Why are we going after Iran, again?

[Astral]

It's obvious how inundated you've with this 'clash of cultures' stuff. You don't have to be a Bush supporter to be an idiot.

ha ha... there is a clash of cultures. Perhaps you have had your fucking head in the dirt like some of the other mindless creatures in here.

The war with Terrorist's is a pretty big sign of a culture war. Didn't they at least hit you on your fucking head with a dictionary? It might be a leap of faith but maybe at least osmosis would have kicked in and helped you understand things a little bit better!

You are a typical lap dog liberal. You never call something what it is. You see an illegal you call them undocumented! You see a Terrorist and you Call them Freedom Fighters! You see an American Soldier you call them nazi's!

I proly hate bush almost as much as you but, I do not hate him for the same reasons as you! I have a real reason to hate him, you only have the reasons your liberals "God" dictate to you!

 

[Tyrant]

I'm not a liberal simply because I disagree with your ramblings.

 

[Astral]

I'm not a liberal simply because I disagree with your ramblings.

While I agree with that comment, I will say that is not why I believe you are a liberal. I think so because of your posts!

If you can shed more light by stating your complete political standings I will change the label apropriately!

my tests show me to be a centrist politically but a liberal would call me a hard core fundie right-wing zionist zealot!

 

[The Question]

Lol... you simply do not get it. We are viewed as a Christian Nation to the world.

And we were even more universally viewed as a Christian nation prior to the 1960s. So why weren't they declaring Jihad against us then?

The answer is obvious -- and it's an answer you obviously refuse to acknowledge.

That alone is enough to drive their frenzy.

Funny, then, how it wasn't enough to drive their frenzy before we started supporting the terrorist apartheid state known as Israel.

Besides, although I personally would retract all funding of any forgein nation I still would help defend them if they went to war.

Why? That's half of their excuse for targeting us, dumbass.

Our diplomatic ties to Israel is enough, regardless of the money spent.

I really hope you're trolling. If not, do you realize what you just said? Essentially, it was this: "The 1.6 + trillion dollars we've given them is well spent if it means we get to be their whore!"

Fucking moron.

Also this is a forgone conclusion. God placed the US here to defend Israel.

Bull. Fucking. Shit.

It is all over prophecy, for those who have a brain and the wisdom to understand it. You nor I can or will ever change that! If you think you can beat God at this game, get to cracking, because your in for a long hard loss!

So, in other words... we have to commit national bankruptcy and suicide for the Jews, because waaaay back, the Jews said they had a God. And now the Jews say their God says we have to ruin our country on their behalf. You're a fucking dolt.

One of these days things just might click... but I will not be holding my breath!

No, no, hold your breath! Please do! Wrap a plastic bag around your head real tight, it'll help!

Shit is going to happen either way... I am just going to make sure I am on the right of things! Literally!

Too bad you're not.

I like the jews by proxy-comment. To become Christian in a sense is to become a Jew. I dont suppose that it means anything to you that they are far more religously learned than you.

Oh, they know their made-up sky-fairy bullshit, I'll give them that.

And the money spent means shit to them!

Of course it does, because it isn't their money.

 

[The Question]

Do you know what "Dar al Harb" means?

Roughly: "House of War." Operationally, it refers to any sovereign nation not operated under Muslim authority. So yes, I do know what you mean, but that isn't why I disagree with you. You still have one very large fact to contend with: There were was not a single Muslim terrorist act against Any American asset before 1979. Specifically, the very first act of Muslim terrorism involving same:

Source: U.S. Army

Ambassador to Afghanistan Assassinated, February 14, 1979:
Four Afghans kidnapped U.S. Ambassador Adolph Dubs in Kabul and demanded the release of various "religious figures." Dubs was killed, along with four alleged terrorists, when Afghan police stormed the hotel room where he was being held.

We were "Dal Al Harb" since the foundation of this country. If that's their motivation, why did they wait so long? Clearly, that's an underlying excuse, but it was not the catalyst for any attacks. It may very well be a rallying cry terrorist planners use for recruiting, just as its counterpoint has become a standard refrain with Bush, but it is not now nor has it ever been the driving force behind the conception and execution of any attack.

 

[Cranky Bastard]

To answer for Gurk... although he will pipe in soon, I'm sure...

Not until the late 70s did Islamic nations begin to reap the petrodollars that have been on a meteoric rise since that time.

Consequently, petrodollars have funded the textbooks in Islamic schools that teach that Islam is at war with "the West and all other religions." Denying the religious threat because it is religious due to your disdain of anything religion does not negate the fact. Doing so is obviously and dangerously narrow-sighted.

You might desire to marginalize religion with "progress" but to deny the truth surrounding the cause and effects of religious behavior on a macro scale paints you into the Corner of Ignorance.

Better to admit the strengths of your enemy to better disable and dismantle them.

 

[The Question]

To answer for Gurk... although he will pipe in soon, I'm sure...

Not until the late 70s did Islamic nations begin to reap the petrodollars that have been on a meteoric rise since that time.

