The Islamofascist War that isn't

[Plane]

What I see from my perspective is that basically they try to structure the issue as an either/or, either you support aggressively prosecuting the "war on terror" or you want to make buddies with the Islamic extremists.

If there is actually an organization outside the USA whose stated purpose and ambition is the destruction of the entire USA, I am against it .

What is the middle ground opinion?

An alternative to either aggressively prosecuting the "war on terror" or making buddies with the Islamic extremists is to do neither. I realize for those who believe in the either/or argument, this is an impossible stance because to not do the one is to do the other. The rhetoric is such that any attempt to suggest an alternative idea to aggressive pursuance of the "war on terror" is called appeasement.

One's acceptance of alternative ideas depends on whether or not and to what degree one believes American foreign policy should be focused on the goal of an American hegemony.

No it doesn't.

The Al Quieda wanted a fight with the USA , the stored a lot of weapons in Afghanistan in preparation for this fight , trained a lot f fighters for it and probably chose Afghanistan for this purpose because they thought to have advantages in it.

Then they sent assassins to shoot US citizens on the street in front of the CIA building , this didn't start the fight they wanted.

Then they tried to blow up ten airliners at once, probably killing three or four  thousand people , this didn't come off because they were interrupted by an accident that reveled their plot to the Philippine police.

Then they killed a dozen Americans in their barracks in Saudi , this didn't get them the fight they wanted.

Then they blew up two of our embassy's on the same day , this didn't get them the fight they wanted.

This is an abbreviated list , I don't want to get boring , but it seems to me that if they didn't et the epic battle they wanted with the 9-11 attack they would have returned to the drawing board and tried to come up with something even more irritating.

What would be he the benefit of ignoring them?

How would police work have been enough?  The first twin tower bomber was arrested and the CIA shooter was arrested , but there were plenty more where they came from. No amount of police work would be sufficient to prevent an eventual success if they continued to send their Kamikaze attackers .

Nothing depends on an American Hegemony in any of this , if we loose one ally or six or all  , Al Queda would celebrate the event and exploit it, to whatever degree they could.

Iraq was a pre-existing problem, when you are carrying out the trash why keep some garbage around? If we had not ousted Saddam , what would we have done with him?

[Michael Tee]

You know, plane, when you say that al Qaeda wanted a fight with the U.S., I wouldn't argue with you.  But I think you've got to follow their thinking a little bit further than just the first step.   Why did they want a fight with the U.S.?  What did they think would happen in such a fight?  Did they expect to bring the U.S.A. to its knees in a slug-fest?  Al Qaeda wins in a T.K.O.?

The clearest explanation I've seen is that they wanted to goad the U.S. into an attack on a Muslim nation, killing tens or even hundreds of thousands of Muslim people.  Their target is not the U.S.A. because they have no desire to rule over 300,000,000 degenerates.  (You can find lunatics claiming to be establishing a Caliphate over all the world, but not IMHO anyone in the top leadership of al Qaeda, unless they are talking about long-term historic goals.)  Their real targets are the Arab puppet regimes serving U.S. interests and collaborating with Israel under the table.  Or even, in the cases of Egypt and Jordan, openly.

The U.S. invasion of Muslim lands is meant to galvanize the faithful, to incite mass demands that Arab governments take stronger stands, and in the predictable failure of Arab puppets to back Arab victims of U.S. and Israli aggression, to incite to the overthrow of those governments.

Here you have a mutually reinforcing combination of factors - - greed for land and oil, Zionist interests in the destruction of a powerful enemy, and revenge for pinprick attacks, all excited by 9-11.  This could work to al Qaeda's interests if the local Muslim populations can be goaded into action, or to the U.S. national interests, if the Resistance can be defeated and if the popular revolutions in the region  fizzle and the U.S. can secure the oil fields.  It has already worked out to the Zioniasts' advantage.

[_JS]

I have several problems with the argument as Bret Stephens, and others of similar thinking, try to frame it. What I see from my perspective is that basically they try to structure the issue as an either/or, either you support aggressively prosecuting the "war on terror" or you want to make buddies with the Islamic extremeists. As you may have noted, there is no room there for a different perspective on the "war on terror" or not agreeing with either end of the argument, or really for any disagreement at all. Not supporting aggressively prosecuting the "war on terror" equals appeasing the terrorists to make them friendly. As someone who does not agree with aggressively prosecuting the "war on terror" or appeasing the terrorists, I find myself (to put it mildly) a bit annoyed with the argument.

