An Inconvenient Truth

[Michael Tee]

<<The history of Israel and its relationship with the U.S. is infinitely complex, but there’s one damning fact that’s ignored as often as The Question: There was not a single act of Arab terrorism against Americans before 1968, when the U.S. became the chief supplier of military equipment and economic aid to Israel.

. . .

<<Very few Americans today are aware that the question of American and Jewish self-interest was first raised at the time of Israel's founding by officials in the highest levels of the U.S. government. In 1948, several members of Harry Truman's Cabinet predicted that the creation of a Jewish state in the Middle East would spur Arab violence against Jews and Americans, advising the president to shun Israel.

<<These included Secretary of State George Marshall, Defense Secretary James Forrestal, and George Kennan, then the leading policy strategist in the State Department. They argued that if the United States helped to set up an independent Jewish nation it would provoke terrorist attacks on Americans and inaugurate an endless war between Arabs and Jews. “There are 30 million Arabs on one side and about 600,000 Jews on the other,” Forrestal told those in the administration who favored recognizing Israel. “Why don’t you face up to the realities?”


http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-07-04/thaddeus-russell-does-us-support-for-israel-threatens-american-safety/

[Plane]

<<The history of Israel and its relationship with the U.S. is infinitely complex, but there’s one damning fact that’s ignored as often as The Question: There was not a single act of Arab terrorism against Americans before 1968, when the U.S. became the chief supplier of military equipment and economic aid to Israel.

Yea nice try.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War


Longstanding habit , not a new thing.

[Michael Tee]

Ha ha ha, nice try yourself. 

So, if I understand your theory, the post-war attacks by Arabs on Americans were committed by Barbary Pirates or their spiritual descendants, who for some inexplicable reason had been lying low since their defeat in 1805 and waited until 1968 before springing back into action?

It's an interesting theory, but could you perhaps explain why there were no more Arab attacks on Americans after the defeat of the Barbary Pirates until after 1968, a date which seems to mark American economic and military support for the State of Israel?  (I assume you maintain that the decision of America to provide such support to Israel had absolutely nothing to do with the renewed attacks.) 

[Plane]

Nothing, absolutely nothing.

In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.

This is the reason , of course they want Palestine back even though it was sparcely populated and almost useless for most of the past 12 centurys .

They also would like to have Spain back and Hungaury.

They fought for India twice and arn't finished .

In the Phillipines they are still conquering.

Palestine is the excuse du jour , was it palestine that motivated the Barbary pirates or the much more recent Somali pirates ?

Or is it just the same rulebook?

[Michael Tee]

<<This [that the Koran says that all infidels are sinners and the believer's duty is to plunder them] is the reason , of course they want Palestine back even though it was sparcely populated and almost useless for most of the past 12 centurys .>>

So, I don't get it.  Did the Koran change after 1805 and then change back after 1968?  Because if the Koran tells them it's their duty to rob and despoil the infidels, why'd they stop when the Barbary Pirates were defeated in 1805 and why'd they start up again after 1968 (coincidentally the year when the U.S.A. became Israel's major military and economic supporter?)

<<They also would like to have Spain back and Hungaury.>>

Yes, so their attacks on Spain and Hungary must have been non-stop since they lost those lands, because after all, we know for a fact that the Koran never changed since they lost Spain and Hungary and the Koranic duty to kill, rob and despoil infidels has never changed either.  They must have killed an awful lot of Spaniards and Hungarians over the past five centuries, eh?  Lots of terrorist attacks against them in that time?

<<They fought for India twice and arn't finished .>>

India was partitioned in 1948 and apart from Kashmir, which has a majority Muslim population, they haven't claimed a single inch of Indian soil that I'm aware of.  Maybe you could explain why you think they "aren't finished" fighting for India?

<<In the Phillipines they are still conquering.>>

No there's a Muslim rebellion on one of the islands.  It's kind of a stretch to claim that as a sign of a drive for world domination.  Most people haven't even heard of this island, and I myself don't even know its name.  In any event, the rebels certainly weren't attacking Americans.  The only Americans they kill are the ones who come to their island to repress their rebellion.

