The US seeks to undermine Islam

Well, that's what the majority of the egyptians and pakistanis believe! Interesting, no?

Comments

  1. Yep, ’cause muslims really need someone from the outside to make them fight amongst each other…! :P

    Hamas and Fatah? US aggitation, clearly!
    Sunni and Shiite Iraqis? Once again, US aggitation!
    Iran vs. gulf states? The US again, clearly!
    Kurds and the rest of Turkey? Must be the US, no doubt!

    Obviously, if there was no USA, the entire muslim community would be one big happy family!

    Riiiight….!

  2. Andrew Brehm says:

    I do not think that the people in these countries know anything about what US troops actually do in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    I don’t think they are better informed by the media than we are in Europe and America. And even our media don’t tell us anything positive about the US troops (like the fact that the elected Iraqi government wants the troops to stay, as does the elected Afghani government) or negative about the previous situation (like what Saddam’s government did to Kurds and Shi’ites).

    I find it surprising that so many respondents disagreed with the majority.

    Most people I meet in Europe believe that the terrorists speak for the Iraqi population. Why would people who live in Indonesia see it differently? They have worse information sources, if anything.

  3. Scary.

  4. The Frenchman says:

    Andrew, ultimately it doesn’t matter if their beliefs are based on perception or reality, because in the end it is what they believe. News sources wherever you are are going to present the angle they want. Fox News presents their case, the others theirs. Some in the West consider the US action in Iraq and Afghanistan as liberation, others don’t. However, the opinion of greatest importance is that of the Muslims worldwide, no matter what tools they are given to form this opinion and it is quite obvious that their view of Western action on their land is negative. No matter how much screaming the pro ” liberation ” supporters scream ” we are trying to save you from yourself ” which is of course grossly arrogant, in the ears of Muslims, they will not accept the message. Forgetting the obvious Islamic implications of infidels soiling their lands, touching their women etc. it stands to reason that short of total success, many Muslims would rather deal with their own problems rather than be told what is best for them by any outside, non-muslim entity.

    We are all fed propaganda and many are sheep worldwide, no matter the what the subject matter is. It is those who form their own opinions based on their own research who are more in the know then those who make little effort to truly be informed.

    They want the West off their land. That is the overwhelming sentiment. While the casualties of innocent Arabs is heartbreaking, one positive ( forgive me for calling it this ) from that report is that Muslims are finally realizing that the likes of AQ and their ilk are savages who do not think twice about slaughtering a bus load of Muslim children in order to kill one infidel.

    Change can only happen from within and it is time to being part of the reason why they are not able to see beyond the West’s stomping on their hallowed ground.

  5. Ah, yes. It’s good to hear from our close friends the Egyptians.

  6. brooklynjon says:

    Frenchman,

    “we are trying to save you from yourself ” which is of course grossly arrogant”
    If only the world had been more arrogant with the Germans in the 1930′s. How much carnage would have been avoided?

    I’m curious about seemingly contradictory opinions like the people favoring sharia and also favoring freedom of religion. Yet sharia does not allow one to convert out of Islam, and permits the Jews and Christians to exist only under dhimmi status, and forbids other religions outright.

    I also dig how 80% of Egyptians would support warfare against America. Can we stop sending our $2 million a year now?

    Andrew,
    “our media don’t tell us anything positive about the US troops (like the fact that the elected Iraqi government wants the troops to stay, as does the elected Afghani government)”

    The media is mostly comprised of left wingers. One recurrent theme in left-wing political thought is a disdain of the average person, and therefore a distrust of democracy. The fact that these are democratically elected governments which are asking us to stay does not register at all at the New York Times, I assure you. I strongly suspect they would be more comfortable with a tyrant who granted homosexuals the right to marry and who provided universal health care than with a democratically elected government that did not.

  7. Aardvark EF-111B says:

    Dear Andrew Brehm
    Do you really think there is a common muslim care the shit about what USA is (really) doing in Afghanistan or Iraq, ….as if the left-obcission media is not enough!

    The whole Islam world looks like a giant mainfestation of paranoid syndrome with exacerbating transition from inferiority complex to Chauvinism.

    The real problem is the Islam is in general still stuck in the middle ages, The radical mindsets of marginal communities cut off from the world like tribal-afghansitan sectarial-middleeast overwhelms all others, Can anyone tell me why????

  8. There’s more to it than that SandMonkey. It’s not that simple.

  9. John Cunningham says:

    The US rescued Muslims in Kosovo. We’re trying to undermine Islam? I can only speak for myself but the more I hear about Islam the sillier it sounds. We’re in it for the oil? There’s no law against buying oil. If us buying oil offends or undermines Islam, well, then don’t sell it to us. If they were so secure in their beliefs an evil American shouldn’t be able to shake that belief. If I lived in an Islamic country I’d probably have to be a Muslim. Here in the US you can be anything you want. We even let liberals be liberals. That’s how evil we are. We have already a lot of ranting liberals a bunch of ranting Islamists won’t make a difference. It’s sad that a little over a billion people on this planet need a lot of ritual to make it through the day. And there’s the rub. The experts claim that ten percent of Islam is into Islamofacism. Ten percent of a little over a billion is a little over one-hundred million. It looks to me that Islam has it’s task cut out for it, perhaps Islam should undermine Islamofacism. Now if one says this to an Islamist their counter arguement is not unlike that of a liberal’s. It’s to go back to Adam and Eve, list every negetive thing every civilization has ever done, blame it all on the US and finish with at 8pm this evening half way through a state dinner Bush is going to lie. Christians were on a crusade five hundred years ago and that’s why, today, I’m going to blow myself up. Well, that’s awfully silly. Oh, wait, I forgot, they do this after they walk into a crowded market. The silly thing is, they mostly blow up Islamists. Islam blowing up Islam because Americans buy oil. Here ya’ go Iraq, Saddam’s dead and here’s your freedom. Thank you very much America and if you’ll excuse me I have to blow myself up. Here ya’ go Afghanistan, the Taliban’s gone, you’re women can now go to school and they don’t have to walk around in a tent. Thank you very much America and if you’ll excuse me I have to go blow myself up. I’m confused.

  10. Seeking to weaken and divide the islamic world? Come on! It’s divided already. And weak – industrially, economically (except for oil), socially and militarily.

    What we are determined to avoid is the forced unification of the islamic world by an aggressive minority of zealots: a new jihadist caliphate. Which would then arm itself to the teeth and attack us.

    It’s all about jihad. Not islam – unless you see islam-jihad as one and the same thing.

  11. Interesting article, thankyou.
    It would also be interesting if American Muslims answered the same poll.

  12. Andrew Brehm says:

    “Some in the West consider the US action in Iraq and Afghanistan as liberation, others don’t.”

    Who cares?

    The Kurds consider it liberation, and according to election results so do the vast majority of Iraqis. If uneducated lefties think that their opinions should be heard and not the Kurds’, the lefties should argue with the Kurds about who is right.

    “They want the West off their land.”

    It is NOT their land. Afghanistan is Afghani land and the Arab invaders of Al-Qaeda had no right to make Afghanistan into their private little colony. That’s why the Northern Alliance fought them.

    The Afghanis now want the foreign troops to stay and whether Muslims or lefties call it evil occupation or not doesn’t change the moral status of the American presence there.

    It’s the same for Iraq. Iraq belongs to the Iraqis, Kurds and Arabs. It does NOT belong to all Arabs or non-Iraqis Arabs or the Ba’ath or Al-Qaeda or any other terrorist group.

    They do not want the Americans off “their” land, they want the US off other people’s land.

    They do not want the West off their land, they want the West off everywhere. But that doesn’t mean we have to give in. We are better than they are, and so are the Iraqis and the Afghanis.

    And when the Iraqi president and the Afghani president tell the world that they support the American efforts in their countries, I am fine with that. And if some uneducated leftie calls those efforts an evil aggression I know whose side that person is on, and it’s not the Iraqi or Afghani side.

  13. “They want the West off their land. That is the overwhelming sentiment.”

    Is it really?

    I remember when the US invaded Afghanistan, and they said to us, “Why did you abandon us?” This was a bit of a shocker to me. The reason the US left Afghanistan alone after the Afghans defeated the USSR was because we thought they did not want us there. The terrorists, and the Taliban for sure did not want us there, but Afghanistan is more than terrorists and Taliban.

    In a certain sense, the Iraqis don’t want us there. That is, they want their own sovereign, liberal, just government in control of their country, which happens to be exactly what we in the West want for them, as well. But, if the question is phrased as something like “when should they leave?” the answer become something like “as soon as those murdering scum are gone.”

    And, oboy, do the locals in the Mideast like us when we come to visit, and do they seek our attention when their governments run amok!

    I am sure that the terrorists and the supporters of Islamic imperialsm, and those who dream of a Caliphate, complete with black-robed, helpless women and bad water, want us out of the Middle East, and all the rest of the world, as well. But those people are not all of Egypt, and they are by no means all of Pakistan, either.

  14. The Frenchman says:

    Hey all your ” righties ” let’s remember how many of your very own leaders are calling for withdrawal and as for the ” left ” media, come on, for the first two years of the war in Iraq it was all pro Bush, suddenly now that the tides have changed, it is the left wing media.

    As for the critisim on my statement ” they want us off their land ” did any of you actually read the article and stats that SM linked us to ? I am Jesus, talk about ignoring the facts to push your own views. Here is what your statements equate to ” your too stupid and backward ass to know what is best for you, so shut the fuck up and let us superior, more advanced people’s tell you what and how to think !!!!! ” It’s so proposterous. Keep in mind I am talking about the entire middle east here not just Iraq. Would I live like they do, hell no, but just because our society is what we deem ” better ” doesn’t mean it is for them. I have had many conversations on this very site with Arabs who like many, if not most of the rules imposed by Islamic law. I questioned some of the laws out of curiosity and am even guilty of poking fun, but different strokes for different folks.

    Please don’t try to equate the desires of the Iraqi and Afghani govt’s with the desires of the people. Both of these impant govt’s represent a small minority. How does one explain the Iraqi govt defense of AJ in Iran ? Sounds to me like they are playing both sides. Those govts are not going to bite the hand that is feeding them.

    I would, figuratively, bet my bottom dollar that if there was a vote held in Iraq, in particular asking if the US should stay or go, the majority would say go. There would, of course be a minority of US teet feeders who would say stay. They would say thank you for killing Saddam but go.

    Iraq and Afghanistan, remember, are merely new chapters in an old book of US meddling in Middle Eastern affairs. Why do we have bases in Saudi ? Is it because we love the Saudi’s so much we want to protect them ? Why can’t we give the Islamists what they want ? Because were more worried about looking like we have lost the fight ? Maybe if we approach it with a ” fuck you were tired of this shit….. ” Take the steam out of their message. Trade with them like we trade with China.

    Maybe when we stop thinking of them medieval imbeciles who can’t think for themselves and let them get on with things, even if it means civil war, which would do nothing but take the target off of our back anyway.

    BJ sorry man, the German people, by in large, were quite happy with Hitler, so while the US did save Europe and the world from that madman, we weren’t saving the German people ( short of the German Jews ).

  15. Egypeter says:

    Well this poll basically confirms what I fear the most – Egypt is not so slowly transforming into Saudi Arabia.

    You know Egypt is screwed when its people start aligning themselves with the terrorists from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. And this is the same Egypt that the State Department keeps calling one of America’s best friends in the region. Do they have a clue?? LOL.

    Fundementalists need to stop dreaming about a return of the Caliphate, as it obiviously will NEVER happen. Andalus will NEVER return to Islam and Sharia Law is about as compatable with democracy as Hitler’s National Socialism movement!

    Egypt, wake the “f” up already before it’s too late!!!

  16. I’m glad to see attacking civilians is not as popular as I thought it was. It will get really ugly if this turns into a “If they do it we can do it” type of war like the Pacific. If it turns into a huge war I am going to laugh at the reaction of all the chest thumping muslims when we bring back all the weapons we don’t like to use.

    “I need fire bombs, tanks that shoot fire, flamethrowers and some napalm stat! We are going to go old school with these chumps.”

  17. I’m not sure I follow the comments in this thread. The US *does* seek to undermine Islam. And we do NOT intend to leave Muslim “lands” ever again. Islam is making war on the US and has been for 30 years. We didn’t bring the fight to Muslims, they brought the fight to us. And it’s a fight that Muslims cannot win. The only variables are how many Muslims will die before the rest give up the struggle, and if Islam will survive at all. “Undermining” is not even the issue. Islam must change, or Islam must be destroyed. We can’t afford to be tolerant of the intolerant, anymore, and Muslims have been proving for 1400 years that they cannot co-exist peacefully with non-Muslims. There are brief periods of tolerance, punctuated by extended periods of religiously inspired violence and oppression. Islam cannot be contained in “Muslim lands” anymore. That’s not an option in the 21st century. And as long as Islam is exporting violence to non-Muslim countries, it (the religion) is a threat to those countries. I don’t know what Europe plans on doing, but the US is not going to stand idle while it’s under attack, again. No matter what people think about Iraq (I’m not very happy about what the US has done in Iraq, myself) the next major attack on Americans is going to draw an *unbelievably* violent response from America. And it will have the complete support of the American people. Anybody who thinks otherwise doesn’t have a clear view of American public opinion. We’ve had enough. If we have to kill millions to win this war, we will. We’ve done it before.