Prince, I might offer another perspective and take in the article and cartoon together.

I think a more relevant question for this article is not if it is intellectually dishonest, because it clearly is. It is an article that will only appeal to those who have the "black and white" mindset anyway, and obviously no one reading this wants to be a terrorist sympathizer.

Therefore, barring those who read it and have the mental capacity of Charles the Hexed, I think it is the intention of the author (and cartoonist) that should be evaluated. To me, the intention seems to be to force the argument into a black and white issue. You either agree with the War on Terror, or you are appeasing the terrorists. You agree or you are a coward. You agree or you are a moral relativist.

In that sense, it is no different than what Hermann Göring pointed out (cool, there's that umlaut).

[Universe Prince]

Did that answer your question, UP?

No, but it gave me another one. If you believe what you say, why are you cheerleading for Sirs, who apparently believes something more in line with the column from Mr. Stephens?

Anyway, the question I asked previously was back in reply #4. I repeated it in Reply #26. You said, "Confronting evil is ALWAYS productive.  It is a universal call of those of integrity and true seekers of Truth." Which prompted me to ask "And when people of integrity do not agree on what is evil and what is Truth, what then?"

[Universe Prince]

One's acceptance of alternative ideas depends on whether or not and to what degree one believes American foreign policy should be focused on the goal of an American hegemony.

No it doesn't.

The Al Quieda wanted a fight with the USA , the stored a lot of wepons in Afganistan in preperation for this fight , trained a lot f fighters for it and probly chose Afganistan for this purpose because they thought to have advantages in it.

Then they sent assassins to shoot US citizens on the street in frount of the CIA building , this didn't start the fight they wanted.

Then they tried to blow up ten airliners at once, probly killing three or four  thousand people , this idn't come off becaue they were interrupted by an acident that reveied their plot to the Pillipine police.

Then they killed a dozen Americans in their barraks in Saudi , this didn't get them the fight they wanted.

Then they blew up two of our embassys on the same day , this didn't get them the fight they wanted.

This is an abbriviated list , I don't want to get boring , but it seems to me that if they didn't et the epic batle they wnted with the 9-11 attack they would have returned to the drawing board and tryed to come up with something even more irritating.

What would be he the benefit of ignoreing them?

Who said anything at all about ignoring them? You want to make a case for going after Al-Qaeda? I'm not going to stop you. I agree, hunt them down and capture or kill them. You've got my support. That would be, however, a hunt for Al-Qaeda, not a "war on terror".

How would police work have been enough?  The first twin tower omber was arrested and the CIA shooter was arrested , but there were plenty more where they came from. No amount of police work would be suffecient to prevent an eventual success if they continued to send their Kamakazi attackers .

I keep being told that our government's various law enforcement and intelligence agencies have repeatedly stopped plot after plot against this country. Granted, that's after passage of legislation with which I do not agree, but still, apparently some amount of police work seems effective against terrorist success, or is the government lying to us? But you're correct, no amount of police work can keep us 100% safe. But then, that had always been true. It was true before September 11, 2001, after that day, and now. Nothing about the "war on terror" has changed that.

Nothing depends on an American Hegimon in any of this , if we loose one ally or six or all  , Al Queda would celebrate the event and exploit it, to whatever degree they could.

To the degree that you're talking about hunting down Al-Qaeda, you're correct. To the degree that you're talking about the larger "war on terror", you're not correct. This is not a war on Al-Qaeda. This is a "war on terror". Iraq, we are told is a vital part in the "war on terror". Why? Because we had to stop Saddam Hussein. Okay, we did that. And Iraq is still a vital part of this "war on terror". Why? Because we have to establish democracy and an ally in the Middle East that will influence the region in our favor. The goal of the "war on terror", for America, is the same goal our foreign policy has had for at least 50 years, an American hegemony.

Iraq was a pre-existing problem, when you are carrying out the trash why keep some garbage around? If we had not ousted Saddam , what would we have done with him?

Left him alone? And I submit that referring to killing a whole lot of people as "carrying out the trash" is really callous. How was Iraq any more of a pre-existing problem than Iran or North Korea? Why have we left other "garbage" lying around? Why did we not finish in Afghanistan before turning to Iraq? I suggest what the administration attempted to accomplish is to increase American hegemony, and this is the primary reason why American troops remain in Iraq. If the troops are removed, the result will likely not be increased American influence in the Middle East. And so the troops remain.

