted the EXACT words that you were responding to as well as the EXACT words of your response.
<<This most recent thread for all to see, just how desperate Tee gets. >>
Why that desperate sunuvabitch went to the lengths of actually reproducing the very words of my own post.
<< It doesn't get much clearer than "any muslim who practices the act of targeting and killing innocent women & children, including blowing up mosques, and those who advocates/supports such are terrorists or radical muslims. ".>>
which of course was never an issue in this thread.
<< Yet the supposed smoking gun response is akin to "well, you changed your mind when your position was show to be a sham", >>
Actually the smoking gun was where you - - in your own words - - equated all Muslims who weren't "moderates" with "terrorists" and "radicals."
<<when all the while his basis for that position, is himself trying to read my mind to something he said. >>
No, my basis for that position was the very words that you used and later denied.
<< Prince (no supporter of Bush's war in Iraq) also demonstrated how off the wall his claims about me were.>>
Prince - - in another thread - - demonstrated no such thing. Read my response to him in that thread. It blows you - - and him - - out of the water. Again.
-
<<This is the new art form of the left, when it comes to dialog and specifically accusations... It "basically" entails making a completely bogus accusation (be it Bush claimed imminent threat,>>
"We can't wait till the smoking gun becomes a mushroom cloud"
TRUE, in that we couldn't wait for Saddam to become an imminent threat. Next
<< It "basically" entails making a completely bogus accusation (be it . . . Bush claimed it would be a fast war>>
"It could take six days or six weeks, it couldn't take six months"[/color]
Which the toppling of Saddam did take. Next
<< It "basically" entails making a completely bogus accusation (be it . . . Bush's "Mission accomplished" meant the war in Iraq was over>>
"Mission Accomplished"
Which the toppling of Saddam was accomplished. There's that nasty little timeline thing again. Next
<<sirs claims that all Muslims who don't support Bush or Blair are terrorists or radical muslims>>
Actually, that was more like "sirs claims that all Muslims who aren't "moderates" are terrorists or radicals." Read the post again.
"any muslim who practices the act of targeting and killing innocent women & children, including blowing up mosques, and those who advocates/supports such are terrorists or radical muslims. ". Shooting fish in a barrel. Next
<< It doesn't get much clearer than "any muslim who practices the act of targeting and killing innocent women & children, including blowing up mosques, and those who advocates/supports such are terrorists or radical muslims. ".>>
which of course was never an issue in this thread.
LOL.....yes, my exact words and precise meaning is not the issue. It's Tee's tee-leaf reinterpretation of what Sirs really means
<<when all the while his basis for that position, is himself trying to read my mind to something he said. >>
No, my basis for that position was the very words that you used and later denied.
Never denied any of my own words. Simply denied your predisposed already made up mind interpretive twist on them, validated by your blatant ignoring the even clearer words I articulated. Again, for ALL to see
<< Prince (no supporter of Bush's war in Iraq) also demonstrated how off the wall his claims about me were.>>
Prince - - in another thread - - demonstrated no such thing. Read my response to him in that thread. It blows you - - and him - - out of the water. Again.
Riiiiiiiiight. You just go right on believing that. That alternate reality must be so pristine, with everything occuring just as you decree ::)
-
<<TRUE, [that "we can't wait for the smoking gun to become a mushroom cloud] in that we couldn't wait for Saddam to become an imminent threat. >>
Uhh, you're forgetting a little thing called CONTEXT, sirs. (You're not really forgetting, I'm sure you know perfectly well what the context is, but like all "conservatives" you often find it very convenient to quote out of context and then assign totally different meanings to the words that were meant and received as something utterly different from what you now claim they mean.)
Let me help you out a little here, sirs. Those words were not spoken in the context of some long-range planning seminar, "Whither the Middle East in the New Century?" or some aethereal debate about new directions. They were given as reasons to ACT NOW in the context of dealing with a real threat severe enough to justify invasion and rule out any and all alternative measures. ("The alternative measures had all been tried?" BULLSHIT. Don't hand me that crap - - negotiations continued with North Korea even after they had defiantly test-fired weapons and missiles, so there was a lot of road to travel after Saddam's last "No," as any beginning negotiator would know.) There were no qualifying words, nothing to indicate any reservation of the kind that bullshit artists like you are now, after the fact, trying to lay on them.