  18. it stands to reason that short of total success, many Muslims would rather deal with their own problems rather than be told what is best for them by any outside, non-muslim entity.

    It also stands to reason that when those problems affect outside non-Muslim entities, those outside non-Muslim entities are going to speak their mind.

    They want the West off their land. That is the overwhelming sentiment

    The West is occupying Afghanistan and Iraq, not the other Muslim lands. It’s really absurd that non-Afghan and non-Iraqi Muslims presume to speak for the people of other countries. Not that this is limited to Muslims, by the way.

  19. divide for reigning

    “The disorder increases in Iran, but it is exactly there the objective of the Americans! Indeed, they seek to weaken this potentially dangerous mode islamist but not to reverse it because it is rather powerful and useful to weaken Sunnites which control the oil resources of the Arab countries. The objective of the Americans is there to there too create a certain disorder to weaken this area as a whole. Iranian mollahs is thus at the same time harmful and useful. The Americans do not seek a priori to make the war (high intensity) in Iran, nor to replace mollahs by a mode which would be favorable for them. The government of George W. Bush, in collaboration with her adversaries of the Democratic party, is on the point of making a pact with these idiots… useful to their own weakening and that of Sunnites. The strategy of the disorder was already applied in Iran to the end of the Seventies: the Americans, under the presidency of the Democrat Casing, supported the ousting of the Shah and the seizure of power by Khomeyni.The leaders of the Démocrate party do not accept that friendly strong modes can be maintained with the capacity as it was the case formerly. They prefer to support the seizure of power by opponents anti-American (it is paradoxical logic), but they weaken them by creating some, disorder in the country.” cf Iranr esist

  20. casing, =Carter

  21. Did anybody bother to ask the respondents if they desire Islamic unity if that means Shia becoming Sunni, or vice-versa?

    Crazy idea? Well, if you asked an assortment of Christians if they felt Muslims were seeking to divide them you’d might get a majority yes answer. But that wouldn’t mean they’d wish to unite themselves all together into some religiously-motivated monster, either.

  22. The Frenchman says:

    Craig, ” Islam is making war on the US and has been for 30 years. ” Very dangerous statement indeed.

    It’s radical Islam, not Islam and attack the attackers.

    And we have been after their oil for 30 years, so whose at fault ? Let’s just say the Middle East never had any black gold, would it not have been treated like we treat Africa, where millions have died in those 30 years with civil war, regime change, genocide etc. Take the strategic interest away and the story would be very different. Bush senior played both Iran and Iraq in their war. This angelic America, why did they pick on us sentiment, is simply wrong. Has propaganda on the other side enflamed the anti-US sentiment, done for also selfish agendas, turned things to where they are today, absolutely, but the US has never just been standing there minding it’s own business.

    As for how to react to the threat, you don’t spray bullets into a crowded market to kill one person. No one questions the war on terrorism, but instigating things by doing the above does nothing more than create more terorrists and this could very well end up leading to the very war of all wars desired by the Islamists. You act as though the is a finite number of terrorists out there. They are like cockroaches and will survive.

    As for the non-radical Muslims of which I know many, who hate the radicals, they are on the perifery of our ” crusade ” to erradicate radical Islam and many non-combatants die. We can argue forever at whose hands, but as the ” occupying force ” 2 -10 will blame us no matter what, a scary figure.

    Again, we have troops in Saudi, why ? to protect the Saudi’s, I don’t think so and sorry but as dumb as many seem to think that the street Arab is, they see it.

    No one ever seems to think about, spending those wasted hundreds of billions on securing US borders. Preventative measures, after all is it not these shores that we profess to be so adamant on protecting ?

    Let’s not forget that we said the same thing, we will win even if it means killing millions, about Vietnam and North Korea.

  23. Anna

    American Muslims have not answered this particular poll, but numbers of them have repeatedly voiced the opinion that jihad (violence) is never acceptable for any reason and that ijihad (inner struggle) is the proper goal of every Muslim.

    Many American Muslims are committed to an American interpretation of Islam. Not Sunni, not Shia, not Wahhabi. More tolerant and open. Something like Islam in the time of Andalusia.

    The mass of Muslim immigrants to Europe are unskilled workers. The American experience is different. Most Muslim immigrants to the US are highly educated and assimilate into the middle or upper-middle class — business owners, doctors, lawyers, professors.

    By the way, I used to be a professional statistician, and I say that the aggregation of answers to the questions is flawed (US trying to divide Islam: definitely/probably) and that the presentation of results is biased (not all the percentages are shown). The group that did this poll is lying to you with numbers. The teachings of Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (PBUT) all agree that we are to worship God, not Mammon, but we have made a god of statistics and swallow numbers faithfully without question.

    If a statistical presentation gives you anything less than the whole picture, it is a lie. Do not believe anything it says.

  24. No, we’re spreading democracy. Undermining Islam will just be icing on the cake.

  25. brooklynjon says:

    Frenchie,

    I’m trying to catch up with this thread, having been working all day, and I see this little nugget:

    “for the first two years of the war in Iraq it was all pro Bush, suddenly now that the tides have changed, it is the left wing media.”

    To which I say, “Whoa, Nellie!” (Ignoring all subsequent posts.)

    You’re kidding, aren’t you? The media bias towards the left in America is pervasive and enduring. It did not start in 2005 or 2004. It’s been that way for a long, long time. How bad is it? Very bad. Don’t trust me. Here’s a link:

    http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

    It’s bad. And it’s a lot worse in Europe, for a variety of reasons. And it’s highly unlikely to get better any time soon.

  26. brooklynjon says:

    Frenchie,

    So much to disagree with you about, so little time…

    “BJ sorry man, the German people, by in large, were quite happy with Hitler, so while the US did save Europe and the world from that madman, we weren’t saving the German people ( short of the German Jews ).”

    Which is pretty much my point. Other than the 11 million civilians they purposely killed in death factories, the Germans felt the Nazis were pretty much okay. So…..we should have just let them keep killin’? We stopped them at exactly the right time? In retrospect, we should have come in with guns blazing before 1939?

    Alex, I’ll take “C” please, and save the 11 million civilians, even though I’ll bruise some German egos in the process.

    The darndest thing about democracy is that it allows 51% of the population to be tyrants over the other 49%. That’s where constitutions and judges come in. But if that fails, the world either puts an end to it (humanitarian, but antidemocratic) or not (pragmatic but hardly courageous or high-minded). The west chickened out between 1933 and 1939. I had assumed that pretty much everyone of good faith had concluded that it had been a big mistake. Lately, I’m not so sure, which means that we’re pretty ripe for it to happen again.
    (Cue AJ, stage right, with a big, mysterious package.)

  27. brooklynjon says:

    Craig,

    “the next major attack on Americans is going to draw an *unbelievably* violent response from America.”

    Yeah, right. We’ll catapult Nancy Pelosi over without her makeup. Have you taken a look at the Democratic candidates for President? I’m glad you have hope. I’m not so sure.

  28. Maybe, just maybe, the US is trying to make areas in the mideast livable for human beings, since so many people who are finding refuge in the USA are sucking up all of the good jobs. Especially in the sciences. I know this ticks off a whollleee lot of Americans.

  29. John Cunningham says:

    #21, Solomon2. “Religiously motivated monster”, I like that.

  30. Oh, and as a grand finale to my tantrum?
    Whats with this American Flag burning by Muslims IN AMERICA!!
    Well, then why don’t they get out!! They don’t like it? Leave! Go to freaking Antarctica for all I care.

  31. Frenchman,

    Craig, ” Islam is making war on the US and has been for 30 years. ” Very dangerous statement indeed.

    You think I shouldn’t say it, then? :P

    It’s radical Islam, not Islam and attack the attackers.

    That’s what I sued to believe. I don’t, anymore. Radical Islam and mainstream Islam are one-in-the-same. It’s non-radical Muslims who are the minority.

    PS-I think yours was the dangerous statement. Underestimating your opponent is usually a fatal mistake, during wartime.

    And we have been after their oil for 30 years, so whose at fault ?

    Oh, I see! They don’t WANT to sell their fucking oil! They just want to leave it in the ground and eat sand! We’re forcing Arabs to sell their oil to us!

    Sarcasm aside, even if we were “exploiting” Arabs for oil – how does that justify mass murder?

    And what does that have to do with Islam?

    How much oil does Afghanistan have, by the way? And what’s the percentage of the population there that is Arab?

    How about Pakistan?

    Let’s just say the Middle East never had any black gold, would it not have been treated like we treat Africa, where millions have died in those 30 years with civil war, regime change, genocide etc.

    I’m sorry, did I miss the part where you explained how all of Africa’s problems are America’s fault?

    Just so you know, though, the US has intervened in sub-Saharan African crises far more often than we ever did in the middle east. Crack some books if you aren’t old enough to remember.

    Take the strategic interest away and the story would be very different.

    Yes. Yes it would. The US would be much more brutal in it’s war fighting in the middle east, if there was no oil there. Threats of closing the straits of Hormuz are Iran’s best defense right now, for instance.

    Also, if there was no oil, Russia and China wouldn’t be in the game playing for the other side, would they?

    Bush senior played both Iran and Iraq in their war.

    So? Iran should have been invaded by the US in 1979, during the hostage crisis. It’s what Iran deserved. I always advocate people get what they deserve, you know. The sooner the better. If the US had responded as it should have then, I don’t think terrorism would be the issue in the ME that it is today. The Iranians were the first non-Palestinian terrorists, and they were the first to go after Americans. That shouldn’t have been allowed to stand. It set a bad precedent that many others have followed. It proved that the US will bow to terrorism.

    This angelic America, why did they pick on us sentiment, is simply wrong.

    I didn’t say anything about “angelic” – you put words in my mouth, and then called criticized me for something I didn’t say. Not the first time you have done that, Frenchman. In any case, there is no justification for the mass murder of innocent civilians. None.

    Has propaganda on the other side enflamed the anti-US sentiment, done for also selfish agendas, turned things to where they are today, absolutely, but the US has never just been standing there minding it’s own business.

    We aren’t talking about sentiments. We are talking about mass murder, hostage taking, head chopping, hijacking, etc.

    As for how to react to the threat, you don’t spray bullets into a crowded market to kill one person.

    What does that have to do with anything? Is that what you think the US has done?

    I suspect we will do just that, next time, though. I think we are done with trying to treat our enemies humanely, in the middle east. It clearly doesn’t work. It’s seen as a weakness to be exploited. I suspect everyone would be a lot better off, including Iraqis, if the US had come down on the country like the hammers of hell on day one, and kept up the pace until there wasn’t anybody left alive who wanted to fight.

    That’s what we’ll do next time, I’m thinking. That’s standard war fighting doctrine anyway, and the Bush administration violated it. These problems always occur when politicians run wars.

    No one questions the war on terrorism

    Pretty sure that’s what you were just doing, Frenchman. Explaining why the terrorists were justified in the things they have done the last 30 years. Explaining why the US deserved it.

    We didn’t. And the war will be over when the last Muslim who believes that attacks on teh US for grievances, real or imagined, is either dead or in prison. Or is too scared to try to make good on their beliefs.

    but instigating things

    I don’t want the thugs “instigated” – I want them dead. Dead as in DEAD. What part of the idea that we kill our enemies – kill them DEAD – is escaping you, Frenchman? The objective of a war is to destroy the enemy. Destroy means kill. In case you didn’t know. War is about killing people. You complain a lot about Iraq but it seems to me that the main difficulty we’ve had there is that we have tried to do the things you are suggesting right NOW. We’ve been trying to win hearts and minds, and wage a sensitive humanitarian war and such shit like that. I guess the neocons have also forgotten that the objective of war is to kill enemies your enemies, eh? Kill as in dead. In the ground. Dead people don’t commit terrorist acts. Dead people don’t raise terrorist children. Dead people don’t talk shit on blogs.

    by doing the above does nothing more than create more terorrists and this could very well end up leading to the very war of all wars desired by the Islamists.

    Muslims do not have the capacity to wage a “war of all wars” on America. That’s why they resort to terrorism. Do you really think there are going to be Muslim armies taking to the field against US troops, any time soon? That’s just pablum for the Arab masses. Feeding their irrational pride.

    You act as though the is a finite number of terrorists out there. They are like cockroaches and will survive.

    I don’t agree. Terrorism doesn’t exist in a vacuum. When the conditions that allow terrorist organizations to thrive change, the terrorism will be gone.

    Complacency won’t get that done. We weer complacent in the face of terrorism for 30 years (as I pointed out) and the attacks got progressively worse and more frequent.

    Yours is a recipe for disaster.

    As for the non-radical Muslims of which I know many, who hate the radicals

    How well do you know them? I know many Arabs who aren’t batshit crazy but they are all Arab Christians. And even some Arab Christians are batshit crazy. Like Twosret. My best friend is a moderate Arab Muslim. But even she supports Hezbollah and HAMAS and other groups. It’s only Al Qaeda she has a problem with.