Consequently, petrodollars have funded the textbooks in Islamic schools that teach that Islam is at war with "the West and all other religions."

Oh, come on, now! Are you seriously proposing that the attitudes conveyed in these textbooks were only introduced to Muslim kids in the 70s? :shock:!

Denying the religious threat because it is religious due to your disdain of anything religion does not negate the fact. Doing so is obviously and dangerously narrow-sighted.

I'm not denying the religious threat at all -- I'm only pointing out, based on historical fact, that the religious antipathy has always been there. Consequently, if it were the primary motivating force behind modern terrorism, it should have resulted in terrorism for far longer than anti-American terrorism has been happening. Simply put, anti-American muslim terrorism is a much younger phenomenon than antipathy toward "Dar Al Harb." So that antipathy cannot be the primary motivator. Something new had to happen to make that older cause go from a passive state to an active one. The formation of Israel and American financial and military support of that state was that catalyst.

You might desire to marginalize religion with "progress" but to deny the truth surrounding the cause and effects of religious behavior on a macro scale paints you into the Corner of Ignorance.

And to insist that religion is the primary motivator paints you into a dunce cap. Terrorism is a young effect that you simply can't pin on such an old cause.

Better to admit the strengths of your enemy to better disable and dismantle them.

But at the same time, isn't it preferable to first remove their reason for being our enemy in the first place, since doing so would cost us nothing and gain us security without loss of liberty?

 

[Cranky Bastard]

And to insist that religion is the primary motivator paints you into a dunce cap. Terrorism is a young effect that you simply can't pin on such an old cause.

Apparently you know nothing about centuries of Islamic/Indian history.

That isn't in your politically correct playbook, is it?

Petrodollars have given to Islam the ability to purchase their means of taming Dar al Harb since they can't invent anything on their own.

 

[The Question]

Apparently you know nothing about centuries of Islamic/Indian history.

Who gives a fuck about India? Did I say anything about India? Hey, if you ever feel like maybe picking a subject, let's talk about it, but we're talking about Islam's beef with the U.S. here, not whatever their problem is with India.

That isn't in your politically correct playbook, is it?

He don't know me very well, do he?

Petrodollars have given to Islam the ability to purchase their means of taming Dar al Harb since they can't invent anything on their own.

And how long is it they've been making money with oil? If you said, "Waaaay before the 1970s!" you would be correct. But'cha didn't, which is why you're not.

 

[Gurk_MacGuintey]

Something new had to happen to make that older cause go from a passive state to an active one. The formation of Israel and American financial and military support of that state was that catalyst.

I've already provided you the genesis of the modern spate of the jihad phenomenon: Sayyid Qutb and the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo in the 1920's. This re-affirmation of Islam's age-old universalist mission of violent jihad has had a far more profound effect upon muslim thought than even losing four wars in a row to the pesky jews of Israel - THAT was just humiliation. I will agree that that humiliation has served as a catalyst toward the kind of depraved violence we see from the jihadis today - but I contend that had Israel never been founded, we would still have the kind of muslim problem we have today

Your jew hatred blinds you to the facts of reality. This is why you snipped at Cranky and tried to compartmentalize the arguement when he mentioned the 1,000 year old jihad between muslim and hindu in India - because that inconvenient fact of reality doesn't fit your paradigm of blaming muslim jihadism on US policy and the jews of Israel. And as I've already pointed out, that paradigm doesn't fit the majority of muslim jihads raging around the globe today; otherwise you should be able to tell me what US policy or the jews of Israel have to do with: Algeria, Nigeria, Sudan, Eritria Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Kasmir, Nepal, Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, East Timor and the Phillipines. Every single one of these countries contains ongoing "jihadi" insurgencies wherein muslims are trying to kill or convert their non-muslim or not-muslim-enough neighbors.

Care to have a go at explaining that?

 

[The Question]

I've already provided you the genesis of the modern spate of the jihad phenomenon: Sayyid Qutb and the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo in the 1920's. This re-affirmation of Islam's age-old universalist mission of violent jihad has had a far more profound effect upon muslim thought than even losing four wars in a row to the pesky jews of Israel - THAT was just humiliation. I will agree that that humiliation has served as a catalyst toward the kind of depraved violence we see from the jihadis today - but I contend that had Israel never been founded, we would still have the kind of muslim problem we have today.

Would we? Why? Let's say we accept that they still would have exploded without any direct ignition -- you still have to establish that something else would have pulled the violence in America's direction. And 50 years between between the 1920s and the late 70s/early 80s is too long a span to try to connect A and B across. When did the U.S. assume a firm pro-Israeli stance in its foreign policy? The late 1960s. 10 years of brewing hatred that led to anti-American sentiment and then finally to violence makes for a much shorter reach than 50.

Your jew hatred blinds you to the facts of reality.

I have no "jew hatred". I have an unsympathetic eye toward the Israeli government, and rather than blinding me to reality, it prevents me from blinding myself to reality on sentimental or religious grounds.

This is why you snipped at Cranky and tried to compartmentalize the arguement when he mentioned the 1,000 year old jihad between muslim and hindu in India - because that inconvenient fact of reality doesn't fit your paradigm of blaming muslim jihadism on US policy and the jews of Israel.

