The Liberals' War

[Texas Proud]

Yes.... some quotes here and there... but not enough...

And I do remember seeing a lot of 'normal' people on the street cheering the collapse of the WTC... it needs to get down to them... when the normal man on the street in Palistine or Syria or Iran will say that terrorists are evil and what they do is against thier God.. I will not hold my breath..

And I do not care about the quotes from the American Muslims... most all that are in this country do not have the extreme view that is in the Middle East... but then again, the militants want them killed also as they are not the right kind of Muslim..

 

[Caroline]

Yes....   some quotes here and there... but not enough...

Have you defined what number, if any, WOULD be enough?  I can go surfing again if you give me a target... these aren't that hard to find!

when the normal man on the street in Palistine or Syria or Iran will say that terrorists are evil and what they do is against thier God.. I will not hold my breath..

If you're not interested in American Muslim opinion, how do Egypt, Denmark, and Iraq work for you?


Muslims marched against terror in Egypt. Read this blogger's report (Glenn Reynolds of MSNBC):

Egyptian blogger Karim Elsahy tried to organize an anti-terror march in Cairo. And it worked -- though as another Egyptian blogger reports, it was broken up by Egyptian police:

We then started holding the banners in the view of the incoming and outgoing traffic. People's response was mostly the same: Astonished at first that something like this was happening, and then they showed their support by either honking or giving us the thumbs up. We were getting so many thumbs up I was loving it. The people were with us.

Just as I knew they would be. And then, of course, the Egyptian police showed up...

Anyway, the experience was worth it. And I have to admit that the policemen were themselves very supportive. They just followed the usual rule of Egypt's police force: do not allow anything to disrupt the peace no matter how good or bad it is.

Why, indeed? But this is a big step for Egypt. And for Egyptian bloggers. As Jeff Jarvis notes: "A year or so ago, I could not find any blogging scene there. Now, these people are making their voices heard."

There was a much larger demonstration at Sharm El Sheikh, scene of last week's horrific bombing. Egyptians stood side by side with tourists condemning terrorism and calling for peace.

It wasn't just in Egypt, either. There were also anti-terror rallies by Arabs and Muslims in Antelope Valley, California, in Iraq, and in Denmark.

What's depressing is how little attention these demonstrations got from the media. If any of these groups had blown something up — or even just burned President Bush in effigy — they probably would have made the evening news. But when Arabs and Muslims defy news-media typecasting, they seem to be ignored.

UPDATE: The anti-terror protests may not be getting much press in Western media, but they're getting major treatment in Arab media. That's certainly a good thing, but I still wonder why CNN, Fox and — yes — even MSNBC haven't done more with this story. Maybe they need to be reading more blogs!

 

[jclarksnakes]

...It appears that Osama has quite a few friends here on these forums. You all need to get a clue. No matter how much you like Osama he hates you for your liberal ideals just as much as he hates Texas Proud and I for our strong opinions. If he gets the chance he will kill us. There is nothing we could have done before or after 9/11 short of converting our entire country to an Islamic fundamentalist state that would have made Osama like us. Thankfully the war on terror, especially in Afghanistan has somewhat blunted his abilty to attack us at this time.
...On the subject of turning Iraq into a democracy? We killed far too many Iraqis during Desert Storm (I was there BTW) and since our 2003 invasion for the Iraqis to ever embrace a US sponsored democratic form of government. No matter what we do the place will be a mess ten years from now. It is time for the President to declare victory over Iraqi based terrorists and bring a bunch of the troops home and redeploy some others of them into Afghanistan and other places to continue the hunt for Osama and others who want to kill you and I. Of course there will be arguements, and understandably so about whether such a victory claim would have much validity but at least it would allow for some degree of face saving and perhaps make it palatable to the President.
jc

 

[Lazarus]

There may be a number of moderate Muslims that that denounce the terrorists. Find all the quotes you like. But the fact is the Muslim world is not doing anything about their radical members. Leaving that problem to us.

When a group of people are dedicated to destroying us there can only be one response to them. Remove the threat that they represent. If a state harbors terrorists that are threatening us and does nothing about it we are well within our rights to go in and take care of it ourselves. In fact we are obligated to do so. Any country that does not defend its self will not last.

I want the United States to last. It’s the best hope the world has for maintaining Peace.

 

[farmerEd]

When a group of people are dedicated to destroying us there can only be one response to them.

Would that "response" be to invade a country that had nothing to do with trying to destroy us and no longer posed any real threat to anyone outside their own borders? Well then, mission accomplished.

 

[Lazarus]

They posed a threat to Kuwait which is outside their borders. Thanks to us it remains outside their borders

 

[lets-retire]

Would that "response" be to invade a country that had nothing to do with trying to destroy us and no longer posed any real threat to anyone outside their own borders? Well then, mission accomplished.

That counrty continued to be a threat to th American and British airmen enforcing no-fly zones agreed to by that country in it's surrender. That threat was a direct violation of the surrender agreement, essentially being an act of war. They started the fight, couldn't finish it and are now laughing because the lib's have taken it up.

 

[donheff]

It is interesting to find myself agreeing with Texas, JClarksnakes, Lazarus et al on the threat Islamofacsists pose. The radical elements really do want to destroy the west. Europe faces the most immediate threat, far beyond what we face. Read, While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within by Bruce Bawer to get a feel for what is happenning in the suburbs of Paris and Amsterdam.

But as I posted above, the Bush Admin has set us back a decade. We have stretched our armed forces to the limit and gotten nothing in return. Agreed that the Democrats are scratching their heads about what we should do in Iraq. I have to admit that I don't have a clue. What I do know is that I would never trust Bush or his supporters to do anything right -- they have proven they are incapable of learning. We need a whole new mindset to deal with this threat.

I got stuck in traffic at 14th and Pennsylvania Avenue the other morning as Bush's motorcade passed by on the way to the Hill. A Presidential visit to the Hill other than the State of the Union Address is a rare thing indeed, reserved for matters of the utmost importance. What was Bush heading up there for? To demand the right to torture prisoners and hide them from the Red Cross. He shames us all.

 

[Texas Proud]

From Wikipedia (because it was easy..

"Mohammed Bouyeri assassinated van Gogh in the early morning of Tuesday November 2, 2004, in Amsterdam in front of the Amsterdam East borough office (stadsdeelkantoor) on the corner of the Linnaeusstraat and Tweede Oosterparkstraat streets. He shot him with eight bullets from a HS2000 (a handgun produced in 2000 in Croatia), and Van Gogh died on the spot. Bouyeri slit van Gogh's throat and then stabbed him in the chest. Two knives were left implanted in his torso, one pinning a five-page note to his body. The note (Text) threatened Western governments, Jews and Hirsi Ali (who went into hiding). The note also contains references to the ideologies of the Egyptian organization Takfir wal-Hijra."

I remember seeing a 60 minute segment on this.. they asked one leading cleric about the murder.. he said van Gogh had insulted Islam.. then he was asked.. but he insulted Jews, Christians, politicians etc.. response, so we have to take it?

I saw many many vidioes of the 'ordinary man' dancing on the street after the WTC...

How much rioting occured in many countries and how many deaths because of some cartoons


Again from Wikipedia
"Deaths

* At least four protestors were killed in Afghanistan, in Mihtarlam and an US air base in Bagram. One boy was trampled to death in Bossaso, Somalia when the crowd stampeded as police fired in the air to disperse them. On February 5, 2006 one protestor died at the blazing Danish Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon [38]
* On February 6, 2006 one demonstrator involved in the torching of the Danish consulate in Beirut, Lebanon was found dead on a staircase. One protestor was shot to death in Laghman Province Afghanistan. [39]
* Four people were killed and 22 injured on February 7, 2006 in an attack on a NATO base in Maymana, Afghanistan. [40]
* Andrea Santoro, a Catholic priest, was killed on Sunday, February 5, 2006 in Trabzon, Turkey. A 16 year-old high school student was arrested two days later carrying a 9mm pistol. The student told police he had been influenced by the cartoons. [41]
* On February 13, 2006 two people were killed in Lahore, Pakistan. The next day two were killed in Peshawar, Pakistan; and another in Lahore. [11]
* On February 17, 2006 11 people died during protests in Libya [42]
* On February 18, 2006, sixteen people were killed in northern Nigeria as demonstrators protested the cartoons by storming and burning Christian churches and businesses. [43]"

These demonstrations I am sure had many many more people than the demonstrations you present.. It is easier for me to find articles and quotes that show thier hate for us..

And as someone else said.. the people that are doing the murdering are not the poor and uneducated.. they have degrees.. they live in the Western world.. it is just that the 'common man' on the street has the same opinion...

 

[astromeria]

...It appears that Osama has quite a few friends here on these forums. You all need to get a clue.

His biggest friend is the Bush administration, which stopped hunting for him and declared him unimportant. Now if they did that to throw him off his guard, that's one thing. But Bush doesn;t believe in nuance, so I don't buy that reason (for now).

No matter how much you like Osama

Oh, good grief! : I loathe Osama Been Forgotten and want him captured!

he hates you for your liberal ideals just as much as he hates Texas Proud and I for our strong opinions.

OR perhaps we have rational ideas and you have incorrect opinions? Anyhoo, I bet he doesn't see a desert rat's patoot of difference between our opinions. We're all The Infidel.

If he gets the chance he will kill us.

Well, d'uh! Why didn't we go after him instead of Saddam Hussein then?

On the subject of turning Iraq into a democracy? We killed far too many Iraqis during Desert Storm (I was there BTW) and since our 2003 invasion for the Iraqis to ever embrace a US sponsored democratic form of government. No matter what we do the place will be a mess ten years from now. It is time for the President to declare victory over Iraqi based terrorists and bring a bunch of the troops home and redeploy some others of them into Afghanistan and other places to continue the hunt for Osama and others who want to kill you and I.

Hee. This is what Democrats have been saying--thanks for joining the fight. With both sides on the same side, we're sure to win.

 

[Craig]

Some of this would be amusing, if it wasn't so serious.

Ironic that liberals rightly bemoan conservatives that cannot let go of their historical disgust with the Clintons ... as the liberals cannot let go of their disgust with Bush over Iraq. Give it a rest, and look at the bigger picture and question.

It's a dangerous mental "blanket" to believe we can sing Kum Ba Yah with these folks around the campfire.

 

[farmerEd]

They posed a threat to Kuwait which is outside their borders. Thanks to us it remains outside their borders

 

[farmerEd]

Some of this would be amusing, if it wasn't so serious.

Ironic that liberals rightly bemoan conservatives that cannot let go of their historical disgust with the Clintons ... as the liberals cannot let go of their disgust with Bush over Iraq. Give it a rest, and look at the bigger picture and question.

It's a dangerous mental "blanket" to believe we can sing Kum Ba Yah with these folks around the campfire.

Except of course Clinton left office 6+ years ago and is nothing but a footnote in US history...Bush is still occupying Iraq last time I checked.

 

[Craig]

And, your perspective is that Clinton's policy (and earlier) had nothing to do with where we are on terrorism now? :

 

[Zathras]

Charles, that would not be rational. Every president since about WWII has had something to do with where we are currently at with regards to terrorism (maybe earlier).

The issue is, Clinton is not currently running the show, Bush is.
The past can't be changed, if enough people work on it, the present and near future can.

Frankly I have no idea WHAT we can do in Iraq now. Stay the course seems to strengthen our enemies. Perhaps if the public demanded that we focus more on capturing OBL that will help??

 

[Craig]

This isn't about Iraq only ... that is the point of the thread.

 

[Gone4Good]

Al-Azhar condemns suicide attacks
Grand Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of the Al-Azhar mosque of Cairo - which is seen as the highest authority in Sunni Islam - said groups which carried out suicide bombings were the enemies of Islam.  Speaking at the conference in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur, Sheikh Tantawi said extremist Islamic groups had appropriated Islam and its notion of jihad, or holy struggle, for their own ends.
BBC News, 11 July, 2003

Well, Caroline, it's certainly nice to see that some voices are raised to condemn the daily atrocities being committed and encouraged on behalf of the Muslim faith.  I too wish these voices were given wider attention in the media.  But perhaps the reason they are not is because the picture you paint is not the whole story.  Taking Grand Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi  as just one example, he is also quoted as saying:

Grand Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, the top Islamic cleric in Egypt, praised Palestinian suicide bombers, saying: "One who blows himself up among those (Israeli) aggressors is a martyr, martyr, martyr, and whoever says otherwise is a ... liar."    
Associated Press April 13, 2002

Often times Muslim Clerics mix condemnation of terrorist attacks with justification for those attacks as in:

Lebanon's leading Shiite cleric, Mohamed Hussein Fadlallah, condemned the Sharm el-Sheikh and other terrorist attacks in the pan-Arab Al-Hayat newspaper on July 25, yet went on to say: "But we should admit also that the arrogant injustice of those who are confiscating people's liberties, leading them to poverty, blocking their progress and ruling with dictatorial regimes are responsible for what is occurring."

It is hard to take people seriously when they condemn an action but then blame people other than the perpetrators of those actions.

 

[donheff]

This isn't about Iraq only ... that is the point of the thread.

Charles, you opened the thread. Tell us what you think we should do. Many of us "liberals" have argued that we are fighting on the wrong front. JClarsnakes, an avowed conservative, has stated that we have messed up Iraq for a decade or more and should declare victory, head back to Afganistan, and get after Ossama and friends. I tend to lean that way myself although I don't think there is any victory to declare - only a horrible self inflicted setback.

What do you think we should do?

 

[Caroline]

...It appears that Osama has quite a few friends here on these forums. You all need to get a clue. No matter how much you like Osama he hates you for your liberal ideals just as much as he hates Texas Proud and I for our strong opinions. If he gets the chance he will kill us.

We're in violent agreement here, guy.  The last place in the WORLD I'd want to find myself is anywhere near this guy or his adherents.  As Putin said, "We are as dust to them."

That said, and even supposing that the way to get rid of him is through military force, I don't believe that the way it's being handled now is effective or likely to end in success.

And at some point there IS a moral factor here. We've been told that we "fight terrorists there, so we don't fight them at home."  What this REALLY ends up meaning is that we choose to fight OUR enemy on a battlefield filled with other, innocent men, women, and children who happen to be Muslims. 

And the only way to justify turning their country into a war zone is to lump them all together into one faceles, inhuman mass.

I too wish these voices were given wider attention in the media.  But perhaps the reason they are not is because the picture you paint is not the whole story.

You make my only point in all of this, 3 Yrs to Go. That point being that these people we are hating and killing are unique individuals.  Some hate us, some love us, some ARE us. 

We dehumanize them by lumping them by together and ascribing one hateful attitude to all of them, and that makes it too easy to kill them and their children and their elders without guilt or shame.

 

[Gone4Good]

You make my only point in all of this, 3 Yrs to Go. That point being that these people we are hating and killing are unique individuals.  Some hate us, some love us, some ARE us. 

But my point wasn't that I hate "them" - meaning Muslims as a whole.  Or that anyone here is justified in hating "them".  My point here was only that the world Muslim community takes great offense at any perceived slight or criticism of Islam.  One sentence in a long speech by the Pope, or cartoons in Danish newspapers, spark mass uprisings and sometimes death.  But when Muslim Clerics and others take to the airwaves saying that killing non-Muslims is not only right but is rewarded by God, the silence is deafening.  I can only conclude from their silence that those so readily brought to anger by any perceived slight to their religion, no mater how trivial, do not see these radical interpretations as degrading to Islam.  I find that very troubling.

 

[Craig]

And at some point there IS a moral factor here. We've been told that we "fight terrorists there, so we don't fight them at home."  What this REALLY ends up meaning is that we choose to fight OUR enemy on a battlefield filled with other, innocent men, women, and children who happen to be Muslims.

Caroline

Yes, of course, agreed.  Again, history is helpful.  There were plenty of innocent Japanese, German and Italian men, women and children who were killed during WWII.  A tragedy.  But, their governments had become militaristic machines bent on killing vast numbers of other innocents, and war had to be waged against them.  War is hell, and a last resort ... but it is a critical resort when dealing with barbarians who have murder in mind.  Better to kill as many radical Islamists overseas, than in the town square or pizza parlor down the street from your house or mine.  Do you not see this?

Charles, you opened the thread.  Tell us what you think we should do.

 donheff

Fair question.

It is not an "either/or" thing.  We can take a hard line against the extemists while working with moderates and use Madison Ave to win the bigger struggle.

 samclem

This is closest to my position, well stated.

I believe our own policies have indeed contributed to the radical Islam we face ... we've made plenty of mistakes under both Democrat and Republican administrations.  We have helped create the hatred that we face.

However, I believe radical Islamists would hate us regardless, because they hate our society, our religions, our economy and our values, and they believe in using brutal violence to attain their objectives.

If I were making policy, and based upon what I know from the general media, I would focus on:

• Communicate to Americans regularly so they understand this is a war against radical Islam.  We either face and defeat this threat, or it will surely come to a theater near you.
• Regarding Iraq, not announce a time (a blatantly suicidal strategic concept) for complete withdrawal from Iraq, but continue to help Iraqis build a government and military to help them defend themselves.  Withdraw as quickly as feasible, and redeploy forces to meet the threat as it moves.  Recognize the "Viet Nam" comparisons are wildly overblown ... obvious to any student of history.
• Encourage wise energy policy with tax incentives to speed reducing our dependence on foreign oil, with the vigor of a "man on the moon" project
• Remove U.S. troops from any country where we do not need them to face a terrorist threat.  Reduce our world policeman role, and decrease our appearance as a militaristic bully.
• Cooperate with moderate Islamic nations and leaders to beam moderate Islamic messages (radio, print, internet ...) to the vast majority of Muslims who want peace.  Assist moderate Muslim intellectuals and clerics who recognize this debasement and exploitation of their religion.  Encourage them to help stop this war by turning on the radicals.  Radical Islamists have, ironically, killed many more Muslims than Christians or Jews.  We cannot practically defeat radical Islam without the support of moderate Muslims.
• Help our partisan political leaders to become leaders, and reject the current, dangerous political football some wish to play with these issues.  This is a matter of life and death.  Politics will always be present, but the current partisan debate appears like fiddling while democratic counties, including the U.S., are under attack.  The 1930's prelude to WWII comes to mind, along with the dissension in the U.S.
• Through truly free trade, be a friendly face to the world ... frankly, China's approach in the last decade is instructive.  While we may have considerably different societies, they have been surprisingly successful in their diplomacy.  America can do the same.
• Work with our best minds, business and military leaders and corporations to continue developing best in class security IT ... other countries (like Japan with their current liquid detection devices in airports) are sometimes ahead of us.  Detection of weapons, nuclear material, and IT for tracking terrorist activity.  Constantly challenged by a balance with a Bill of Rights under attack.