    Hezbollah murdered friends of mine. When my best friend, a moderate Arab Muslim, supports an international terrorist group that has murdered thousands of completely innocent human beings, including friends of mine, I have to think that the pending doom of the middle east is going to be truly horrific.

    I ask again, how well do you know these “moderate” Muslims, and how honest do you think tehy are with you about their true beliefs?

    And do you not read arab blogs? Do you not see how many well educated and seemingly “moderate” Muslims support terrorism? Honestly? You don’t see that?

    Think about what’s going through the heads of the illiterate masses, when top University Students support terrorism, Frenchman.

    they are on the perifery of our ” crusade ” to erradicate radical Islam and many non-combatants die.

    Oh well. They should have thought about that before they started advocating terrorism. It’s really annoying to see the same Arab who rejoice whenever there is a terror attack on Americans, or any other kind of violence on Americans, complaining when Americans do violence to Arabs. Same with the Arabs who advocate attacks on Israeol but tehn whine and cry when Israel retaliates.

    It’s childish. And it’s foolish, to think you can do violence to others without them responding. It’s particularly foolish for the weak to attack the strong and think they will get away with it. And arrogant. I suppose they think they have God on their side and that God will allow them to prevail against impossible odds.

    God doesn’t have a good track record when it comes to intervening in human affairs, though. I suspect he will allow us to settle matters on our own, as he always has before.

    Which means Muslims are in for a long hard ride. But we can make it shorter and cleaner by switching to a “total war” footing, and abandoning this foolishness that the neocons have been engaging in.

    Snipping a bunch more of your justifications for terrorism.

    No one ever seems to think about, spending those wasted hundreds of billions on securing US borders. Preventative measures, after all is it not these shores that we profess to be so adamant on protecting ?

    We can’t secure our borders. We would have to deport every Muslim in the United States, and ban Muslims from entering the United States.

    And that wouldn’t be good enough. A terrorist is perfectly willing to lie about his religion if it will enable him to wage his jihad more effectively. We’d have to ban all travelers from all Muslim countries.

    And that wouldn’t be enough, either. Wed have to ban entry to anybody who has dual citizenship in a non-Muslim country. And that wouldn’t be enough, either. What about all the third and fourth generation children of Muslim immigrants in Europe? Australia?

    We can’t do it. We can’t secure our borders from thsi sort of attack. And even if we could it would be immoral and illegal (a human rights violation) to even attempt such measures.

    Again, I say, yours is a recipe for disaster. Nobody ever won a war by fighting defensively. And the US won’t win that way, either.

    Let’s not forget that we said the same thing, we will win even if it means killing millions, about Vietnam and North Korea.

    We did? Or did you just pull that out of your ass? :D

    We did win in Korea. We won a complete victory. The North Koreans weer defeated in detail and UN forces were at the Yalu River (border with China) because the North Korean troops fled there.

    Then China got involved directly. In order to “win” we would have had to defeat China. And I don’t think anybody ever intended to try and do that. We never sent enough troops to North Korea to even *attempt* invading China. If that was on the table, we’d have drafted 10 million men. Or more. We drafted 13 million in 1942, right after pearl harbor. No, there’s no indication the US ever was fighting for more than the stalemate we got, in Korea. And we did get what we wanted. South Korea is still there, and doing fine. If we had “lost” – that wouldn’t be the case.

    As for Vietnam, we never intended to win that war. We were mertely attempting to prop up teh South Vietnamese government. Remember what I said about fighting wars defensively. You can’t win, if you aren’t even trying to win. If we’d intended to defeat North Vietnam instead of just defending South Vietnam, we would have invaded North Vietnam. Right? But, we didn’t. We never crossed the DMZ.

    And in closing, I find you to be a very annoying guy, Frenchman, but at least you veer from the standard party line on Sandmonkey’s blog which is refreshing :)

  32. brooklynjon says:

    Frenchman,

    “Again, we have troops in Saudi, why ? to protect the Saudi’s, I don’t think so and sorry but as dumb as many seem to think that the street Arab is, they see it.”

    Didn’t we pull our troops out of KSA three years ago? They’re now based in Qatar, at Qatar’s request. And we had our troops in KSA to preserve their kingdom from attack, substantially because they kept the flow of oil going to our SUVs, regardless of how morally repugnant we find them. Or course, part of the reason they kept the oil flowing all these years is so that we would defend them if necessary, regardless of how morally repugnant they find us. Personally, it’s why I drive a Prius and live three miles from work. I find the Saudis too morally repugnant to drive an SUV. It’s bad enough I send them $5 a month in gas money as it is.

  33. The Frenchman says:

    BJ, not going to get into it with you on the media and you have Fox to balance things off. During both the run up to the war and the first couple of years thereafter, not one media outlet, not one had the balls to contest the Bush administration. This slow creep of opposition to Iraq from the majority, of which I was long ago a minority, is due in large part to the media finally having the balls to speak out. Suddenly, now that light is being shed on what has since the beginning been a miserable disaster, the American people are finally coming to their senses. So I fail to see how, short of obvious examples like the NY Times that all of the media is liberal. I remember being incenced at CNN and MSNBC for sticking their heads so far up the Bush administrations ass.

    On the Hilter issue, please remember that you used this example to explain away the need for outside forces to intervene in internal matters. The minute Hitler stepped foot in another territory, then ” charge “!!!!!!!

    I know we have been down the ” who’s deserving road before “, if the Jews warranted protection, why not Darfur ? Obviously I am not expecting an answer because I know what yours will be, in fact most of our cards have long been put on the table. Just wanted to point out how you were using the Hitler argument. If you used it to justify the Desert Storm, I would have found it applicable.

  34. The Frenchman says:

    Craig, ” That’s what I sued to believe. I don’t, anymore. Radical Islam and mainstream Islam are one-in-the-same. It’s non-radical Muslims who are the minority. ” This is an opinion but factually absolutely dead flat wrong. Indonesia and Malaysia put together make up the largest Muslim population in the world and I lived in the part of the world for 23 years and my parents still do. Yes a couple of bombings in Bali, but the radical vs passive Muslim ratio is massively in favor of passive law abiding kind gentle Muslims. Have you reall met any Muslims ? I mean besides the odd run in. Have you ever spent any time with any ? You see these foaming at the mouth idiots on TV and assume the entire population is that way. By the way, the very host of this site is Muslim, maybe you should consider this before flinging generalizations about a population you know very little about.

    ” Oh, I see! They don’t WANT to sell their fucking oil! ” Don’t you think the demand side of this equation has more impact. If we didn’t want it so badly, we could simply ignore them. After all isn’t us trying to make the change so that we don’t have to rely on them !

    ” We can’t secure our borders. We would have to deport every Muslim in the United States, and ban Muslims from entering the United States. ” Let’s be reasonable here. So far the only serious attacks in the US have been performed by known terrorists here temporarily. ” Kill em all I say ! ” I have numerous Arab friends here who suffer because of your ilk, who see a turban and scream for blood. Yes I know the difference !

    ” We did win in Korea. We won a complete victory. The North Koreans weer defeated in detail and UN forces were at the Yalu River (border with China) because the North Korean troops fled there ”

    Sorry last I checked North Korea is still communist, a temporary win doesn’t count. You could say the same for Iraq ” Mission Accomplished ” China’s intervention, if we are to evoque the notion of Allies was completely justified. We pulled out and North Korea kept their position.

    ” As for Vietnam, we never intended to win that war ” That’s a good one ! LOL ! I won’t bother pulling out all of the govt rhetoric for you on that one. Prop up the South Vietnamese govt ? Sounds familiar doesn’t it ? You lost South Vietnam, so you lost.

    Craig I find you equally annoying, but will commend you on your sheer tenacity. I do appreciate your taking the time to provide so much feedback, obviously driven by your anger towards me. I would feel less oblidged to argue so hard but you have come across as a blatant biggot and this is difficult to swallow. If you were arguing against the invasion of your own land then it would be justified but you are arguing voraciously for your invasion of someone else’s. Fortunately you are a minority that cannot or refuses to make a distinction between radical Islam and Islam. I can’t imagine where we would be if the majority felt like you.

  35. Frenchman,

    This is an opinion but factually absolutely dead flat wrong. Indonesia and Malaysia put together make up the largest Muslim population in the world and I lived in the part of the world for 23 years and my parents still do.

    Point?

    By the way, if you spent so much time in Indonesia then why did you make the fallacious comment in the other thread about gun control, comparing violent crime statistics in Asia to those of America, and dishonestly trying to claim the difference was bcause of access to guns? You know better.

    And that’s why I find you so annoying. You are intellectually dishonest and you have been since the first time you appeared on this blog a year and a half ago. I haven’t ever seen you make a claim that you hadn’t deliberately distorted. You aren’t a journalist, by any chance, are you? :P

    Yes a couple of bombings in Bali, but the radical vs passive Muslim ratio is massively in favor of passive law abiding kind gentle Muslims.

    I suspect that’s due to the aforementioned cultural tendencies towards non-violence. I haven’t noticed any difference in the attitudes and opinions of east asian muslims compared to arab muslims. The difference is in their willingness to act on tehir beliefs, not in the beliefs themselves. So, I’m not buying it. East Asian Muslims are just as “radical” as any other sort. It shows up in the polls, and it shows up on the blogs. They just aren’t a violent. So, you get no backtracking from me on my original statement.

    The only Muslims I’ve met in large numbers who are for the most part “moderate” are Iranian ex-pats here in the US. And I would guess that’s because whatever reason they had for leaving Iran, it left them deeply disillusioned with Islam as a way of life. If not as a set of beliefs.

    Have you reall met any Muslims ? I mean besides the odd run in. Have you ever spent any time with any ? You see these foaming at the mouth idiots on TV and assume the entire population is that way.

    Why do you ask me questions and then provide the answers for me? That’s as bad as when you put words in my mouth and then condemn me for opinions that are not mine.

    Did you miss the part where I said my best friend is an arab Muslim? Or do you just assume I am lying?

    If you think I’m lying about that, you will think I am lying about any other proofs I provide, so I won’t provide any. Believe what you wish.

    By the way, the very host of this site is Muslim, maybe you should consider this before flinging generalizations about a population you know very little about.

    I’ll say what I damn well please. And as far as generalizations, you’ve certainly made your share of generalizations about me personally in this thread, haven’t you? Even in this comment you are stereotyping me as an ill-informed bigot. You don’t know me at all. You don’t know anything about me. And yet here you are, accusing me of making ill-informed assumptions.

    That’s your asswipe persona striking again, right? Did you get punched in the head a lot while you were growing up?

    Oh, I forgot, you grew up in Indonesia where annoying people don’t get punched in the head much :P

    Snipping a bunch of your insulting commentary and moving on to the end…

    If you were arguing against the invasion of your own land then it would be justified but you are arguing voraciously for your invasion of someone else’s.

    My country was invaded and attacked. The attack on September 11th 2001 was just as much an act of war committed against my nation as the attack on Pearl Harbor, and our response to it is every bit as justified.

    Fortunately you are a minority that cannot or refuses to make a distinction between radical Islam and Islam.

    Now, I am beginning to suspect you don’t even live in America. Either that or you’re a shut-in. I haven’t even heard anybody use the word “radical” as a prefix for Islam in years, except on the news. Nobody is making that distinction in the US, anymore, except when they have to be politically correct.

    So whatever your scenario is for the nightmare that happens if the majority fo American’s don’t differentiate between Islam and radical Islam, you better kick it in, because that’s the fact of the matter. And if you lived in the US, you’d know that.

    What’s your deal, really? Why don’t you tell us? Do you think it’s fair for you to be misrepresenting yourself and your background on this blog?

    I can’t imagine where we would be if the majority felt like you.

  36. brooklynjon says:

    Okay, you two. Back to your corners to cool off!

  37. This poll is bullshit. “Global public opinion” polls are generally bullshit. First off, this poll clearly totally underrepresents or ignores Egypt’s significant Christian minority, which is generally very pro-American, and most secular Muslims. Furthermore, there was another poll that came out earlier this year that found more anti-Americanism in Germany and France than in Egypt! (As in the respondents who thought America was a threat to world peace, and in terms of positive and negative views of America). I think it was a Gallup or BBC News poll. So let’s not try to pass this one off as the reality when clearly polls are turning up unreliable and inconsistent results.

  38. It is possibe that the poll would have different results had it been conducted in strict anonymity. Going into people’s homes is unlikely to produce complete sincerity. ME is a volatile region and I suspect that many people give the answers they think the pollsters want to hear.

    Even so, I’m surprised that so many want to live shackled to the sharia law. I don’t understand what is the attraction of this medieval set of rules. Can someone enlighten me?

  39. 40. Eva:

    I can’t and frankly, I don’t care all that much anymore… :( What I do care about is their idea that everyone else should bow and accept their point of view without protest.

    The arab/muslim population around the world argue that the west is acting in an empirialistic manner and are trying to force our views onto them.