<<Palestine is the excuse du jour , was it palestine that motivated the Barbary pirates or the much more recent Somali pirates ?>>

plane, let's get real.  You and I both now what motivates pirates, and that it certainly is not a depth of religious feeling.  This isn't rocket science, it's pretty damn basic.

<<Or is it just the same rulebook?>>

I was wondering about your own rulebook - - what's Rule No. 1?  Never admit the obvious?

How do you explain the fact that there were no Arab terrorist attacks on Americans before 1968?

[Plane]

I explain somethingthat is not so?

Arab Muslims attack when they are strong and retreat when they are weak.

Therir attacking was not especially concentrated after the Invasion of Palestine by Jews , it depends on availible strength.

When they have money or excess population an attack can be expected.

When was it they were not fighting someone?

Where would the Bey of Tripoli disagree with Osama Bin Laden?


Of course Osama Bin Laden attacks the US because of Palestine , same as he attacked the USSR because of .....?

[Michael Tee]

<<I explain somethingthat is not so?>>

Well, maybe we're misunderstanding one another because I'm talking about terrorist attacks and you're talking about pirate attacks.
So let me rephrase:  How do you explain that since the defeat of the Barbary Pirates, there have been no terrorist attacks on America until 1968?

<<Arab Muslims attack when they are strong and retreat when they are weak.>>

OK.  So your explanation is that they retreated when the Barbary Pirates were defeated and remained "weak" from then until 1968 when for some mysterious and unexplained reason they suddenly regained their strength and began launching terrorist attacks on Americans.  The decision of America to become Israel's principal military and economic supporter in 1968 had nothing at all to do with the sudden appearance at that time of Arab terrorist attacks on Americans.

<<Therir attacking was not especially concentrated after the Invasion of Palestine by Jews , it depends on availible strength.>>

Well, historically, that is not correct either, there were major attacks on Jews in Palestine in 1920 and IIRC in 1937 or 1938 as well.  But the American government was not then a supporter of Jewish immigration or a Jewish state in Palestine and there were no Arab terrorist attacks on Americans then either. 

<<When they have money or excess population an attack can be expected.>>

So for about 150 years they did not have the money or the excess population required to launch terrorist attacks on America, but then  in 1968 they suddenly found themselves with enough money and/or population to start terrorist attacks on America, for purely Koranic reasons (the need for the Believers to kill and rob the infidel) totally unrelated to the American government having then become Israel's major economic and military supporter.

<<When was it they were not fighting someone?>>

The Arabs?  They were occupied by the Turks for hundreds of years, till the end of WWI in 1918.  Naturally they would have been fighting the Turks for most of that time.  Then, they had to fight the English and French who had tried to take over the Ottoman Empire's former colonies.  That too would be only natural.  People will fight back against colonizers and foreign invaders, I've noticed.  When was it that the U.S. was not fighting someone?

<<Where would the Bey of Tripoli disagree with Osama Bin Laden?>>

I have no idea.  What do you know about the Bey of Tripoli anyway?  Are you implying he would have seen eye-to-eye with OBL?  What would your point be if he did?    A lot of people agree with OBL.  Doesn't make him right, doesn't make him wrong.

<<Of course Osama Bin Laden attacks the US because of Palestine , same as he attacked the USSR because of .....?>>

Because of infidels (atheists in the one case, Jews in the other) invading and then occupying Muslim lands.  Because it was his sacred duty as a Muslim to drive the infidels out.  But you knew that.

[Plane]

<<I explain somethingthat is not so?>>

Well, maybe we're misunderstanding one another because I'm talking about terrorist attacks and you're talking about pirate attacks.
So let me rephrase:  How do you explain that since the defeat of the Barbary Pirates, there have been no terrorist attacks on America until 1968?

<<Arab Muslims attack when they are strong and retreat when they are weak.>>

OK.  So your explanation is that they retreated when the Barbary Pirates were defeated and remained "weak" from then until 1968 when for some mysterious and unexplained reason they suddenly regained their strength and began launching terrorist attacks on Americans.  The decision of America to become Israel's principal military and economic supporter in 1968 had nothing at all to do with the sudden appearance at that time of Arab terrorist attacks on Americans.

<<Therir attacking was not especially concentrated after the Invasion of Palestine by Jews , it depends on availible strength.>>

Well, historically, that is not correct either, there were major attacks on Jews in Palestine in 1920 and IIRC in 1937 or 1938 as well.  But the American government was not then a supporter of Jewish immigration or a Jewish state in Palestine and there were no Arab terrorist attacks on Americans then either. 

<<When they have money or excess population an attack can be expected.>>

So for about 150 years they did not have the money or the excess population required to launch terrorist attacks on America, but then  in 1968 they suddenly found themselves with enough money and/or population to start terrorist attacks on America, for purely Koranic reasons (the need for the Believers to kill and rob the infidel) totally unrelated to the American government having then become Israel's major economic and military supporter.




<<Of course Osama Bin Laden attacks the US because of Palestine , same as he attacked the USSR because of .....?>>

Because of infidels (atheists in the one case, Jews in the other) invading and then occupying Muslim lands.  Because it was his sacred duty as a Muslim to drive the infidels out.  But you knew that.

No according to your thesis only supporters of Isreal get this treatment , so the USSR got that treatment for its support of Isreal , no other explanations are pertanent.

<<Where would the Bey of Tripoli disagree with Osama Bin Laden?>>

I have no idea.  What do you know about the Bey of Tripoli anyway?  Are you implying he would have seen eye-to-eye with OBL?  What would your point be if he did?    A lot of people agree with OBL.  Doesn't make him right, doesn't make him wrong.

One rule book.

<<When was it they were not fighting someone?>>

The Arabs?  They were occupied by the Turks for hundreds of years, till the end of WWI in 1918.  Naturally they would have been fighting the Turks for most of that time.  Then, they had to fight the English and French who had tried to take over the Ottoman Empire's former colonies.  That too would be only natural.

Why did Chineese Gordon die at Syuyakin? No the Arabs there were not natives they were fighting to preserve their own colony and its slave trade.
In India the Mogouls took over lost to the English then continued to fight the English .

All because of the English and Indian support of Plaestinians?

[Michael Tee]

<<No according to your thesis only supporters of Isreal get this treatment , so the USSR got that treatment for its support of Isreal , no other explanations are pertanent.>>

According to my "thesis," bin Laden fought the Russians because they were infidel atheists who invaded and occupied Muslim lands and he had a duty as a Muslim to drive them out.  I'm sorry if you misinterpreted my "thesis," but as the author of it, I'm only too  happy to set you straight as to what it argues.   I'm sure OBL feels the same way about the Israelis and their American supporters - - why would he not?

<<One rule book.>>

Absolute rubbish.  The Bey of Tunis and OBL are two Muslims out of a billion.  If the two of them agree on anything, (and neither one of us knows if they do or not)  it sure as hell doesn't prove that there is "one rule book" for all the other 999,999,998 of them.  That is totally absurd.


<<Why did Chineese Gordon die at Syuyakin? No the Arabs there were not natives they were fighting to preserve their own colony and its slave trade.>>

So the Arabs were colonizers too, and slave traders?  Well, at the worst, they were just trying to imitate you and the English.

<<In India the Mogouls took over lost to the English then continued to fight the English .>>

The Moghuls are history, plane.  This is an even dumber example than the Barbary Pirates.  You can try to explain why the Moghuls lay dormant until 1968 and then sprang into action again with a terrorist attack on Americans

<<All because of the English and Indian support of Plaestinians?>>

Well, plane, nobody thinks that all Arab or Muslim warfare since the dawn of history was directed toward the plight of the Palestinians.  You are making an incredibly silly argument here which basically boils down to this:  The Barbary Pirates, the Moghuls and the Dervishes all had reasons to attack Westerners which were not related to the Palestinian issue, so therefore the Arab terrorism which began in 1968 against Americans must have also been for reasons not related to Palestine.