The notion that we need to aggressively prosecute the "war on terror" is based on the idea that American hegemony is going to protect us. If we do not promote and pursue American influence in the world, then the dictators and tyrants are going to gain dominance in the world and they will come after us. You might say no this is not true. But we are told all the time how the Islamic extremists want to control the world. We even call them Islamofascists to drive home this point. The cartoon Sirs posted makes the direct comparison of the "Islamo-fascism" to the Nazis. It's us or them. It is the peril of the Communists all over again only worse. We went to Vietnam to stop the spread of Communism. Now we fight to stop the spread of "Islamo-fascism". Do you disagree with that? If so, why?

[The_Professor]

Did that answer your question, UP?

No, but it gave me another one. If you believe what you say, why are you cheerleading for Sirs, who apparently believes something more in line with the column from Mr. Stephens?

Anyway, the question I asked previously was back in reply #4. I repeated it in Reply #26. You said, "Confronting evil is ALWAYS productive.  It is a universal call of those of integrity and true seekers of Truth." Which prompted me to ask "And when people of integrity do not agree on what is evil and what is Truth, what then?"

Sirs is closer to where I stand, philosophically, than many here on this and many issues. That is why I support him in this issue and, generally, many others. He is apparently more pro-Bush than I am NOW (my views have been shaped more negatively during this Administration).

As far as your second issue, I believe many people can, through applied reason, agree on what is evil. Perhaps not on the specifics, but in a more generalized sense. If this is not possible, then we all have to follow our own road. As a Nation, that is why we have elected officials. You and I may not agree with their decisions (and both you and I do not often), but that is the way the cookie crumbles. If they make poor ones, that is why we have elections and the media and letter writing and so on. I do believe that you should always confront evil, though. Of course ,there are many methods available to accomplish this such as force, diplomacy, intermediaries and so on. Do you disagree?

[Universe Prince]

To me, the intention seems to be to force the argument into a black and white issue. You either agree with the War on Terror, or you are appeasing the terrorists. You agree or you are a coward. You agree or you are a moral relativist.

In that sense, it is no different than what Hermann Göring pointed out (cool, there's that umlaut).

Are you suggesting that Bret Stephens is a stooge for the government?

I don't think Mr. Stephens has to force the argument, at least not from his perspective. I think he believes what he said. But I agree that he is saying it to try to get others to accept his either/or argument. Otherwise, why bother making such an argument? I think, however, I'd not go so far as to suggest he's a tool of the government. But I'm not sure if you're suggesting that either.

[_JS]

No, I don't think he is a stooge for the government (I haven't researched the author at all). I think he is working to force a specific philosophy and that philosophy may include a political philosophy as well (again, I don't know the guy). Yet, as you say, the intention of the article is clearly meant to frame the argument into strictly manichean - good versus evil terms.

I don't think it has anything to do with the government, but more to do with a very sharply partisan, us versus them philosophy.

[Universe Prince]

I do believe that you should always confront evil, though. Of course ,there are many methods available to accomplish this such as force, diplomacy, intermediaries and so on. Do you disagree?

No. I agree with that. But libertarian anti-war folks are not likely to agree with Sirs or the Bush administration in all areas about what is evil and how to confront it. Granted, such folks are a minority in this country, but I find I still object to Mr. Stephens' arguments that, basically, his either/or argument is the only moral position and those who disagree do not deserve to be protected.

[Universe Prince]

I don't think it has anything to do with the government, but more to do with a very sharply partisan, us versus them philosophy.

Okay, then we are pretty much in agreement.

How does that keep happening?

[Plane]

One's acceptance of alternative ideas depends on whether or not and to what degree one believes American foreign policy should be focused on the goal of an American hegemony.

No it doesn't.

Who said anything at all about ignoring them? You want to make a case for going after Al-Qaeda? I'm not going to stop you. I agree, hunt them down and capture or kill them. You've got my support. That would be, however, a hunt for Al-Qaeda, not a "war on terror".

[][][][][][]
This sems to be a distinction without a diffrence , could you expand on why a war against Al Queda is diffrent from a war on terror?

The historical precident seems to me to be the multi national war on Piracy that nearly ended the practice by the midde 1800's.
As long as the seprate nations had use for them Pirates had nutral waters and safe harbors to retreat to , when the fight against them became the concern of many nations in co-operation Piracy became too hard to do.