    I dare anyone to compare the number of westerners living in islamic-dominated countries with muslim/arabs living in western countries. I dare anyone to compare the number of western ex-pats’ demands for equal treatment with muslim/arab demands for their adopted western countries to cow-tow to their non-democratic views.

    Unfortunately, a completely scewed tendency to self-criticism together with a politically correct acceptance of other cultures disregarding any of their faults is the major sickness of the western world today, and unless we’re carefull it’ll be the end of us, and ironically, the very tolerance that we’re trying to uphold…

  40. Andrew Brehm says:

    “Please don’t try to equate the desires of the Iraqi and Afghani govt’s with the desires of the people.”

    Why not? The elected government is the legal representative of the people. And if the legally elected government says X and the terrorists say -X, I assume X is true. I have to. It’s my duty and it is what I owe to Iraq.

    “Iraq and Afghanistan, remember, are merely new chapters in an old book of US meddling in Middle Eastern affairs. Why do we have bases in Saudi?”

    To protect a (nominal) ally from invasions. Didn’t you know that?

    “Maybe when we stop thinking of them medieval imbeciles who can’t think for themselves and let them get on with things, even if it means civil war, which would do nothing but take the target off of our back anyway.”

    Then stop thinking of them as such. They can have their civil war. But “they” will unfortunately involve many innocent people. The Kurds don’t want to be involved in an Arab civil war. And neither do many Arabs.

    “BJ sorry man, the German people, by in large, were quite happy with Hitler, so while the US did save Europe and the world from that madman, we weren’t saving the German people ( short of the German Jews ).”

    You don’t know how dictatorships work. Germans were happy with Hitler, but they were a lot happier with what replaced him. They were just too stupid to realise that the alternative was better. (And when anybody tried to tell them, the Nazis killed him.)

    The 30 or so percent that supported and voted for Hitler were probably very happy, as were many Sunnis under Saddam.

  41. John Cunningham says:

    #32, Craig. Religiously Motivated Monster, I love that expression, I just wanted to say that. Anyway, you forgot to mention to fwency fwenchman (nice observation that he may not even be in the US, maybe in that well with the 12th Imam?) the classic example of behavior modification. Japanese Imperialism was cured by two atomic bombs. It caused an immediate reversal in behavior. All of Japan said, ‘imperialism, what was I thinking?’. And then, we all saw it on television a few years ago when the Prime Minister of Japan went hand and hand with President Bush to take a tour of Graceland. Japan, the land of the rising sun, what a classic example of success along with South Korea. The US heart Japan and South Korea.

  42. The Frenchman says:

    Craig, Wow, please elaborate on how I have been misrepresenting myself and intellectually dishonest. I have explained my background many times on this board. I hold two nationalities and have lived around the world. This gives me a very wide perpective but I NEVER stray from my beliefs, especially not to win an argument. I have and always will remain consistent. For the last 15 years, I just happen to be living in the US but have family worldwide. I defend France when it is necessary, I defend America when it is necessary ( which I do regularly, but because many conversations I have on this forum are with Americans, this is never necessary ). I defend Asia because I spent 23 years of my life there. I defend Islam because I grew up surrounded by Muslim, all of whom have been nothing but welcoming and gracious and it incenses me when generalizations are made. You see not everyone see things from one perspective only. My opinions evolve.

    Because this is obviously an exercise in futility, I will only address two points you make in your post, because I simply can’t help myself.

    1 ) ” By the way, if you spent so much time in Indonesia then why did you make the fallacious comment in the other thread about gun control, comparing violent crime statistics in Asia to those of America, and dishonestly trying to claim the difference was bcause of access to guns? You know better. ”

    Seriously here, I don’t see your point or a correlation between this topic and the other. How was I being intellectually dishonest ?

    Gun violence is next to zero in Asia and my view is that it is because most of Asia’s ( as a whole ) gun control laws are the strictest in the world. How was anything I said in this post to you on this subject conflict with my statements in the gun control debate ????????? Please assist.

    ” Now, I am beginning to suspect you don’t even live in America. Either that or you’re a shut-in. I haven’t even heard anybody use the word “radical” as a prefix for Islam in years, except on the news. ”

    I know your intention is to try and make me look like a fool, but this statement is not really worthy. You know very well what I mean. OK, so I will use Islamist instead.

    The fact that you don’t see the very real distinction between radical Islam and true Islam doesn’t mean that the rest of us don’t. Terrorism is far too general a statement. The world has many non- Muslim terrorists, in France and Spain, for example, there are Basque seperatists etc etc etc, who bomb. What about the IRA ? Terrorism is a tactic not a ethnic or religious identifier. So the fact that many in this country link the world terrorists with Islamic fundamentalism, does not mean the rest of us do.

    If I missing your point please clarify. How do you make the distinction ?

    Craig, this is turning into a pissing contest and I am not interested in going any further down this road. I will conceed that I contributed to the erosion of our conversation, but our views are so far apart that it really is a waste of time to continue. I have tried in the above to not attack your personally because this is what drives the other side to respond, when normally the conversation would die.

    If you wish to answer my questions, please do, but I am going to do my best to show constaint and not respond. I don’t know you but I have had similar conversations with people with your view point. Almost all remain close friends of mine because we agree to disagree and not to bring up what we know are topics that will turn into a fight to the death.

    You enjoy your weekend !

  43. Here is what your statements equate to ” your too stupid and backward ass to know what is best for you, so shut the fuck up and let us superior, more advanced people’s tell you what and how to think !!!!! ”

    Until you figure out the difference between a “push” poll and one that actually tries to gague public sentiment, you have nothing to say on this topic. All that writing of yours is meaningless.

  44. Frenchman don’t worry, Craig likes to have reason, but he is a nice guy in real life :lol:

  45. “Majorities…Approve of Attacks on US Troops. Large Majorities Agree With Many Goals of Al Qaeda…Most Support Enhancing Role of Islam in Their Society

    Please tell me why a civilized person would not want to “undermine Islam” as it is understood by these people?

  46. The Frenchman says:

    Nomad, Merci, I am sure you are right, which is why I don’t want to engage any further and hopefully the next time Craig and I meet, it will be more civil.

  47. No THIS is what I call an interesting discussion. I better start reading now.

    Meanwhile, I just like the fact that the study shows most Muslims don’t support acts of terrorism against innocent civilians.

  48. Drima,

    I wonder if their answers would be the same if there was a second question that asked about muslim support for attacks on Israeli civillians, since many muslims don’t see any Israelis as being civillians since they all eventually have to serve in the army. And what is the difference between a civillian and an innocent civillian anyways?

  49. That should be civilian.

  50. Frenchman,

    when the Arab Sudanese, in their own understanding the standard bearers of Islam in that country, killed about two million black and mostly non-Muslim Southerners, did they do so in order to harm America? Or because those dirt-poor Southerners had collaborated with Zionism and therefore deserved it?

    When the Iranian Muslims stone a rape victim to death because she “committed adultery”, do they do it because that poor woman through her ordeal somehow insidiously helped America?

    When Algerian Muslims erase entire villages, killing everybody in the process, including children, women and the elderly, do they do it to avenge alleged “oil stealing” by the Americans? Certainly the poor victims must have facilitated that, right?

    Islam doesn’t need America to be murderous in any way. And it’s not the Islamists who “distort Islam”. It’s the non-killers (and killer-supporters and killer-sympathizers) among the Muslims who — fortunately — who do not live their religion to the full.

  51. Adam B. (41)- don’t be an idiot. Western expats have no need to call for “equal treatment” because in almost every ARab country they are treated as SUPERIOR to the native populations. Look at the Gulf states. Almost all major companies have Western executives. Westerners live in their own compounds, make astronomical salaries, have servants galore due to low cost of living, and pay very little income tax. In Egypt, Westerners are treated like kings. Do don’t undermine your opinion by peppering it with details that betray a total ignorance of the situation in the Middle East. I’m sick of morons like yourself passing judgment on issues that they so clearly know absolutely nothing about.

    I still question the validity of the poll’s findings since it is inconsistent with a similar “global opinion poll” conducted just a few months ago. Furthermore, as I said earlier, this poll completely ignores the pro-American Christian Egyptians who make up 10% of the population, and probably also severly undercounts educated liberals/leftists.

  52. BrooklynJon says:

    Karen,

    “Civilian” generally excludes apes and pigs, which need to be killed whether at a disco, a pizzeria, or at an ape/pig religious celebration.

    Anyway, if you think “civilian” and “innocent civilian” mean the same thing, then you should have seen my high school classmates.

  53. BrooklynJon says:

    Stephan,

    I believe the Phillippine Christian schoolgirls who periodically get beheaded are highly Zionistic. Some of them are actually little covert CIA agents.

  54. BrooklynJon says:

    Patrick,

    “I still question the validity of the poll’s findings since it is inconsistent with a similar “global opinion poll” conducted just a few months ago.”

    Are you similarly skeptical about the “global opinion poll” conducted a few months ago? Or do you favor that one either because it came first, or because it better matches your beliefs?

  55. The Frenchman says:

    Stefan, I fail to see your point. In the context of this discussion, we are talking about how America views Muslims and vice versa. Muslims kill Muslim, Christians kill Christians. The objective, though probably impossible to achieve, because of history, is to diminish Muslim hatred of America.

    ” Islam doesn’t need America to be murderous in any way. And it’s not the Islamists who “distort Islam”. It’s the non-killers (and killer-supporters and killer-sympathizers) among the Muslims who — fortunately — who do not live their religion to the full. ” If this is splitting hairs I don’t what is. What’s the difference between my statement ( fundamentalist / Radical Islam and yours ? The fundamentalists in all religion are the ones who are extreme enough to kill for their cause.

    I find it strange that because I see the Muslim point of view that people assume I excuse all of their behaviour. I don’t !!! I think Sharia laws are savage and abhore the fundamentalists as much as anyone, but the disparity between these ” people ” and the majority of ” passive ” Muslims is dramatic.

    The issue here is Fund. Islams hate for the US, why ? and how do we try to change it ?

  56. “The issue here is Fund. Islams hate for the US, why?”

    The fundamentalists told us. It’s because the US is everything they think is wrong: secularism, Christianity, Judaism, liberalism, capitalism, tolerance; the list goes on and on.

    “and how do we try to change it?”

    Kill them?

    It’s their problem, not the US’. They can stop hating, it’s a choice. It’s their choice. Let them see the consequences of their choices. Not us, them.

  57. The article on this poll mentions that “there is strong support for enhancing the role of Islam in all of the countries polled, through such measures as the imposition of sharia (Islamic law). This does not mean that they want to isolate their societies from outside influences: Most view globalization positively and favor democracy and freedom of religion.”

    Am I missing something, or is this a total contradiction. It looks as if many Muslims engage in doublethink.

  58. 53-Patrick- people in Saudi(gayest country ever) live on compounds because they are not allowed to go to muslim areas. Some frenchmen lost their lives for taking the wrong road a few months ago. No muslim has the right to demand equality if they cannot grant it to other religions in their, or any, muslim country. If muslims cannot respect other religions, or athiests, they will not be respected. If they cannot do that in the U.S. they can select a prison, a grave or a plane ticket to a new country. Go home to the “muslim country” if you have no respect.

    Frenchman, the objective is not to diminish muslim hatred of America. It is great that “they” hate us. It would be tragic if the U.S. adopted feudalism or Islam(not trying to be a dick, but you are dated sandmonkeys). An enemy is better than a friend if you are trying to judge something.

    p.s.: I support Israel because I know that if the Jews have the upper-hand on Pali’s they will treat them in a flawed/painful but human manner. I don’t want to see a debate between muslim/palis over raping everyone or just women and children.

  59. 53. Patrick:

    Dude, have you lived as an ex-pat in the middle east? ‘Cause I lived for 4 years in Saudi Arabia in the 80′s and I hardly recognize anything you mention…

    Seen as superior? No, we’re viewed as infidels who, unfortunately, have a scietific edge on the muslim world and thus are accorded a degree of respect and an (at least) equal amount of jealousy.

    We live in our own compounds so as not to mingle too freely with the local populkation, thus infecting them with degenerate western thinking.

    We make a lot of money, but astronomical? Not my experience, but then again, my dad was just a regular GP (doctor) – some oil specialist might make a lot more money, but only because he makes A LOT more money for the local company.

    Servants? Nope, I don’t recal anyone in our compound with servants. The saudis had plenty, though – phillipinos who were treated like animals, the men beaten for next to nothing, the females raped at the behest of the man of their house. Since they were philipino, there was no real risk of a reaction from their home-country.

    Yes, we only had to pay the traditional 10% to the poor in taxes, but then again, the wages reflected this…! Basically, my dad earned only slightly more than he would have at home AFTER taxes.

    Your rude comments are not worth a reaction – they speak volumes about you by themselves…

    Suffice it to say, the first time I arrived in Saudi, I had a (decorative only) silver cross in a chain around my neck confiscated – the same would have happened had I brought a bible. While living there, my mom could not leave the compound without me (just turned teenager) or my dad coming along and covering her head with a scarf. Her having to hide under a blanket in the backseat of our car during a camel-race felt just a tad disrespectfull as well…! A power-out every 24th of december between 16 and 21 in the evening also seemed a bit deliberate.