The problem with your argument is this:  we KNOW why the Barbary Pirates attacked American ships.  Same reason they attacked everybody else's ships, they were in it for the money.

We know why the Moghuls fought the British for India.  They wanted the land.  It was theirs by right of conquest and now the British were taking it from them, also by conquest.  Fuck that.  Fight for it.  etc.

We know why the Dervishes fought the British in the Sudan.  Well, somebody knows.  I sure as hell don't.  I suspect it was simply resistance to British imperialism but who gives a shit?

We THINK we know why terrorist attacks against Americans never happened before 1968 and that's because 1968 was the year that the U.S. became the main military and economic supporter of Israel; you, for some reason, are convinced that that can't possibly be the reason.  So you drag in the Barbary Pirates, the Moghuls and the Dervishes.  As if somehow they will provide the REAL reason for the Arab terrorist attacks on Americans that began only in 1968.    Well, NEWSFLASH, plane:  by 1968, the Barbary Pirates, the Moghuls, and even the Dervishes were all gone.  Whatever their reasons were for their hostilities, they're gone and their reasons are gone with them:  possession of India, pirate loot, anti-colonialism in the Sudan - - all gone.

So, plane, by a process of elimination, I am left with only ONE explanation for the Arab terrorist attacks on America beginning only in 1968, and that appears to be the rather obvious one, that it IS related to America's support of Israel, and all too obviously so.

[Plane]

You have eliminated all the truth.

Clever that.

All the ones who have ever attacked anybody have had the same approval from the Koran from Taqriq the conqueror of Spain to Osama Bin Laden who attacked the Soviet Union while the Soviet Union was a supporter of Palestine and attacked the US who used to help finance OBLs attacks on the Soviet Union while they were good targets.

Osama Bin Laden is interested in Palestine peripheral to his intrest in haveing a fight .

Before 1968 the whole of all the Arab Nations were very poor , they have climbed out of poverty somewhat with American and European help.

Isn't that a more likely explanation? It is easyer to attack when you have a bit of financing.

From the time of Stephen Decater and the bey of Tripoli, to the time of General Swartzkoph and Saddam Hussein , who changed what policy?


 http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/usa/barbarywars1801.html

[Michael Tee]

<<You have eliminated all the truth.>>

I eliminated all the bullshit crap you put up as alternative explanations for the one very obvious true explanation.

<<Clever that.>>

Actually it was hard work.  As absurd as your examples were, they still had to be examined, analyzed and refuted.  I'm running out of energy and time for this.  It's fun but it's enormously time-consuming. 

<<All the ones who have ever attacked anybody have had the same approval from the Koran from Taqriq the conqueror of Spain to Osama Bin Laden who attacked the Soviet Union while the Soviet Union was a supporter of Palestine and attacked the US who used to help finance OBLs attacks on the Soviet Union while they were good targets.>>

Sloppy reasoning.  All Christians who wage war have the same approval from their fucking Bible.  Religion was made for liars and hypocrites, that's nothing new and it applies whether we are talking about Christians, Muslims or even Jews.  When they want to pull some really disgusting shit, they can always pull out their Holy Book and find the justifying chapter and verse.  Never fails.

<<Osama Bin Laden is interested in Palestine peripheral to his intrest in haveing a fight .>>

Whereas your soldiers, McChrystal, Stormin Norman, Petraeus and Tommy "We Don't Do Body Counts" Franks are true pacifists and lovers of all humanity, reluctantly forced into wars that they hate by the evil actions of others.

<<Before 1968 the whole of all the Arab Nations were very poor , they have climbed out of poverty somewhat with American and European help.>>

Uhh, newsflash, plane:  OIL was discovered there after WWI and they sold it to the West.  The ones who didn't have any oil are STILL very poor.