Those are a few thoughts, and obviously now subject to attack, since the written, internet word is always open to black and white interpretation ... and, libertarian philosophy is missing from a number of these points.  A temporary casualty of war, to my mind.

I travel a great deal in my work.  Last evening we came in very late, and our bags were delayed ... turns out our flight from O'Hare also contained the remains of a serviceman, and there was a ceremony while his coffin was removed from our aircraft.

This is serious business.  And my interest in posting this thread has very, very little to do with Iraq.  That is but a chapter in a much larger book.  This is about the U.S. facing a deadly threat, our citizens being foolishly divided, and especially those citizens who believe we can simply be pleasant, and that will change our enemies.  If too many of our citizens accept appeasement and pacifism in the face of this deadly threat, then I have sincere concerns that many more innocent Americans, as well as innocent Muslims and others will die.

And, from a retirement standpoint, I don't think retirement will be too pleasant if our economy is trashed, the world is engaged in a much larger war, and we and our loved ones are injured and killed as we simply engage in life.

Let's put the silly Bush, Clinton, etc. rhetoric behind us, and think logically here.

 

[samclem]

His biggest friend is the Bush administration, which stopped hunting for him and declared him unimportant. Now if they did that to throw him off his guard, that's one thing. But Bush doesn;t believe in nuance, so I don't buy that reason (for now).

We've stopped looking for him? Wow, that will come as a surprise to a lot of folks deployed in some very nasty places. It will come as a huge relief to Pakistan's President Mushareff--by most accounts, the US has placed immense pressure on him to capture bin Laden, pressure which has caused him to undertake some immensely unpopular actions at home--his government is in constant threat of coup, he's been the target of many assasination attempts for these policies. Wow--"Hey, Parvez--we really don't care about bin Laden after all. Sorry to put you through all that!"

Will more US trops in Afghanistan find UBL? Only if he is there. I think people arguing that we should look harder in Afghanistan are like the story of the drunk looking for his keys one night under a lightpost. The passserby asks "Did you drop them here?" "Nope, I dropped them over in the parking lot, but the light is better here."

Astromeria, I think your idea that bin Laden is being de-emphasized deliberately is spot on. Every time the US singles him out publicly as "the problem" it increases his stature and it makes Mushareff's job at home tougher. Is it too much to believe that maybe some folks in DC realize this and have decided to depict bin Laden as a marginalized has-been while efforts to find him continue?

 

[Nords]

Is it too much to believe that maybe some folks in DC realize this and have decided to depict bin Laden as a marginalized has-been while efforts to find him continue?

I like the conspiracy theory that the Bush administration has Bin Laden on ice as an "October surprise" for the mid-term congressional elections... because how else could Bin Laden have been captured if not for the efforts of a Republican congress?

Thank goodness for the 22nd amendment...

 

[donheff]

Charles' recommendations sound sensible to me. I just don't trust the neo-cons to implement any of them. They have demonstrated that they are guided purely by ideology and not by reality. And they have adopted policies (like torture, anti-civil liberties) that are anathema to any true, red-blooded American. So, Charles vote in anyone but the current crew and their designated heirs that you believe will take the steps you espouse. While you are at it make sure whoever you vote for has good liberal cultural policy creds

 

[Arc]

When I look at the choice that lie ahead of us it seems pretty clear to me. As I see it the choice is whether or not to take the reins from the likes of:

Bush / Cheney / Rumsfield / McCain / Hastert / Frist / Allen /Warner / Santorum / Cornyn / and company

and give them to:

Clinton(s) / Gore / Pelosi / Reid / Ted Kennedy / Rangel / Conyers / Boxer / Durbin / Feinstein / and company

Seems like a NO BRAINER to me!