    Oh yes, there are plenty of reasons for ex-pats to complain about their situation…

  60. 57. The Frenchman:

    “What’s the difference between my statement ( fundamentalist / Radical Islam and yours ?”

    The difference is that you belive that a small minority of radical muslims are (partly) responsible for the bad relationship between Islam and the West.

    Stefan (and many others) believe that the ‘moderate majority’ of muslims are just as guilty, in a moral sense at least, because they sympathize with the extremists’ reaction and do very little to stop the attrocities being commited in the name of their religion.

  61. By the way, that’s the reason why I keep coming back to this blog… Our dear SM is a clear sign that Islam can work in a secular world – reading these pages and particularly the rantings of our Sandmonkey are extremely reasurring in a world where most news about muslims involve death and intolerance…

    Thanks SM! :)

  62. Hey all, I’ve been following this for a while but never pitched in. I’m an American living and working in Egypt and have lived off and on in the Middle East since 1986. Frenchman, I would ask you concerning the correlation between mainstream Islam and radical Islam, when was the last time you lived in the Muslim world. Over the years I’ve seen the entire Middle East become remarkably more fundamentalist and considerably more tolerant of militant groups, from what I’ve heard the same is true in Indonesia. I’ve heard a lot of reasons for this phenomenon, mostly I believe people have finally come to the conclusion that their governments have absolutely nothing to offer them and in times of hardship people always turn to the ‘Opiate of the Masses’ to steal a phrase, but there is an overwhelming nostalgia for a ‘Glory days’ time frame which is debatable if it even existed.

    As for the US being responsible for the problems of the Middle East and undermining Islam. Well where to begin, nearly every military intervention the US has been involved in since the 1980′s has been in defence of one Muslim population or another. Beruit, Kuwait, Somalia, the US led NATO campaign against the Serbs, of course Afghanistan vs the Soviets and I know I’ve missed a few. Many of these were ill advised and in the case of Afghanistan had some disastrous consequences but they were all efforts to defend a civilian group from aggression. Not to mention that the US is the largest supplier of foreign aid to the Muslim world by a very very long shot, and I find the notion that it’s somehow our fault ill informed at best.

    That being said we have propped up some rather repressive and in cases like Saudi Arabia downright evil regimes who actively promote militant jihad, and do deserve some scorn for this.

    All of the Egyptians who think we should go would probably feel a lot different without the 3 Billion USD a year of aid and aid projects. And as for that poll, who knows, the second most common question I get asked in my travels throughout the Middle East is ‘Can you help me get a visa?’

  63. The Frenchman says:

    Adam B, not sure if your still listening, but thought I would respond.

    The difference is that you belive that a small minority of radical muslims are (partly) responsible for the bad relationship between Islam and the West.

    The fact is that, while it is not my objective to proclaim that I am right here, the truth is I am. While I do understand your statement completely, in essence what is the difference between racism ( a generalistic term ) from our end or from theirs ? If you had conducted a poll before 9/11, the leyman on the US street would have the same negative impression of those in the middle east and they do us. Most in the US views Arabs as mideveal morons who are bent on destroying the West. Fortunately, despite the efforts of so many of our leaders, we are more informed. The likes of SM are an ever growing group in the ME thanks to the web and access to information.

    In the end though, the distinction I make is valid because our war is against Islamic terrorists. While it is wished that we work towards enlightening as many in the Middle East that the US, in particular is the evil imperialist that they have been fed so much propaganda on, in the end our only goal should be to take out the people who act on that hate.

    If we are to stand by our vision of democracy then, it should be accepted that people have opinions of us, even if they are negative.

    Here in lies the problem. Too many in this country believe it is our job to correct the average Middle Easterners view of America and that if they do not love us, then they hate us and are therefore our enemy.

    To get back to the poll, however, while I have not referred back to it since the first reading, I clearly remember that most of the respondents disagreed with the tactics and even the message of the extremists. This signifies that even if they dislike America that most would not act on it. Simply disliking us is not a crime. Many people’s in the world dislike ” us “.

    On the flip side we have a religious right in this country that weilds considerable power, that say all kinds of hateful things. We have our own extremists, yet the only time we point guilt at one is when they bomb the federal building in Oklahoma.

    I understand that terrorists working in guerilla mode, just like NVA did back when, are impossible to identify if they are not pointing a gun at us, so I do not make light of the difficulties associated with the war on terror, but this is the goal. This is the enemy and so I stick to my distinction between Islamic Fundamentalists ( those who act on their hate ) and the rest of Islam.

    As stated many times, I have travelled extensively throughout this world and I know that many of the people I have met, if they had been asked five minutes before what they thought of America and the US, their answers would have been negative. I know because I speak to my other natives, the French regularly. The difference is that when these people actually meet an American, so long as they are shown equal respect, they end up being as welcoming as anyone else. People become people and friendships are made.

    The only ones I or we should care about are the extremist, those who would kill for their ideology. We have no right to force them to love us and again, if they should do so, so should we force our own people to feel the same, because as I said this hatred for one another goes both ways and on our side it didn’t just start after 9/11.

  64. The Frenchman says:

    MCS, First please read my response to AdamB, regarding my view the distinctions I have made.

    Granted it has been a while since I had a home in a Muslim country, but my parents still live in one with a 40% Muslim population and I travel enough to have a feel for things. You must acknowledge that you are in a particularly volatile country, in terms of how Egyptians have been teetering on the fence. This is a country, where through mostly SM’s information it is obvious that govt oppression is rampant and as you say this leads the masses to the nearest seemingly better option. Egypt is particularly complicated because it is torn between the ME and the West. It was one of the first to have a truce with Israel, it feeds as you say off of a big US trough of money, but it is Islamic and is run by a cunning despot who has managed to play both sides.

    Jordan, Quatar, the Emirattes are places where things are calm and economies dictate the mood of the people. I could break down each but won’t bore you, because you know these places, I assume as well as I do.

    Your comment regarding ” can you help me get a visa ” however, proves my point. It proves that the hate you say exists, is only skin deep. The have to direct their hate towards someone because they can’t towards their own govt’s.

    Keep in mind that the power of the religious right is incredible in the Middle East and many are forced to profess their love for this ” way ” in order to exist in their society. The fact that so many want out to the West proves that down deep they are looking for an escape. They come here and remain Muslims but they practice the pure Islam.

    We are all guilty of saying things that we don’t truly mean either to shut the other guy up or simply because we cannot be bothered to rock the boat.

    Let’s use your Visa example. If America suddenly decided to toss Visa’s out of a plane onto the Arab street, the place would go crazy. If they hated the US / West so much would they not spit on those visa’s ? You live there and yet you seem to be able to travel around without tremendous concern.

    What you say and what you is what differentiates us in our form of democracy no ? We have Nazi’s in this country, we do nothing to try to change their views and only act against them when they themselfs act out.

    To touch on your views of US interventions in the Middle East. I do not contest the American publics good will and use it regularly as an argument for the goodness that lies in almost all Americans. Americans give more than anyone in charity and the Muslims have been recipients of this good will more times than not. However, I do not share the same hally feeling you do concerning our govt’s actions in the Middle East through the course of the last 30 years. W’s invasion of Iraq is a perfect example. It started as WMD’s, then it went to depose Saddam because he is a threat to us, only when the opposite was proven did it suddenly become a humanitarian mission.

    I hate to sound so cynical because I, like so many of us, wish for our leaders to be humanitarians to a certain degree, but I have read enough to know that there are always alterior motives associated with ” humanitarian missions ” and in the Middle East, oil has been the prevailing driving force. Afghanistan was the US’s opportunity to go to war with Russia without starting an actual Russia against the US war. There were fears, like with Hitler that if Russia got a strong hold in Afghanistan, it would push further and risk US access to oil. I doubt I will ever believe that govts really give a flying shit about the poor little guy on any street.

    After all, we have thousands of homeless and starving right here in the US, yet our govts seem to think aid is better spent elsewhere. I have to believe that you know all of the back door deals that go on between our govt’s and those of even some of the most evil dictatorships this world has ever known. I just watched ” The Last King of Scotland “. The Brits played right along, while he slaughtered his people until he stopped playing to their tune. THe US has done the same, the Shaw of Iran, Saddam even Osama, all allies at one point. Most of our actions in any other country have been about overthrowing a former allie to replace him or her with someone more accomodating. Our govt use humanitarian mission as the most palatable excuse. You can excuse almost anything if it is under the guise of ” saving the people “.

    Keep in mind I am making a clear seperation between our govt;s and our people’s. As I have said I view Americans as some of the most giving in the world, massive hearts who root for the under dog and try their best to assist in the suffering of others. My cynisism is directed towards govt’s.

  65. brooklynjon says:

    Frenchman,

    “It started as WMD’s, then it went to depose Saddam because he is a threat to us, only when the opposite was proven did it suddenly become a humanitarian mission.”

    Many have stated this in the past. It was incorrect then, and it is incorrect now. The press, in advancing their worldview likes to report this, but it is still incorrect.

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/28/91809.shtml

    http://www.voanews.com/uspolicy/archive/2003-03/a-2003-03-24-3-1.cfm

    “The United States and its allies are using decisive force to win the war with Iraq. In an address broadcast worldwide, President George W. Bush said the goal in this conflict is clear: to disarm Iraq, TO FREE ITS PEOPLE, and to defend the world from the grave danger of weapons of mass destruction. ” (emphasis added)

    Many people seem not to understand that Saddam’s noncompliance with UNSC resolutions was the legal basis of the invasion. There were other objectives to be attained, and this was discussed long before the invasion. Of note, the legal basis – Saddam’s noncompliance – did not crumble when WMD were not found, as he was still noncompliant, for whatever reason. As for the rationale, the biggest issue was that he had planned to resume his WMD programs once the sanctions were lifted, which was likely to be soon, as they had already become completely corrupt and porous.

    bj

  66. The Frenchman says:

    BJ, as this will probably be the last tussle we will have on this blog because sadly SM, for completely understandable reasons is being forced to recoil.

    I will first direct you to : http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq&general_topic_areas=pre911Plans

    Hopefully the link works. If it does it should provide sufficient information ( which I know you are already sufficiently aware of ) to prove that the right wing, namely Cheney and Rumsfeld had wanted war with Iraq long before 9/11.

    I know, I know UNSC resolution. This was merely a convenient excuse and let’s please not discount the constant megaphoning by Cheney of connections between AQ and Iraq and Nuclear Capabilities and so.

    The ultimate question is why did we go into Iraq then ? Why ? The intelligence was flawed, Cheney and Rumsfeld were foaming at the mouth for Iraq long before 9/11 and they made W foam at the mouth for revenge against the attempted assasination of Papa Bush. It is clear that OIL also played a huge part in this decision making process.

    As the most powerful govt on earth, the world should be able to trust that these leaders are not on some personal crusade for revenge using UNSC as resolutions as it’s excuse for action. In addition one has to wonder how they placed such high regard for the resolution but blatently ignored the pleas for restraint by the very institution responsible for the resolution. No matter what so many think of the UN, it still is the only one stop shop for world opinion. Because it didn’t have the same time line and motives as the Bush administration it was ridiculed and then ignored. In addition, while my laziness will prevent me from digging proof up, there are countless country’s who have piss all over UNSC resolutions, some who are proven to be far more dangerous to our safety and we have ignored them.

    I have to wonder if Bush was so convinced that Saddam had WMD’s why was the decision to attack do easy. Was Bush not concerned that this could spark a massive retaliation from Saddam, that he would use those WMD’s ? The reason Iran and North Korea remain untouched is because we genuinely fear them and we know that they can put their money where their mouths are. Iraq was a push over and we knew it, which can only mean that he was not as big a threat as they made him out to be. No ?

    Yes Saddam played games with the inspectors but so what, let him play a little longer. Let’s get the guys responsible for 9/11 first. Stablilize Afghanistan first, proving we were able to accomplish this nation securing and rebuilding. While there and in much closer proximity, strike fear in Saddam by picking on him. This could have been the perfect way to push him to pull out these supposed weapons. With Battleships and aircraft already in close proximity, we could have made the same bombing runs as we did but this time target the exact WMD locations if there were any. If Saddam did not react to the taunts, then we would have know we had more time to get on with Afghanistan.

    Do you not believe that we could have waited a little while longer to act on Iraq, taken care of our priority threat, Osama and then moved on Iraq if it was so necessary ? We had held off Iraq for 10 years ! What was the sudden rush, if not simply because 9/11 provided the perfect excuse to attack anyone we wanted to in the Middle East. The American public we heart broken and would digest anything they were told. We wanted blood. Our govt knew this and took advantage and have gotten us into a war that will last for who knows how long and cost who knows how many lives.

    I also have to wonder how a country like ours could elect such guys if they were too stupid to know that Iraq was a bees nest of waring Islamic factions and that any destabilization would result in possible chaos. They either were to stupid to know or they actually wanted this destabilization.

    To re-state my point to MSC, no one will ever convince me that Bush and his ilk were remotely focused on anything even resembling honorable motives. Not the security of our country ( after all even the made up intelligence stated that his weapons could not reach our shores ).