<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 06:54:07 AM
(sirs) < It "basically" entails making a completely bogus accusation (be it . . . Bush claimed it would be a fast war>
(MT) <"It could take six days or six weeks, it couldn't take six months"[/color]>
<<Which the toppling of Saddam did take. Next>>
Not so fast, sirs. Tripped up again by CONTEXT. Context's a bitch, huh? You want us to believe that the "It" in the sentence referred to the "toppling" of Saddam Hussein? BULLSHIT. The context was whether the U.S. should go to war by invading Iraq, not whether or not Saddam should be "toppled." Very few people if any were interested in what would happen if Saddam were "toppled." Quite a few people were interested in what would happen to young Americans in uniform if Iraq were invaded. Those words were addressed to the many who worried about the consequences in American lives if Bush went ahead with his criminal and demented scheme to invade, not to the few who were concerned about what would happen if Saddam were "toppled." The issue was war or peace, the words were meant to allay the fears and reservations of those who worried about the consequences of entering into a war, not a handful of foreign-policy wonks who were wondering about the consequences of "toppling" Hussein.
=====================================================
Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 06:54:07 AM
<< It "basically" entails making a completely bogus accusation (be it . . . Bush's "Mission accomplished" meant the war in Iraq was over>>
"Mission Accomplished"
Which the toppling of Saddam was accomplished. There's that nasty little timeline thing again. Next
===============================================================
Looking at the above, I can only marvel at your ingenuity. Whoever saw that "Mission Accomplished" sign had to figure, the Iraq mission was over. There was nothing left to do but wrap up and come home. Had Bush said in fact: "Our mission to "topple" Saddam Hussein has been accomplished but now we have to subdue the whole fucking country and nobody knows how long that will take" it would have been a whole different message. If you want to tell me that is what YOU thought when you saw Bush landing triumphantly on the carrier deck and speaking under that banner, I might believe you. You're truly one in a million. But please don't expect me to believe that's what most other people would have taken from the sign and the event. Don't even ask me to believe that that is what Bush meant, because he could certainly have made his meaning clear by the addition of a few simple words. It was not beyond his capabilities (or rather it was not beyond his speechwriters' capabilities.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Shooting Fish In a Barrel" - sirs style
Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 06:54:07 AM
<<sirs claims that all Muslims who don't support Bush or Blair are terrorists or radical muslims>> (that's sirs, misquoting me again, as usual)
<<Actually, that was more like "sirs claims that all Muslims who aren't "moderates" are terrorists or radicals." Read the post again. >> (that's me, correcting sirs' misquotation of my words, once again.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOW here's sirs' response to my correction:
"any muslim who practices the act of targeting and killing innocent women & children, including blowing up mosques, and those who advocates/supports such are terrorists or radical muslims. " (That's sirs, quoting himself on a completely different subject - - what is a terrorist? what is a radical? - - having nothing whatsoever to do with either my original criticism of the absurdity of sirs' statement regarding Muslims who are not "moderates" and nothing whatsoever to do with his misquoting my criticism and basically adding absolutely nothing to the thread but an interesting definition of a "terrorist" and a radical. Completely misinformed and actually (with regard to the radical) totally erroneous, as sirs' statements usually are, but obviously a whole other discussion and related to nothing whatsoever in this thread.
However, coming up with this completely irrelevant quotation of his, relating in no way to anything previously in dispute, sirs then awards himself the traditional victory accolade:
<<Shooting fish in a barrel. Next>>
Hilarious. Declare victory, hit ENTER.
I really have to laugh at your definition of shooting fish in a barrel. Let's see how you do it. I quote a ridiculously stupid remark of yours (basically stating that you are not concerned if "terrorists" and radical Muslims are offended by Brown's actions, when I was speaking of a much broader category than "terrorists" and radicals) and relate it back to the subject that you were commenting on (that any Muslims who are not already moderates would be pissed off by Brown's actions) and then I point to the obvious conclusion: that sirs must believe that any Muslim who is not a "moderate" must be a "terrorist" or a radical. sirs' response to all this is to reach for a remark he made in which he defines "terrorism" and "radical" (wrongly of course, but that's a subject for another debate) and then claims that his definition somehow is relevant to our argument. THAT is how sirs "shoots fish in a barrel." I'd sure hate to be standing anywhere within a hundred meters of the barrel when he tries it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 06:54:07 AM
<< It doesn't get much clearer than "any muslim who practices the act of targeting and killing innocent women & children, including blowing up mosques, and those who advocates/supports such are terrorists or radical muslims. ".>>
which of course was never an issue in this thread.
LOL.....yes, my exact words and precise meaning is not the issue. It's Tee's tee-leaf reinterpretation of what Sirs really means
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure about the context in which the above was said. So I'm going to break off here and review that and come back.
-
Apparently it goes like this
Sirs; "The sky is a pale blue"
Tee; "Sirs seems to think the sky is a putrid brown"
Sirs; "The sky is BLUE"
Tee; Sirs now has changed his mind because I showed how flawed his original position on the sky was
That's pretty much it in a nut shell, with "nut" the optimal word with who's on the other end of this thread. If he wishes to rant and squirm all the more, so be it. Everyone with reading comprehension skills and and IQ above that of a turnip will grasp what I think constitutes & comprises Islamic terrorists and radical muslims. Hint for knute, since he doesn't fall into the above categories, it's the quote that provides precisely what I think constitutes & comprises what an Islamic terrorist and radical muslim are.
I'm done with this thread
-
"...there was a lot of road to travel after Saddam's last "No," ..."
Why travel that road again to get to the same no?
Twelve years of stonewalling demonstrated amply that Saddam was stuck on his position.
Twelve years of repeated second chances amply demonstrate Allied willingness to negotiate.
If you get on the same train again you can expect it to make the same stops as before.
At some point there would have to be a decision to release Saddam from the oblibgations of the treaty or attack him , what makes the moment chosen inferior to any other?
-
Picking up right where I left off.
A little thread history:
1. I had commented that Gordon Brown's endorsement of "moderate" Muslim groups would likely be the "kiss of death" in the eyes of many Muslims who weren't already moderates themselves. Simple logic and common sense would seem to indicate to most sane and normal people that "Muslims who are not moderates" is a pretty large group of people, encompassing not only radicals and "terrorists" but a great many people who are neither moderates nor radicals nor "terrorists." sirs' response to this was basically that he didn't care if "terrorists" and radicals were offended. What sirs had done, of course, was to lump ALL Muslims who were not "moderates" together into the "terrorists" and radical class. Which I then pointed out to him. sirs denied that he lumped all non-moderate Muslims as I had alleged.
The debate continued:
2. << It doesn't get much clearer than "any muslim who practices the act of targeting and killing innocent women & children, including blowing up mosques, and those who advocates/supports such are terrorists or radical muslims. ".>>
That's sirs, quoting a previous remark of hisin answer to my criticism that he appears to think that any Muslim who is not a "moderate" must be a "terrorist" or a radical. Notice that the remark he chooses to counter my allegations has absolutely nothing to do with the remark that I had directed my criticism towards, in fact he is simply defining those whom he considers to be "terrorists" and radicals.
3. << It doesn't get much clearer than "any muslim who practices the act of targeting and killing innocent women & children, including blowing up mosques, and those who advocates/supports such are terrorists or radical muslims. ".>>
That's me, quoting sirs, and adding my comment on his words:
<<which of course was never an issue in this thread.>>
Basically indicating by my added comment that the quotation that sirs was using to disprove my allegation was completely irrelevant to the specific criticism I had made.
How sirs deals with the foregoing exchange
<<LOL.....yes, my exact words and precise meaning is not the issue. It's Tee's tee-leaf reinterpretation of what Sirs really means>>
My post was clear: the issue was not how sirs had defined terrorism. The issue was what sirs thought of all Muslims who were not "moderates." That definition (sirs' definition) was thrown by sirs into a discussion of whether or not sirs had lumped all Muslims who were not "moderates" into the class of "terrorists" and radicals. How sirs defined "terrorists" and radicals could have had no relevance to that issue unless his definition of them was so broad that it would take in any Muslim who was not a "moderate." (Although, knowing sirs, such a definition would probably have some appeal for him.) So when I point out that the particular comment that sirs was using in support of his position "was never an issue in this thread" sirs immediately complains that "my exact words and precise meaning" was not, in my eyes, the issue. Of course, when sirs' "exact words and precise meaning" are taken from a different issue not related to the one under discussion at the present time, they are not relevant. Why should that aggrieve him? If I take my own comments on the life of Winston Churchill and apply them to a discussion on the life of Josef Stalin, should I also not be told, in that context, that my "exact words and precise meaning" is not the issue?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 06:54:07 AM
<when all the while his basis for that position, is himself trying to read my mind to something he said. > (that's sirs quoting me quoting him)
<No, my basis for that position was the very words that you used and later denied.> (that's sirs quoting me answering what I had just quoted from him.)
<<Never denied any of my own words. Simply denied your predisposed already made up mind interpretive twist on them, validated by your blatant ignoring the even clearer words I articulated. Again, for ALL to see>>
Sure you denied your own words. You ran from them. When they were criticized, you never referred to them. You referred instead to something else you said, your definition of a "terrorist" and a radical, in defence of a remark that you made which lumped all non-moderate Muslims together as "terrorists" and radicals.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
sirs' Parting Shot
<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 06:54:07 AM
< Prince (no supporter of Bush's war in Iraq) also demonstrated how off the wall his claims about me were.> (That's sirs quoting me quoting him)
<Prince - - in another thread - - demonstrated no such thing. Read my response to him in that thread. It blows you - - and him - - out of the water. Again.> (That's sirs quoting me answering him.)
<<Riiiiiiiiight. You just go right on believing that. That alternate reality must be so pristine, with everything occuring just as you decree >>
The exchange is there in black and white. It says what it says. I'm satisfied with it. You seem to think I shouldn't be. But I am. Until I see a more reasoned rebuttal than "Riiiiiight" and the rest of your usual juvenile crap that you pull out whenever you run out of answers, I will continue to be satisfied with it.
-
<<Why travel that road again to get to the same no?>>
Because experience teaches - - as in North Korea, as in salesmanship - - that there can be a yes after the 100th no.
Because the alternative was the loss of over 100,000 Iraqi lives, 3500 U.S. lives, 25,000 U.S. wounded, an unknown number of Iraqi wounded.
Because a situation allowed to drag on as you claim for 12 years can hardly be considered one of great urgency.
-
<<Why travel that road again to get to the same no?>>
Because experience teaches - - as in North Korea, as in salesmanship - - that there can be a yes after the 100th no.
Because the alternative was the loss of over 100,000 Iraqi lives, 3500 U.S. lives, 25,000 U.S. wounded, an unknown number of Iraqi wounded.
Because a situation allowed to drag on as you claim for 12 years can hardly be considered one of great urgency.
It is also impossible to describe it as" reasons to ACT NOW in the context of dealing with a real threat severe enough to justify invasion and rule out any and all alternative measures. "
All alternatives had been tried at least once Saddam chose to roll the dice again, confident that when we threatern we threaten with no intention of carrying through. Saddam chose to defy and it was a good option to depose him , a bad option to begin again with no reson to hope for better. The embargo was painfull and expensive it could not be held up forever waiting for Saddam to grow a brain cell.
-
<<It is also impossible to describe it as" reasons to ACT NOW in the context of dealing with a real threat severe enough to justify invasion and rule out any and all alternative measures. ">>
You lost me there, plane. I don't know what you mean.
<<All alternatives had been tried at least once >>
So what? Try them twice. Hundreds of thousands of human lives were in the balance. You're telling me that little ass-hole Bush chose to sacrifice them because he was losing patience? That's the worst justification I've ever heard.
<<Saddam chose to roll the dice again, confident that when we threatern we threaten with no intention of carrying through. >>
So what? That might make him an irritating ass-hole, it doesn't make a case for the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of human lives.
<<Saddam chose to defy and it was a good option to depose him , a bad option to begin again with no reson to hope for better. The embargo was painfull and expensive it could not be held up forever waiting for Saddam to grow a brain cell.>>
That's ridiculous, the embargo was already being loosened. New incentives had to be found. The absence of any real emergency in a situation that had already drifted for 12 years meant that new incentives had to be found. The "benefits" reaped at a cost of 100,000 human lives and God alone knows how many maimed and wrecked for life are truly insignificant. Shame on the whole God-damn bunch of you.
-
<<It is also impossible to describe it as" reasons to ACT NOW in the context of dealing with a real threat severe enough to justify invasion and rule out any and all alternative measures. ">>
You lost me there, plane. I don't know what you mean.
I mean you were wrong to say "<<" reasons to ACT NOW in the context of dealing with a real threat severe enough to justify invasion and rule out any and all alternative measures. ">>
All alternatives had been tried and rejected by Saddam.
It was not possible to maintain the Embargo much longer and it was being cheated on to make it ineffective. Letting Saddam aloose might very well have killed millions in the future just as he had killed millions in the past , to invade was the best alternative existant.
-
<<It was not possible to maintain the Embargo much longer and it was being cheated on to make it ineffective. Letting Saddam aloose might very well have killed millions in the future just as he had killed millions in the past , to invade was the best alternative existant.>>
That's ridiculous. You don't invade another country because of what they might do at some point in the future. What kind of international security does that provide? You've stepped backwards about 75 years.