Muslim Immigrants: Importing Terrorists?

[ACPlayer]

I dont think you can point to the invasion of Iraq as the Libya/Lebanon turn around. Libya's nuclear program was failing, they were already on the path to getting the Lockerbie driven sanctions lifted. They made a good move. Mostly driven by themselves.

I dont know enough about Lebanon to comment properly.

I definitely believe Iran's hand has been strengthened. They are establishing close ties with the SCIRI in Iraq. I doubt very much if Iraq will let the US interfere in Iran from their soil as the neo-cons had hoped.

It is not that the Saudis etc are super friendly. But they are likely to be very concerned about a Shia nexus. Some of the oil rich fields in Saudi have significant Shia.

I welcome a definition of free and democratic Iraq. From what I am reading about the constitution drafts that are around, it will require Sharia law for many of the social structures, reduce women's freedoms, and make the fundamentalists stronger. But, as I have said many times, I will be happy to be wrong.

We could have solved the Iraq problem very simply by lifting sanctions and establishing trade relations. I strongly believe that trade relations between us and other countries so strengthens the mutual dependency that threats are diminished. They bind the people as they can see the benefits. Nixon's china experiment (for which he was lambasted by the right) was a brilliant move.

Apology accepted. I was a bit surprised as we have had some good exchanges. But this is a subject that appears to give rise to strong statements --- understandable on all sides.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus, you really need to study the joint history of Islam and terrorism--it goes back to the time of Mohammed. Furthermore, the Koran specifically instructs Muslims to terrorize non-believers: to kill them, put them to the sword, pour boiling water down their throats, smite their necks, strike off their fingertips, etc....

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, sorry but it was your dog all along.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry. That dog won't hunt.

The Long Bloody History of Islamic Terrorism

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
... everyone knows the U.S./Britain has and has had its hands, guns, and strings in every developing country it can possibly exploit until they acquired a means of defense

[/ QUOTE ]

Like Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Korea, ...

[xniNja]

I never said the U.S./Britian is unique... I clearly noted that Rome did it too, but it did not confuse its citizens into believing they were going out trying to liberate the people they conquered.

As for my other points you responded to, you are right that the "puppet dictatorships" are largely in South America, and that Britain is responsible for a large part of the imperialism of the last century. However, this does not ignore the general crux and basis of my argument, which was the reasoning that our intervention/invasionist foreign policy (Our = western world) set and sets us up for these attacks. I think you agree with this, no?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry. That dog won't hunt.

The Long Bloody History of Islamic Terrorism

[/ QUOTE ]

Au contraire, your dog is the rabid one here and it sure can hunt our backsides. And I'm referring to modern, present-day Islamic terrorism, which was bred and fed by the United States of America, during what numerous right-wing foreign policy hawks have called the grossest miscalculation in American foreign policy after WWII, even "greater than Vietnam"!.

What you are sourcing is the history of the conflict between Islam, as represented by its various carriers (Ottomans, Arabs, etc), and the Christian West, as represented by its various carriers (Europe, Byzantium, etc). That phase of history was not "terrorism" in the nomenclature, in any way.

The viciousness of both sides (and you should learn about what the Crusades did to Christian and "infidel" populations alike, baby!) was equal if not greater than the viciousness of modern-day terrorists, ideed. And the objectives were oftentimes purely "terroristic".

But we should not start assigning modern names to things of the past just to serve modern day, expedient political objectives. It would be cheap and it would be pointless. The Crusaders were no "terrorists"; the Arab hordes were no "terrorists"; Osama bin-Laden, al Qaeda and the various militant offshoots of radical fundamentalist Islam are terrorists.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The joint history of Islam and terrorism ... goes back to the time of Mohammed. The Koran specifically instructs Muslims to terrorize non-believers: to kill them, put them to the sword, pour boiling water down their throats, smite their necks, strike off their fingertips, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Skipping the (boringly) misinformed rhetoric prevalent in your postings on this subject, I will only comment that you are playing right into the hands of the radical/militant Islamic fundamentalists!

Essentially, you are pitting Christian West against Islamic East in a war for survival! This is jihad exactly as bin Laden and his ilk want it!

The overwhelming majority of muslims in the world are generally peaceful people not unlike any other kind of people in the world. The demonisation of their religion and their culture and the call to arms against them is a bin Laden wet dream.

Check yourself.

[Trainwreck]

I would argue though, that poor humans (often on more than one level [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]) make good muslims.

I am trying to see the good in everything, that is the only angle I can take *cough* on this subject that seems to keep it going... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

>TW<

[ACPlayer]

Take a look at today's blog entry by Juan Cole regarding the (increasing?) role of Islam in the new Iraqi constitution and the (apparent) power to overrule being given to (taken by) Sistani.
Draft enshrines Islamic law?

While it does not bother me that Iraq or Iran be a theocratic state. It does bother me that (if it comes to pass, as I have longed believed it would) we took a secular country and converted it to a theocratic state, at the needless loss of our and their lives.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
Take a look at today's blog entry by Juan Cole regarding the (increasing?) role of Islam in the new Iraqi constitution and the (apparent) power to overrule being given to (taken by) Sistani.
Draft enshrines Islamic law?

While it does not bother me that Iraq or Iran be a theocratic state. It does bother me that (if it comes to pass, as I have longed believed it would) we took a secular country and converted it to a theocratic state, at the needless loss of our and their lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

100% agreement with you AC. I will be disappointed in a theocratic state becuase throughout history they have never worked.

-Gryph