    They are snakes in the grass out for number one only. They have done nothing for this country, nothing, except create global anymosity, pamper the very rich and protect their gang. I could go on and on about the non-existent domestic policy, but that’s another story.

    You and I could debate the language used to justify the war until we are blue in the face. I know, since having discussed this issue at length with you that your reasons for defending the Iraq war are honorable, but I cannot and will never say the same for our leaders. Please note that, no matter how much I may dislike a leader, I will always give them credit if I feel their motives were in the right place. I do not tow anyone’s line. I criticize and praise anyone that shows integrity, no matter what side they are on. I may be too lazy to absorb statistics but I read voraciously on whatever subject I speak up on. I do not like being called out but again when I am wrong, I will be the first to admit it and I have done so many times. On this subject though, I see a very clear path to reality and you cannot argue that now that so much more information is available that paint things in a negative light and that the American people’s anger has subsided that there has been a big change in public opinion. What goes around, comes around. You can only bullshit for so long ( I am talking about our govt or any for that matter ) and eventually the facts creep through and shine light on reality.

    With all that has surfaced about the dealings in this administration, I have to think that in the back of your head you do wonder how much you can trust these guys ( then and now ). What you know they are capable of doing to further their, not our, agenda’s.

    It’s systemic throughout all govt and they are by no means the only ones guilty. We know how govt works and these guys are up there with the worst of them.

    Electing politians ends up being choosing the worst of two evils. Man do I wish that the majority would have chosen someone else. The shit stew of Cheney, Rumsfeld with their history in the ME and Iraq and their little puppet Bush was a recipy for distaster and this is exactly what we have gotten.

    You know my thoughts on roasting Osama and his clan. So you know I am no liberal pussy bent on protecting criminals and terrorists, just do it intelligently. We don’t need this and I have said it before protect these shores, use those billions to make sure more than 2% of all containers coming into the US are inspected. Don’t cut protection funding to NYC. Hire a thousand new border guards. Spend whatever it takes in our airports to make sure we have state of the art equipment etc etc etc. Instead we have just bred a new generation of terrorist bent on punishing us 20 years from now for Iraq.

    What I have to say surprises me the most is how you are, unlike so many, procatively trying to eliminate our dependance on foreign oil which can only mean that you understand that getting our paws out of the middle east can only be a good thing. It indicates that you understand how our adminstration(s) have very clear alterior motives for involvement in the ME. That you understand that, right or wrong, that many Muslims believe our only motives are their oil.

    Sorry, long one, but not a surprise coming from me.

    If you post on any other sites let me know, I will join and we can continue debating until we both start pulling our hair out =)

  67. BrooklynJon says:

    Frenchman,

    “Cheney and Rumsfeld were foaming at the mouth for Iraq long before 9/11 ”

    Of course Saddam was in the crosshairs before 9/11! He was in the Clinton Administration’s crosshairs.
    This is required reading regarding the left wing’s hypocracy vis-a-vis Iraq:
    http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040623.htm

    “constant megaphoning by Cheney of connections between AQ and Iraq and Nuclear Capabilities and so.”

    I personally don’t remember a whole lot of megaphoning about Iraq and AQ(not stating categorically that it didn’t happen, just that I don’t recall any). I remember plenty of megaphoning regarding Saddam’s nuclear ambitions, and it was pretty much on the money. Once the sanctions were lifted, Saddam had every intention of restarting his hibernating nuclear weapons program, and the French and Russians had every intention of helping him.

    “one has to wonder how they placed such high regard for the resolution but blatently ignored the pleas for restraint by the very institution responsible for the resolution”

    The UN had become totally corrupted by the kickbacks in the Oil for Food program. “One of the largest humanitarian programs in history, oil-for-food was a lifeline for 90 percent of the country’s population of 26 million. But Saddam was allowed to choose the buyers of Iraqi oil and the sellers of humanitarian goods, and used that power to curry favor by awarding oil contracts to former government officials, activists, journalists and U.N. officials who opposed the sanctions. ”
    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/9/7/91847.shtml

    “I have to wonder if Bush was so convinced that Saddam had WMD’s why was the decision to attack do easy”
    Nobody was “convinced” that he had WMD. Everybody (including France, including the Democrats, who had recently held the Presidency, including Iraq’s own generals) suspected that he had bio and chemical weapons, and that he was intent on developing nukes. Of course he had chemical weapons – he used them on the Kurds.

    “We had held off Iraq for 10 years ! What was the sudden rush, if not simply because 9/11 provided the perfect excuse to attack anyone we wanted to in the Middle East”
    I agree that there was no emergency, but the rush was because the sanctions regime was collapsing, and Saddam would soon have the easy wherewithal to build his nukes. I disagree that AQ is a main concern. I think Iran would have been a better place to start.

    Oops, it’s my daughter’s bedtime. I’ll pick this up later.
    bj

  68. I appreciate, you “endlisch” add Russia on that one, wait a few more months, then there will be Russia and China too, euh, bring the Koreans into it too, and Chavez, not mentionning the almost dead Castro,

    again, Chemical weapons, : Germany, Switzerland, and covered-hands of US, via its numerous letters-boxes in EU, and especially in France, (cf previous post, I made with a citation)

    now, BJ, start to aerate your brain, I know in NY, there is pollution, but you really need it cause I am worried !

    an exemple : during The cold war, my hubby was managing an hotel business in Paris surburbs, an american firm hired the offices nearby, they used to call themselves, “Cryo… something, Russians had a castel in the country aeras too ; russians and americans used to meet in the hotel restaurant to make business, and I can tell you, they were not dealing sperms, but rather arms, cubans and chineses went there too . and when they concluded some business they used to fest with champagne…

  69. The Frenchman says:

    Merci Nomad, BJ makes my point in far fewer sentences than I ever could, this damn verbal diharrea. I guess the bigger point is when the worlds only super power, can’t think of the damn word right now, as it’s dealings are always from a pure heart and that their justifications for any form of action are so morally just. See oil for food program or France was dealing with Iraq despite sanctions. The US govt is just as downright disgusting with it’s back door deal with some of the worlds most repressive regimes.

    Saddam on the radar prior to 9/11. Of course he was, we know this, but rather it is the convenient use of 9/11 to start a war in Iraq that is unconcienable. You know that without that tradgedy, Bush and his team could never have just started a war with Saddam.

    I heard a blurb from Jon Tenet, not the most reliable source, but let’s face it had his ear to the ground and was very much towing the party line at the time, stating that he clearly overheard someone ( can’t remember who ) from upper echelons of the White House stating something to the effect of ” we have to find a way to pin this on Iraq, 9/11 that is ). All this re-enforced to me, not that there weren’t ample proofs before, that this was underhanded. I know I don’t have to pull out proof concerning Cheney’s trumpeting connections between Saddam, oh hell please view this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIBH7v_H6Zk . In fact, I think it was only maybe three months ago when pressed at a Meet the Press interview that Cheney still claimed a connection. The jokes screamed the next day about it. That he was delusional.

    This is the Vice President of the United States of America, who refuses to admit he was wrong. He could have so easilly just said I made an error and jumped the gun and everyone would have said, ok, not happy with the outcome of this belief but at least he can swallow his pride and admit.

    Can you see a patern. As the first minute of this video shows, these guys sold their war by stating that they had 100% ” bullet proof ” evidence that WMD’s existed. Of course, the uninformed leyman is going to fall for this, because the assumption is we can trust our leaders to be forthright.

    Please don’t bring the blow job in the oval office up because, while he shouldn’t have lied ( I honestly believe he did so to try and spare himself the wrath of Hillary. The risk of breaking the law and his admitting to the affair and the consequences of this at home do not equate ), the ripple effects from his indiscretions and ultimate lies were minor. American lilly white puritanical pride was the only thing damaged and the Rep’s went for his throat and ran on the basis of bring a clean, respectable govt back to power.

    Our French President Mitterans brought his girlfriend to his wifes funeral !!!! JFK got away with blatant indiscretions. What’s his name speaker of the Denis Hastert just admitted to having an affair at the very same time he was screaming bloody murder for Clintons head on a platter.

    The lies told by the Bush admin took us to war and has cost thousands of American and Iraqi lives. Forget the billions and billions of our tax dollars that continue to line the pockets of so many of Bush’s friends. I am not being cynical here, we know it’s true and the Bush administration have done little to hide it.

    It’s the alterior motives for taking us to war that bothers me , not as much as the taking the eye of the real perps of 9/11 does. For the Bush team to accuse anyone else of misdeeds in order to achieve personal objectives, is about the pinnacle of hypocricy. It just doesn’t get any worse.

    It is also about the timing. You will never get me to believe that the Bush team wanted to crush Saddam because they wanted to save the world from his tyranny and even more disengenious is their outpouring of sympathy for the oppressed people of Iraq.

    As for Saddam, the savage murdering of the Kurds was after the last war after which a much stricter monitoring was kept on Saddam. Question : Where are they, these chemical weapons ? I don’t mean this sarcastically, I mean seriously. Saddam didn’t have open access at any time to his neighbors and if he had transported the volume of weapons we claim he had, then someone would have noticed. So it is very hard to argue that he hid them from us. Let’s also remember why Saddam slaughtered the Kurds, because Bush senior promised them he would help them with their coup to overthrow Saddam. They chanted that the US had their backs and Saddam punished them for it. Might all of those Kurds still be walking this earth ?

    To be clear and to support my previous assertion that I give credit when it is due. I despised Bush senior as a man and know he was as much a snake as any politician, but man do I, especially now, respect his astute intelligence. The Kurd thing was a horrible error. He probably made those promises before he realized what smacking that bees nest in Iraq would result in, proof of which we have today. He was a statesment and I accept full heartedly that you have to be a snake to run a country.

    Bush Jr. too the small window of opportunity he had after 9/11 because he and his team knew that everyone in the US were still in such a dark place and thirsting for blood that very few would argue the logic behing the decision. Anyone who maintained an even keel shortly after that tragedy had ample non-biased information on the web to cause pause.

    Too touch lightly on the UN thingy again, I have admitted that no governing body, especially not one that includes almost every country on earth, can possibly be free of corruption and misdealing. The Oil for Food issue did not come to light until after it pissed of the US govt. Sounds very swift boat to me and many in the UN, forget the Brit who ripped congress a new a-hole about this very issue, during a congressional hearing. My point again is if Bush had such little respect for the UN, then it only furthers my argument that they simply used the resolutions as an excuse to start a war they had already been planning for long ago.

    The real reasons in my view, the obvious one being oil, the less obvious, needed a large scale protacted arena in which to dispose of all of the decaying old tech weapons sitting in US silos after the cold war. To ressucitate the Defense Industry. Afghanistan was not large enough a theater to achieve this objective. I also firmly believe that Cheney and Rumsfeld, the true masterminds with axe’s to grind with Saddam, chanted ” he tried to kill your father ” on and on and on.

    While it would only further my lack of respect for them, if I somehow believed that they didn’t realize the chaos that would ensue, then maybe just maybe my opinion on the legitimacy of the war might be different. What only adds to my disdain is their ” fuck you ” refusal to admit that they made any mistakes. I know Bush has said so a couple of times grumbling under his breath, but this is not a genuine admission.

    We could have waited but Bush’s team knew that they probably could not have been able to launch if they had. People’s emotions would have subsided and people would have been thinking straight and would have questioned the cost benefit.

    While I know you will disagree I hope you see my point.

  70. The Frenchman says:

    revision : ” Merci Nomad, BJ makes my point in far fewer sentences than I ever could, this damn verbal diharrea. ” Meant to read Merci Nomad for making my point to BJ, for me with far fewer sentences ”

    PS to BJ, forgot to mention further evidence of malicious intent with both the Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman congressional testimony. Treating such things as tools in your marketing campaign, in Mr. Tillmans case at the anguish of his family, who not only had to deal with the loss of their son, who is the very definition of hero ( giving up lucrative contract and the safety of staying home to fight and in the right war ).

    I know you have seen the movie Wag the Dog, can you think of a more appropriate film to illustrate the measures govt’s take ?

  71. The Frenchman says:

    An interesting read indeed on the state of this country and it’s leaders from Lee Iiaccoca. I am sure you have all heard about this but not read some of the exerpts from the book :

    Follow me ….. http://www.depression2.tv/d2/node/261

    Lee Iacocca is a seasoned industrial leader. This is no fawning liberal, this
    is a past CEO and architect of one of the greatest company comeback
    stories in American history. Politically centered, he voted for George W.
    Bush in 2000.

  72. brooklynjon says:

    Yes, and I voted for Gore in that election.

    I think the Clinton Affair affair has been diminished quite a bit post-facto. The damage done was not the actual sexual indiscretion. It was the fact that the Clinton Administration was essentially paralyzed for the last two years, which prevented him from doing much about what were his two principal foreign policy problems, namely NK and Iraq. NK developed nukes. Iraq was still there, making a mockery of the UN, lining up key foreign supporters with kickbacks, and preparing to rev up their nuclear program as soon as the sanctions were lifted.

    Bush jr., you’ll recall, was elected on an isolationist foreign policy platform. Those of us who felt that a world without Saddam would be a better world were sorely disappointed, as we figured that rebuilding Iraq as a liberal democracy (a la Lebanon) became an unreachable goal with Gore’s defeat. And it was until 9/11 convinced Bush that isolationism did not actually guarantee isolation.

    As far as an apology is concerned, American society does not look favorably on apologies, right or wrong. It may work elsewhere. It doesn’t here.

    “Where are they, these chemical weapons ?”

    A darn good question. There was some speculation that they may have been moved to Syria. And some speculation that they may have been moved to Russia. Or they may have been destroyed. What is strange is that Saddam’s generals all thought they existed within the Iraqi arsenal, although they each denied that they were under their own personal command. It’s all very strange. I just hope I’m alive when the whole thing becomes known.

    I have not seen Wag the Dog. I understand that it is taken to be a description of the various half-wars initiated by President Clinton (who I also voted for).

    bj

  73. The Frenchman: “I have had many conversations on this very site with Arabs who like many, if not most of the rules imposed by Islamic law.”

    Where did those conversations take place, a democracy or the Middle East? If in a democracy, why would Arabs who favor Sharia law be there instead of where Sharia rules? The fact of the matter is that Arab Muslims flee Sharia states and flock to democracies. They are voting with their feet for the system they prefer. If an Arab Muslim stands in America and tells you he is dying to live under Sharia, you need only look at where his feet are planted to know he’s a liar.

    Craig: “Islam is making war on the US and has been for 30 years.”

    False. Islam has been making war on America since its birth, for more than two centuries. The Barbary Pirates made war on American commerce in the Mediterranean as part of their larger war on the West, a war in which they enslaved over a million Americans and Europeans. That in turn is part of the larger war of Islam on the world which has continued for thirteen centuries.

    Thomas Jefferson and John Adams sailed to London in March 1785 to meet Tripoli’s ambassador to London, Abd Al-Rahman, and asked what right the Barbary states had to capture American ships and enslave their crews and passengers. Ambassador Abd Al-Rahman replied that

    “…it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

    http://conprotantor.blogspot.com/2007/04/right-duty-to-make-war-enslave.html

    Frenchman: “And we have been after their oil for 30 years, so whose at fault ?”

    Frenchman, perhaps you haven’t noticed but Saudis are rich because of America, which has elevated them from bitter nomadic poverity to the lap of luxury. I challenge you to name another nation in the history of mankind that has benefited so much as Saudi Arabia has from America. We found their oil, developed it, shipped it out, and let them keep the profits with little effort on their part. We built their roads, electrified their cities, taught them how to manage their country. America built Saudi Arabia. America carefully respected the repugnant customs of the Saudis and protected them against outside attack.

    And in return, the Saudis hated us because we were not Muslim, institutionalized that murderous bigotry in their media and mosques and educational system, funded terrorist organizations who targeted America, and supported them in mass murder.

    Clearly, the Saudis are at fault for this war against the world made to promote their death cult. It was a mistake to treat these Saudi savages as equal partners when they know nothing but feral hate for all mankind.

    Patrick: “Western expats have no need to call for “equal treatment” because in almost every ARab country they are treated as SUPERIOR to the native populations.”

    The half dozen guys (no females, of course, they’re inferior) I know who have worked in Saudi Arabia told me that they liked the money but had nothing but negative to say about the people. One guy said they were basically “white slaves.” They had to be very careful lest the Saudis send them home over trivial issues. One software salesman told me that the Saudis would tap him on the shoulder and step ahead of him in line because he was an infidel. Another computer technician told me that a Saudi who was working with him demanded that he give him his watch because, well, he was an infidel. The two Stealth pilots I know who were stationed in Saudi Arabia said the Saudis were arrogant. One enlisted woman I know said that every day when she and the other women crossed a pedestrian bridge into base, the Saudi guard would lift his robe and masturbate. They complained, but Masturbating Mohammed was never replaced.

    Frenchman: “Most in the US views Arabs as mideveal morons who are bent on destroying the West. Fortunately, despite the efforts of so many of our leaders, we are more informed.”

    Here’s some more information that explains why most people in the US believe Islam is bent on destroying America:

    The pilgrimage to Mecca is one of the most sacred rituals of Islam. During the pilgrimage, Muslims must stone the pillars at Mina, which represent Satan. On those pillars for the last three years, and probably longer, have been written “America” or “Death to America.”

    When Islam declares America its Satan and incorporates that doctrine into its holiest rituals, then yes, we uninformed Americans tend to believe that Muslims want to destroy America. Such a doctrine implicitly endorses the Sep 11 attacks by Muslims. Since you are more informed than us, please explain why we should think otherwise.

    The Saudi embassy here in Washington, DC hands out brochures in Arabic to tourists that remind them that it is their religious duty to hate America and that it is blasphemy to participate in democracy. The local Islamic schools here teach that it is OK to hurt and steal from non-Muslims, among other vile lessons. Two administrators of the local Islamic high school were arrested for terrorism and a recent valedictorian was arrested for plotting to kill the president.

    Eighty percent of the mosques in America have been radicalized by Wahhabi preachers, who apparently have found a receptive audience for their hate speech against America. Wahhabi hate literature is found in ALL mosques in America.

    When the news of Sep 11 reached the Muslim world, Muslims celebrated the mass murder. They danced in the streets in Palestine and handed out candy. They slaughtered goats and feasted in Saudi Arabia. They shot off home-made rockets in the Turkish quarter of Berlin. Muslim kids throughout the Muslim world wear Osama T-shirts. That sounds like pure murderous medieval religious bigotry to me.

    Now, polls of the Muslim world tell us that the majority of Muslims virtually everywhere deny that Muslims perpetrated Sep 11. They claim the Jews did it or that America attacked itself. This is how morons think.

    So please, Mr. Better Informed Frenchman, please explain to we ignorant Americans why it’s wrong to view Arab Muslims as medieval morons who are bent on destroying the West and America. Please explain away all those pesky facts that convince us otherwise.

  74. The Frenchman says:

    Hi BJ, Every day brings with it a growing understand of your complexity fine sir. While it has been obvious that you were an independent thinker, the above revelations serve to solidify this perception. Voted for Gore and Clinton ( not together but while both running for Prez ). Now this was a surprise indeed. Of course, I only have a couple of snapshots of you ( don’t worry nothing indiscreet :) . You put your money where you mouth is vis a vis global warming or to try and remove the M.E. teet from our US mouths, you are pro-gun and approve of the war in Iraq, yet you voted Democratic in two elections. I am liking you more and more, for your independent thinking. I may disagree with you on certain issues but I respect that you do not tow any parties line. Much like me.

    You have brought up that Bush ran as an isolationist and I have never addressed it.

    The reason for this stance of his are now obvious ( were then too but less so ). Bush knows nothing about International affairs and his stint as leader of the free world has done nothing to improve this. There is a big difference between someone wanting to fix what’s broke at home and someone who runs on this basis because he is ignorant and too afraid to deal with the outside world. What is counter intuitive is anyone one running on this platform when we are now living in the global village. it is impossible to escape the fact that we all depend on each other now. Without China where would we be and vice versa. It is this very fact that we are forced to deal with what would otherwise be called an enemy. We can’t piss all over China because they are our bank.

    Bush was trying to shield himself from having to deal with the world at large, even though this was impossible. This isolasionist platform, before 9/11, was his way of providing a pre conceived canned excuse for him to not have to deal with the outside world. ” But Mr. Bush what about trade with India ? I said I am an isolasionist therefore I will not deal with those issues.

    The guy has barely left this country in 6 friggin years. How is that even possible for the leader of the most powerful nation on earth ? He is either intimidated by the boogie man over there, or he is so f’ing arrogant that he doesn’t believe they are worthy.

    After 9/11 where he simply had not choice but to look beyond these wall his isolationisms turned to unilateralism. He just couldn’t be bothered to address anyone elses concerns. Much easier to say ” you don’t like it then go F yourself ” then to sit down, listen and be willing to learn and educate yourself.

    Bush has not made a single effort to evolve during his Presidency, to admit that he might have been a little naive on this or that. It has become painfully obvious that that isolationism was actually more about him having blinders on. If I don’t see the problem, it isn’t there.

    I loved Clinton, not because he played Sax, was handsome to some or suave. I liked him because he was a player. He made friends with international leaders. He was a salesmen and astute. He told them what they wanted to hear, showed them respect, even if he didn’t feel it. I am in sales and while I am a sincere man, must play games to move forward. Clinton went to France and went out for a few with Miterrand. He disagreed but did so without insulting the other party. Bush has failed to realize you need to make friends. You get nowhere by calling your friends names if they don’t follow you around ike the pied piper. Clinton did and got what he wanted from other leaders because he treated them with mutual respect. I am pretty sure that if 9/11 had happened on his watch ( I will get into his flaws on this issue ) and he had chosen to attack Iraq ( which I know he wouldn’t have ) that his coalition of the willing would have been much larger then Bush’s. Clinton would have made a case for it and would have massaged foreign leaders. No matter how dire the situation this is how the game is played.

    Clinton made mistakes, name me a leader who hasn’t. I found your comment regarding your disapproval of Clinton’s indiscretions because it ended up distracting him from the task of running the country, very interesting. If I read your reasoning correctly you are saying the Clinton should not have put himself in a position to get caught up in a mess like that. He should have realized that if he got busted it would be more than simply a little cheat on your wife scandal. If so, I do agree, but by the same token, if the Rep’s were begging for an excuse to take him down, this might have been handled in house rather then blasted worldwide. If the Rep’s weren’t looking for reason we might never have heard about it. This is what makes Hasters admission of his own infidelities at the very same time he was going for Clintons throat that much more hypocritical. However, as I believe you were eluding to Clinton should not have served himself up on a silver platter. Keep your dick in your pants while your President, you know they are looking for a reason to take you down. I think this was your point.

    Attention to US Domestic issues is more dire than it has been in a very long time, yet Bush has failed dramatically on this too. In fact the only issue Bush seems to have stuck to and won on is Gay Marriage !!!!!!!!!!!! Yet another issue I viamently disagree with him on. I am a very straight man, have a wife and son, but am not in the least bit homophobic. You want to get married go ahead, it’s none of my business. Do you remember the stats after the election of Bush for a second term. Despite wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a huge percentage of the population that voted for Bush again did so because of his stance on social issues. WHAT ?????????????? I almost lost it when I found that out. We want Bush to make sure that two gay people can’t get married. WTF ?? Our kids are dying in the ME and all you give a F*&^ about is sticking your nose into someone elses business. You go girl, bash that bible !

    Isolationism even if 9/11 didn’t happen is not what we need or needed. We need a multitasker who can address issues at home and abroad, with equal attention. We are not self sufficient, we need the rest of the world Mr. Bush.

    I won’t keep going on about Iraq, because as mentioned we could go round and round.

    Rent Wag the Dog, not because I want you to see my point, but because it is an excellent movie, entertaining. Robert De Niro, Dustin Hoffman, can you go wrong with these two ? I can’t remember all of the details and it doesn’t really relate to current affairs, but if I remember correctly, it is about a Pres, who is losing in the polls, has been called out on some indescretions all of which risk him losing his run for a second term. So he calls in a ” Karl Rove ” =) who creates a diversion, a WAR.

    http://www.wag-the-dog.com/Story/index.html.

    It is an intelligent sly movie. The parallel one can draw from it is how easilly the gullable public can be distracted and lead down the wrong path orchestrated solely for the personal gain of those in power.

    Again, while I disagree with you on the Iraq issue, I have gained an increasing respect for the fact that your position is founded on your own studied independent assesments, rather an opinion that was formed thanks to the propaganda machine.

  75. brooklynjon says:

    Frenchman,

    Thank you. Back at you. And of course, being from the People’s Republic of Brooklyn, you can rest assured that I’m not simply going along with the crowd. ;-)

    “The reason for this stance of his are now obvious ( were then too but less so ). Bush knows nothing about International affairs and his stint as leader of the free world has done nothing to improve this. ”

    Yup. That was a big part of why I not only voted for Gore in 2000, but was motivated to make my first and second ever political donations in 2000, to McCain and to Gore. I was anti-Bush in 2000 because he was a simpleton who only saw Black and White (although I thought the “pop quiz on world leaders” interview a bit unfair). I also really, REALLY dislike political dynasties.

    However, I do think that there are times when the situation really is polarized, and seeing to much subtlety, too many shades of gray, is not a plus. When the time came to take out the Taliban, I breathed a sigh of relief that Gore was not in the Oval Office (although, in the before time, Gore was quite the hawkish senator before pacifism became cool). I think there is real evil out there, and failure to confront it as such will make things worse in the future. My mind wanders to what’s-her-name, the secretary of state under clinton – Allbright – getting charmed by the dear leader in North Korea. Shades of gray? You bet. And now those are nuclear-armed shades of gray. Terrific. Chamberlain had the world behind him in Munich. It would have been much better had he unilateral in 1938, rather than waiting until 1939, when he had a coalition.