I really think that our present "terrorists" are very much like Pirates  if you go looking for simularitys you can find plenty.

How would police work have been enough?  The first twin tower omber was arrested and the CIA shooter was arrested , but there were plenty more where they came from. No amount of police work would be suffecient to prevent an eventual success if they continued to send their Kamakazi attackers .

I keep being told that our government's various law enforcement and intelligence agencies have repeatedly stopped plot after plot against this country. Granted, that's after passage of legislation with which I do not agree, but still, apparently some amount of police work seems effective against terrorist success, or is the government lying to us? But you're correct, no amount of police work can keep us 100% safe. But then, that had always been true. It was true before September 11, 2001, after that day, and now. Nothing about the "war on terror" has changed that.

One of our choices is to armor up ourselves at home and keep up with everything so well that ousiders cnnot get in and attack us , this is knwn as a "police state" if terrorism is not adressed at its sorce, will we improve our police protection enough to keep up with  its growth?

Nothing depends on an American Hegimon in any of this , if we loose one ally or six or all  , Al Queda would celebrate the event and exploit it, to whatever degree they could.

To the degree that you're talking about hunting down Al-Qaeda, you're correct. To the degree that you're talking about the larger "war on terror", you're not correct. This is not a war on Al-Qaeda. This is a "war on terror". Iraq, we are told is a vital part in the "war on terror". Why? Because we had to stop Saddam Hussein. Okay, we did that. And Iraq is still a vital part of this "war on terror". Why? Because we have to establish democracy and an ally in the Middle East that will influence the region in our favor. The goal of the "war on terror", for America, is the same goal our foreign policy has had for at least 50 years, an American hegemony.


Saddam Hussein was a finaceir of terrorism , enough said of him.

Is France American Hegimon, or all of the nations of Nato includeing Poland , Spain , Iceland and Norway?

I am not sure what you mean by "Hegimon" I guess but it sounds like we order them all around which we just plainly do not.

A democracy in the Middle east might choose to be our ally but probly only to the degree that it feels threatened , from that point of view the terrorists are working to the benefit of Hegimon by produceing the threat that makes the nation dependant .

Hegimon may thereby happen even if we don't desire it.

Iraq was a pre-existing problem, when you are carrying out the trash why keep some garbage around? If we had not ousted Saddam , what would we have done with him?

Left him alone? And I submit that referring to killing a whole lot of people as "carrying out the trash" is really callous. How was Iraq any more of a pre-existing problem than Iran or North Korea? Why have we left other "garbage" lying around? Why did we not finish in Afghanistan before turning to Iraq? I suggest what the administration attempted to accomplish is to increase American hegemony, and this is the primary reason why American troops remain in Iraq. If the troops are removed, the result will likely not be increased American influence in the Middle East. And so the troops remain.

The notion that we need to aggressively prosecute the "war on terror" is based on the idea that American hegemony is going to protect us. If we do not promote and pursue American influence in the world, then the dictators and tyrants are going to gain dominance in the world and they will come after us. You might say no this is not true. But we are told all the time how the Islamic extremists want to control the world. We even call them Islamofascists to drive home this point. The cartoon Sirs posted makes the direct comparison of the "Islamo-fascism" to the Nazis. It's us or them. It is the peril of the Communists all over again only worse. We went to Vietnam to stop the spread of Communism. Now we fight to stop the spread of "Islamo-fascism". Do you disagree with that? If so, why?

Don't get stuck on the Hegimon idea, it is not the only possibility.

I tink of it as the least likely one too, do you recall President Bush being asked for the name of the president of Packistan by a quizzing reporter?
He didn't even know!

Do you know how poorly the FBI and CIA and the Armed Forces are fixed with translators?

 I doubt that events as we have seen them are a grand neo-con plan unfldin just as they hoped , the real focus of Americans is America and it always has been , we look like we intend hegimon to some because they are projecting their own thinking onto our actions.

Addressing the roots of terrorism  would mean strikeing fear into the tyrants that foster them. Or reduceing the number of tyrants willing to sheild them. Simply fostering democracy would help a lot , econmic progress would be good as well .

I don't think that Saddam is the same as North Korea or any other problem we had then, because we were already hands on with him ,can you review the choices availible to us and show why we had a better choice than "regime change".
[/color]

[Plane]

You know, plane, when you say that al Qaeda wanted a fight with the U.S., I wouldn't argue with you.  But I think you've got to follow their thinking a little bit further than just the first step.   Why did they want a fight with the U.S.?  What did they think would happen in such a fight?  Did they expect to bring the U.S.A. to its knees in a slug-fest?