<<Isn't that a more likely explanation? It is easyer to attack when you have a bit of financing.>>

And your theory is that they didn't get enough money together until - - VERY coincidentally - - 1968?  Excellent.   What's your next argument, that they didn't even KNOW in 1968 that the US had become Israel's principal economic and military supporter?

<<From the time of Stephen Decater and the bey of Tripoli, to the time of General Swartzkoph and Saddam Hussein , who changed what policy?>>

What's your point?  Can you not understand that none of them were attacking the U.S. since the end of the Barbary Pirates, and then suddenly in 1968, after America supports Israel, comes the first Arab terrorist attack on America?  And many more follow?  But when America was NOT supporting Israel it was NOT under terrorist attack by the Arabs?  Had there been a consistent Arab policy to attack America because it's an infidel country, wouldn't you think there'd be at least a couple of attacks somewhere in between the demise of the Barbary Pirates and 1968?

[Plane]

How well or poorly have you researched this factoid?


When Oil was discovered in the Mideast England and France glomed it pretty quick.

When Texans discovered some in Arabia in the 50s we made a deal with the government as it was.

The US is suffering from a lack of wisdom that Europe was loaded with , poor enemys are little threat. Colonys under thumb gave to Europe while clients under contract expected payments from the US.

If only we had treated the Saudis the way that the English , French , Italians and Germans treated the Muslems that they took over we would still have the money and they would still have the poverty.

In 67 all of the Arab and related countrys were pushovers , now Europe is a pushover , oh what have we done!

[Michael Tee]

ROTFLMFAO.

plane, there is one central fact whose meaning is probably instantly apparent to any thinking person on this planet, that Arab terrorist attacks on Americans began in the year that America became Israel's principal supporter economically and militarily.  I can't think of one person I know who wouldn't be able to instantly grasp the significance of that fact.

I should have known better.  I get treated to lectures on the Barbary Pirates, Kitchener at Khartoum, the Moghul Empire, the Lost Lands of Andaluz, Italian colonies in the Mediterranean and God knows what else.

I can see where this is heading, an endless spin far beyond the blue horizon where every possible spin is put on the facts and every conclusion is drawn but the simplest and most obvious - - that Arab terrorists began attacking America only in the year that America became Israel's primary economic and military supplier and not before because America had become Israel's prime support that year (and not because the Barbary Pirates or the Dervishes or the Moghuls had suddenly decided that 1968 was a good year to renew old hostilities or because 1968 was the year that the Arabs suddenly remembered the Koranic injunction to slay the infidels and rob their dead bodies.)

Now plane I honestly can say that I have done my utmost and more to let you see my POV but I know that there is nothing I can possibly say that would convince you, so I am leaving this exchange in abject failure.  You will continue to believe what you will about these events, and I guess I will have to go on making what I make of them.  So we should call this a draw.  Except that I'm obviously right and you are obviously wrong.

[Plane]

You could try to prove your theisis.

What was the first of all attacks that can be so ascribed?

When during Teddy Rosevelts administration an American was kidnapped and held for ransom how was the support for Isreal still fifty years in the future the cause?


After WWI the Ottoman empire got dismantled and Europe exploited the carcase as they were wont to do , there were no attacks untill the colonial drain on resorces was over was there?

Poverty makes the poor peacefull , that the attacking Islam- ists coincidce with prosperity is no coincidence.

[BT]

OPEC?s formation by five oil-producing developing countries in Baghdad in September 1960 occurred at a time of transition in the international economic and political landscape, with extensive decolonisation and the birth of many new independent states in the developing world. The international oil market was dominated by the ?Seven Sisters? multinational companies and was largely separate from that of the former Soviet Union (FSU) and other centrally planned economies (CPEs). OPEC developed its collective vision, set up its objectives and established its Secretariat, first in Geneva and then, in 1965, in Vienna. It adopted a ?Declaratory Statement of Petroleum Policy in Member Countries? in 1968, which emphasised the inalienable right of all countries to exercise permanent sovereignty over their natural resources in the interest of their national development. Membership grew to ten by 1969.

http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/about_us/24.htm