    I think “social issues” are a losing proposition for the Repubs. Gay marriage? Who cares? I mean, even if you want to be homophobic, don’t you think we have bigger fish to fry? Or, as my friends like to put it, “Why should only straight men suffer?”
    And if you think my take on Iraq is nuanced, wait until you hear my take on Abortion. Abortion is immoral, but must be legal. I would talk my (future teenage) daughters out of an abortion if I could raise the child myself. But if they were too young to responsibly raise the child and I couldn’t help, or if they had a fetus with significant anomolies, I would encourage early abortion. I think Roe v. Wade is an abomination. I think the states should determine the legal status of abortion individually, and I would vote against any state legislator who would vote to make abortion illegal. I could not care less if it is illegal in Utah or Ireland, or whatever. I give anesthetics for abortions, and hence (according to some of the lunatics out there) am an Abortionist. Convoluted enough?

    And yes, Clinton as a private citizen could shtup anyone he wanted to, as far as I’m concerned. Once he’s president, he’s mine. He needs to keep his fly zipped, and focus on steering this great ship. That’s why I hired him, and that’s why I’m paying his salary. I was originally in favor of impeaching Bill, because I thought his behaviour in the Oval Office deplorable (evidently Monica was merely one of very many), because I thought his outright lies – many under oath – were foul, and because I’m a Constitution junkie and I thought the whole thing really cool. I now recognize that it was a mistake, though it was really cool.

    John Kerry was and is abominable. He is what the left wing thought would appeal to the right wing. His is form without substance, and without a whole lot of form either. His is awful. He is a pompous blow hard. He was my senator for three years while I lived in Boston. It was enough. I thank G-d daily that he was not elected.

    Rudy’s my man. Socially liberal (really, libertarian). Strong on defense. Will not go out for drinks with Miterrand. Smart. Principled. Does not pretend to be infallible.

    And yes, I’ll check out Wag the Dog when I get a chance. Quick De Niro story:

    My friend’s kid was in the same kindergarten class as De Niro’s son. De Niro’s kid came to school every day in a big pink puffy coat, and carried a pink “Powerpuff Girls” lunchbox. My take is that when you’re De Niro’s son, you can do that.

  76. brooklynjon says:

    Frenchman,

    “trying to eliminate our dependance on foreign oil which can only mean that you understand that getting our paws out of the middle east can only be a good thing.”

    I missed this before. Hell yes. I think the single biggest geopolitical debacle by the US in the past 30 years has been allowing the rise of the SUV. I think the first step in calming the whole region down is bringing the price of oil down. Maybe Iran would have other priorities for their petrodollars than building centrifuges. Ditto the Saudis.

    It’s why I drive a Prius (like any other self-respecting neocon). It’s why the next thing I’m doing after hitting the Submit Comment button is returning my photovoltaic installer’s phone call.

    I recognize that you are not a left wing “pussy”, neither am I a right-wing nutjob.

    And, as I have always said, there were principled reasons for both supporting and opposing the Iraq War. You don’t think most of the supporters were principled. Fair enough. ‘Cuz I dont’ think most of the opponents were principled either. Included among them, that noted European country with the Red White and Blue flag whose name rhymes with pants.

    As always, Frenchie, a pleasure chatting with you.

    bj

  77. Frenchman: “In fact, I think it was only maybe three months ago when pressed at a Meet the Press interview that Cheney still claimed a connection. The jokes screamed the next day about it. That he was delusional.”

    There is a connection between the Sep 11 plotters and Saddam. Czech intelligence has consistently maintained that Mohammed Atta met an Iraqi agent at a restaurant in the suburbs of Prague. Another Iraqi agent facilitated and attended a meeting of terrorists in Kuala Lumpur at which two of the Sep 11 skyjackers were present. It is the folks who deny this connection who are delusional. And there is plenty of general evidence of a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Those connections were printed in Western and Middle Eastern media BEFORE Sep 11.

    Frenchman: “This is the Vice President of the United States of America, who refuses to admit he was wrong. He could have so easilly just said I made an error and jumped the gun and everyone would have said, ok, not happy with the outcome of this belief but at least he can swallow his pride and admit.”

    The irony is that you are wrong in this criticism and refuse to concede your error, as do the other Cheney critics who are similarly uninformed.

    Frenchman: “Question : Where are they, these chemical weapons ? I don’t mean this sarcastically, I mean seriously. Saddam didn’t have open access at any time to his neighbors and if he had transported the volume of weapons we claim he had, then someone would have noticed. So it is very hard to argue that he hid them from us. “

    Seriously, Frenchman, do you ever read the papers or do you just go with the lefty talking points. Some 500+ WMDs have been found to date, mostly chemical weapons. Dozens were found immediately after the invasion, as reported in the Duelfer Report. They have been continuously found ever since. One artillery shell with almost a gallon of sarin nerve agent was rigged as an IED, slightly injuring two GIs. A cache of a hundred were found a few months ago. They haven’t stopped finding WMDs.

    Your claim that Saddam did not have access to his neighbors is false. George Sada, former second in command of the Iraqi air force says two pilots flew 56 sorties in Boeing 747 freighters airlifting WMDs to Syria.

    As the documents of the Baathist regime are examined, it also appears that Saddam’s people buried some WMD in various places. Saddam loved burying stuff.

    And the total volume of all this chemical agent would fit in an Olympic-sized swimming pool. That’s fairly easy to hide for a government.

    The real question here is why don’t you know any of this and why, when your opinion is so uninformed, are you so certain of it?

    Frenchman: “I loved Clinton, not because he played Sax, was handsome to some or suave. I liked him because he was a player. He made friends with international leaders. He was a salesmen and astute. He told them what they wanted to hear, showed them respect, even if he didn’t feel it. I am in sales and while I am a sincere man, must play games to move forward.”

    While Clinton was president, America’s enemies advanced. Under Bush, America’s enemies retreated. That’s the difference.

    When Muslim terrorists killed 20 US military and wounded 372 at Khobar Towers, Clinton did not press the Saudis to investigate the attack because he was afraid that if the culprits were found he might be forced to go to war with them. According to FBI Director Louis Freeh, Clinton solicited a donation to his library, ie a bribe, to let the Saudis off the hook. Clinton sold out our dead military. Those are not the games I want an American president to play. The last person I want as president is a slick salesman looking to line his pockets with blood money from the evil Saudis.

  78. The Frenchman says:

    Very busy today but will respond to both BJ and Tantor. Again given this is the last stand on SM, I might as well milk it =) If interested check in again soon !

  79. brooklynjon says:

    French,

    I know. I feel like we’re in “Injury time”.

  80. I love this blog entry ! hahahhahahahahha!

  81. The Frenchman says:

    Be back Monday

  82. The Frenchman says:

    OK BJ, have to back out. No time last few days. Very nice meeting you and chatting. Stay well !

  83. Frenchie says:

    Frenchie,

    Likewise!

    Au revoir.

    bj

  84. My peeve for literally years has been the lack of good information on the bad people in our communities.

    So I did something about it.

    I created the website http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org

    Hardly a day goes by that it is not voted either the most useful or the most ethical site on the internet.

    If you wonder if the new girl at your office is a Jihad cell extremist, this site will tell you.

    If you wonder if a guy you met is really a child molestor, this site will tell you.

    Don’t be surprised if I tell you this site is the one used by the FBI CIA and Homeland Security as well as media to check things.

    Now this site is free. My company is American Coast Title and it is very profitable. We pay all of the fees for this site and keep it up to date. Not long ago we helped a special task force capture wanted terrorist and fugitive bomb maker and grave robber Keith Henson!

    But I have a problem. A bunch of Indonesians are attacking me. I am offering a substantial reward, paid once again by the company, for your help in finding and stopping these zealots.

    You can see the details on the reward section of the site. You can also email me at jphillips@actfortitle.com or also lundgren@actfortitle.com or also jsmith@actfortitle.com or also cbryant@actfortitle.com or the actual reward email itself reward5000@earthlink.net

    Help us stop these guys and put some clean cash in your pocket!

    Joel Phillips
    publisher of http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org and owner of American Coast Title

  85. Mr phillips does not mention that he is a scientology “OT”, and member of the OT committee in Los Angeles.

    As one of the names libeled on his Scientology site, I’d like to point out that his allegations are as true as L Ron Hubbard’s hypnotic ramblings are.

    Heh, the only scenario I know about, would be referring to my not taking my portion of the Lerma/Wollershiem/Penny 9-12 million. Which included a 50,000 penalty for each radio show or media interview.

    So you can Listen to MY favorite $50,000 show here.
    http://media.putfile.com/Arnie-Lerma-on-Frankly-Speaking-Radio86
    2,692 views.

    And I may have gotten behind during the litigation, but Ive been current for years. And when Bob helped me out, that was the 2nd check that went out, the first one kept the roof over my head, literally, the roof was leaking.

    This “allegation” along with the the rest of them, have as much truth, Suzanne, as Hubbard’s promise to YOU, that you would become an OT, a powerful spiritual being, someday….

    That has never happened IN SCIENTOLOGY.

    Key Lie example – Im supposedly a pal of a guy named White.

    More Allegations as TRUE as Scientology’s promise of being a bridge to OT

    I have never spoken to Mr White on the telephone, nor corresponded with Mr White in email or postal mail.

    He was a stranger who walked up and asked for a picket sign, so I handed him one. At that instant camera’s clicked inside scientology.
    I never knew his name until that RFW site webbed it.

    Scientology is FRAUD, it is not even worthy of the name cult.

    Under oath, while refuting scientology LIES about my character on
    Scientology’s RFW pages, I was asked by a lawyer, whose name was
    given to my ex by Sylvia Stanard…

    Sylvia’s Shyster: Mr. Lerma, is it true you consider scientology a
    cult?

    Arnie Lerma: No. I consider scientology a FRAUD, with a written
    published policy to cloak the fraud as a CULT, and secret policies, to
    cloak that apparency of being a CULT as a RELIGION.
    http://www.Lermanet.com/LRonHubbard2.htm

    Image mapped diagrams to support the three parts of Scientology,
    linked to supporting evidence are here:

    http://www.lermanet.com/reference/graphicindex.htm

    The three charts provided, show

    PART 1 – LIES, SCHEMES and ARTIFICE used to lure new members and fool
    government officials and journalists.

    PART 2 – LIES, SCHEMES and ARTIFICE and EXTORTION used to keep those
    fooled above, who become paying chumps, from finding out they were
    conned.

    PART 3 – LIES, SCHEMES and ARTIFICE and EXTORTION used to handle
    those who have found out how the truck was done, and realize they have
    been fooled!

    From Blacks Law Dictionary:

    Fraud: An intentional perversion of the truth for the purpose of
    inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing
    or to surrender a legal right; a false representation of a matter of
    fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations,
    or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which
    deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon
    it to his legal inquiry; anything calculated to deceive, whether by a
    single act or combination, or by suppression of truth, or suggestion
    of what is false, whether it be by direct falsehood or innuendo, by
    speech or silence, word of mouth, or look or gesture; fraud comprises
    all acts, omissions, and concealments involving a branch of legal or
    equitable duty and resulting in damage to another.

    From the book Complicity: Ethics and Law for a Collective Age,
    Christopher Kutz suggests that ‘marginally effective participants in a
    collective harm are accountable for the victim’s suffering, not
    because of the individual differences they make, but because their
    intentional participation in a collective endeavor directly links them
    to the consequences of that endeavor.’

    “After we get done running Bob Minton out of money we are coming for
    you” said Sylvia Stanard OSA DC to this writer, after causing her to
    pull her picket line of the French Embassy after the anti-mental
    manipulation law was passed, – by reading the OT III story you watched
    on South Park through a rolled up paper horn.

    See http://www.Lermanet.com use the search engine

  86. ehem…
    well I got bored in the first quarter of all the comments. I know am a kinda intruder in here but i dont usually care. I find everybody here is makin an argument abt muslims, islam n there was a part abt egypt I think^o)

    I maybe too young to get all of that but the fact that am an arab -egyptian- muslim makes me know that all ur attack guys is probably wrong!!! My people don’t do that n my people aint terrorists

    n I don’t know really y is it that everytime a terrorist kills some ppl they say it’s a muslim, honestly I never found a definite clue any of those was a muslim
    but oh well they called our prophet a terrorist y wudn’t they call alll of his ppl the same too :S

    It’s really ironic to me all of it

    n I don’t get it too that how come any1 wud think that there r like 3 billion ppl in this world following islam because it’s a religion of terror n hatred, all of a sudden they all got crazy n decided to b sadistic n follow the religion of sadism accordingly?!!!! n the continuous increase in muslims everyday I don’t think that’s becoz they find it so cool to follow a religion of murder!!!!

    Arab countries definitely have political, economical, ethical …etc problems which is obvious to every1 all ages n all classes. But actually the arab leaders r tending more like imitating the western leaders, morever since their ppl r pretty well controlled they do wtv they want. If u think that the “Sharia” they r using is the exact one our prophet peace be upon his soul used at his days then a sorry to say that all of the adults now turned to b soo stupid.

    U can never destroy islam or have it vanished, u r simply doing like the romans who were killing all the ppl who followed Jesus Christ!!!

    This makes sense to me, simple sense no complications

    Totalled
    Dahlia