Yes.

[Universe Prince]

This sems to be a distinction without a diffrence , could you expand on why a war against Al Queda is diffrent from a war on terror?

Does Al-Qaeda constitute the entirety of all terrorists in the world? If Al-Qaeda is eliminated, will there be no more terrorism? If you're still unsure about the difference between a hunt for Al-Qaeda members and a "war on terror" let me know, and, after I beat my head against a wall, I'll see if I can simplify the situation for you.

The historical precident seems to me to be the multi national war on Piracy that nearly ended the practice by the midde 1800's.
As long as the seprate nations had use for them Pirates had nutral waters and safe harbors to retreat to , when the fight against them became the concern of many nations in co-operation Piracy became too hard to do.

Yet, piracy still exists. But anyway, do you have some information about this "multi national war on Piracy" that explains or illustrates this comparison to the "war on terror"?

I really think that our present "terrorists" are very much like Pirates  if you go looking for simularitys you can find plenty.

Such as?

One of our choices is to armor up ourselves at home and keep up with everything so well that ousiders cnnot get in and attack us , this is knwn as a "police state" if terrorism is not adressed at its sorce, will we improve our police protection enough to keep up with  its growth?

What is the source of terrorism? And why does addressing it require preemptive military action?

Is France American Hegimon, or all of the nations of Nato includeing Poland , Spain , Iceland and Norway?

I am not sure what you mean by "Hegimon" I guess but it sounds like we order them all around which we just plainly do not.

I have no idea what a "Hegimon" is or means. (I suppose someone will think I'm being mean to pick on spelling, but come on, you put it in quotes, dude.) 'Hegemony' means a predominant influence, usually by a nation over other nations or one group over other groups. I did not say America has a complete hegemony. I said an American hegemony was the goal of American foreign policy. I believe that to be so, and so far you haven't said anything to cause doubt.

Don't get stuck on the Hegimon idea, it is not the only possibility.

I tink of it as the least likely one too, do you recall President Bush being asked for the name of the president of Packistan by a quizzing reporter?
He didn't even know!

Do you know how poorly the FBI and CIA and the Armed Forces are fixed with translators?

And how, exactly, does this dispute my assertion that American hegemony is the goal of American foreign policy?

 I doubt that events as we have seen them are a grand neo-con plan unfldin just as they hoped , the real focus of Americans is America and it always has been , we look like we intend hegimon to some because they are projecting their own thinking onto our actions.

I don't recall saying events were unfolding perfectly according to some master plan. And frankly, I think you're ignoring the history of American foreign policy and actions of the past 50 years or so if you think hegemony is not a goal of our foreign policy. I'm sure there are other arguments that could be made to explain it, but you're not really making one. You're just dismissing what I say.

Addressing the roots of terrorism  would mean strikeing fear into the tyrants that foster them.

Terrorize the tyrants to stop terrorism? Uhm, how does that stop terrorism? And what are the roots of terrorism that you're addressing through this bizarre policy?

I don't think that Saddam is the same as North Korea or any other problem we had then, because we were already hands on with him

So we took out Saddam because attacking Iraq was easier than attacking someone else? Well, I suppose that is a possibility.

can you review the choices availible to us and show why we had a better choice than "regime change".

I don't have time to make and review that list. (Feel free to make your own list and show why the course of action we took has given us better results than if we had not taken it.) I will, however, repeat what I have said before. I'm only holding American foreign policy to the same standard I hold American domestic policy. The government should protect the rights of the people and otherwise keep out of people's way. It should not be telling you how to run your house or your business, and it should not be telling people in other countries how to handle their affairs, or otherwise forcibly entangling itself in other the relationships of other countries.

[Michael Tee]

<<Yes [al Qaeda thought it could bring the U.S. to its knees in a slug-fest.>>

That's patently absurd. 

[Plane]

No, I don't think he is a stooge for the government (I haven't researched the author at all). I think he is working to force a specific philosophy and that philosophy may include a political philosophy as well (again, I don't know the guy). Yet, as you say, the intention of the article is clearly meant to frame the argument into strictly manichean - good versus evil terms.

I don't think it has anything to do with the government, but more to do with a very sharply partisan, us versus them philosophy.

I am glad someone thought  to explain the term "manichean".