No, I reminded him of the actual topic of this thread, which is Iranian and U.S. antagonism. It's not my fault he can't stay on topic. And as historical and current affairs readily demonstrate, anti-American muslim attacks are a direct result of U.S. government support of Israel.

And as I've already pointed out, that paradigm doesn't fit the majority of muslim jihads raging around the globe today; otherwise you should be able to tell me what US policy or the jews of Israel have to do with: Algeria, Nigeria, Sudan, Eritria Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Kasmir, Nepal, Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, East Timor and the Phillipines.

None of those countries has anything to do with the U.S. or Iran. But keep introducing red herrings, it might eventually gain you some ground. Really, there is that possibility, except that there's not.

Every single one of these countries contains ongoing "jihadi" insurgencies wherein muslims are trying to kill or convert their non-muslim or not-muslim-enough neighbors.

And? So? Therefore? Those tie in to the actual topic of this thread how?

Care to have a go at explaining that?

No, because we're having a go at explaining something else. Check the thread title if you've forgotten what it is.

 

[Cranky Bastard]

No, I reminded him of the actual topic of this thread, which is Iranian and U.S. antagonism. It's not my fault he can't stay on topic.

You asked for a reason. I provided an example of a dialectic behavior that you summarily dismissed as off-topic because it proves my point and invalidates yours.

Your delusion that Islam would be peaceful to us ignores the centuries of bitter murder Islam perpetrated on peaceful Hindus. Show me where India has supported Israel to cause the murder of millions of their peoples.

Islam is at war with the West and America because of their support of Israel. Of that, I cannot deny the truth. However, there are many countries that do not support Israel as we do and are being targeted by Islamic normality (extremism). So Islam might have a particular hatred that is slightly more antagonistic to us (we support the repatriation of Jews to their homeland that was conquered by Islam and in Islam no conquered country is ever suffered loss).

Denying the teachings of the madrassahs for the last 30 years only shows your gullibility. As much as you like to hint at hating that which is politically correct, you show an astounding adherence to the politically correct line.

If the shoe fits...

You're getting ass-raped here, TQ. You might want to take some time and delve into some history and Islamic culture. Parroting PC diatribe only makes you look assinine.

 

[Cranky Bastard]

As to the topic, my points are directly related to Iran and its obsession with beating the US.

Until and unless you understand Islam, you will never produce a solution to the "middle eastern problem."

 

[The Question]

You asked for a reason. I provided an example of a dialectic behavior that you summarily dismissed as off-topic because it proves my point and invalidates yours.

No, I summarily dismissed it for two reasons:

1. India is not the U.S. Neither is India Iran. Thus, India has fuck-all to do with the U.S. and Iran.

2. 1,000 years of antagonism did not result in Islamic or Iranian aggression against the U.S. 40 years of the U.S. providing Israel with funding and military hardware has.

Your delusion that Islam would be peaceful to us ignores the centuries of bitter murder Islam perpetrated on peaceful Hindus.

No, it takes into account centuries of Islam being peaceful to us.

Islam is at war with the West and America because of their support of Israel. Of that, I cannot deny the truth.

Then your concession is accepted and you're free to shut the fuck up.

 

[The Question]

Until and unless you understand Islam, you will never produce a solution to the "middle eastern problem."

And you fail to see my point, still. The middle eastern problem" ought to be the middle east's problem -- not ours.

 

[John Clark]

^Now that's what I call a kick IN NEH NUTZ!!!^ issed:

 

[Cranky Bastard]

And you fail to see my point, still. The middle eastern problem" ought to be the middle east's problem -- not ours.

Oh? Your ignorance is rampant. Dar al Harb does not allow for peace in its concept.

You really know nothing about islam, do you? You tell me to STFU because I'm destroying your silly arguments.

Your dismissal of the fundamentals of Islamic thought shows how far you're willing to go to lay blame on only what you desire to blame. You're willfully ignorant, boasting of your ignorance, and comfortable dismissing the truth.

You're nothing but a politically correct whore. No better than a journalist.

 

[John Clark]

You didn't read what he posted, huh? If the towlies were gonna start shit with us 'cause of Hard El Garbage they woulda started it a long time ago.

Now I'm gonna hafta kick ya in IN NEH NUTZ!!! issed:

Only I'm not sure which one of your chins your NUTZ is resting on. Guess I'll have to get 'em all. Now stand still and remember to scream. It's so much more fun when they scream.

 

[Cranky Bastard]

Islam didn't have the ability or the DOLLARS until the 70s. Say what you want about having oil - it wasn't developed until the mid 1900s and was owned by the US. When those facilities fell under Islamic control, the dollars followed the bullshit.

This is what TQ doesn't want to admit. Islam isn't stupid, no matter how detestable I believe them to be. Cunning, certainly.

Kick yourself in the balls, you just got slammed, too. Ignorant people spouting PC bullshit are always easy marks.

 

[John Clark]

WHOMP!!!

That was for your NUTZ!!! issed: