blanders0604@hotmail.com wrote:
> Wayne wrote:
> > blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > wkhedr wrote:
> > > > As long as you can see other people "filthy, murderous, repressive
> > > > pigs", the world will be a better place!!
> > > >
> > > > Actually it is not even fair for pigs when we call humans "pigs"!!
> > > >
> > > > "What Goes Around Comes Around"!
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh, I'm sorry. I thought they were the ones that call us in the West
> > > infidels because we don't have the same dark worldview and lifestyle
> > > and don't repress and enslave our women and bow to Mecca 3 times per
> > > day?
> >
> > You're confusing *some* elements of their populations' strict adherence
> > to fundamentalist Islam with the fact that they're pissed off with U.S
> > foreign policy. Bin Laden would never have embarked on Jihad if he
> > merely wanted to get American women to wear the chador; he did it
> > because he was pissed off about the prescence of American troops in
> > Saudi Arabia, amongst other issues such as the never ending
> > Israel/Palestine issue. Regardless of what you think about
> > fundamentalist Islam, there's no doubt that their main gripe is U.S
> > foreign policy, rather than the fact that Westerners don't bow to Mecca
> > 3 times a day.
>
> You are highly misinformed. This is not about U.S. policy although I
> grant that is used to gain support. I recommend the following reading
> if you want to learn the fuller story of holy jihad--written before the
> 2004 elections. It is long, but worth it. I will be interested to
> hear your thoughts--print it out and read it:
>
> THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS AND THE GREAT CALIPHATE
>
> http://www.insiderreport.net/clash_1-2.html
In this article, there are not only too many baseless and quite
simplistic assumptions made, and events that are often random and
unpredictable are viewed as part of a structured and organized process
called "the third jihad". Who came up with the term "the third jihad"?
The authors of the article? I know they outline the history of the
first jihad, and the second one, but where are the quotes from Bin
Laden or Ayatollah Khamenei or Ahmadinejad where they state that they
have embarked on a "third jihad"? I see no evidence of any structured
process towards the aims stated in the article.
There's no doubt that fundamentalist Islam is a danger, but I don't
view it in the extreme terms as it is viewed by the authors, and one of
the main flaws imo, is that U.S foreign policy in the Middle East is
completely ignored as a possible cause of Islamic fundamentalism. Of
course the authors, like yourself, view U.S foreign policy as just a
stated excuse for the terrorists rather than the real motivation that
has spurred them on to behave like this. By adopting this view, you are
able to ignore the flawed hypocrisy of American foreign policy for
years now, which is currently even more extreme under Bush.
I'd also like to point out that there are no citations in the article.
I take issue with the following in the article:
1) "I must also fault President Bush and the administration spokesmen
for not telling the American people what they really need to know about
this "war". If they don't do that sometime between now and
November it may cost them the election."
Well, for starters this sounds like a comment motivated to get people
to vote for Bush. Agenda?
2) "It is this Wahhabi version of Islam which has infected the religion
itself, now finding adherents in almost all branches and sects,
especially the Shiites."
I'm not convinced this is true. The Wahhabi version of Islam is
strongest in Saudi Arabia who belong to the Sunni sect not the Shiites,
as claimed in the article.
Here's a quote from an article I cite below below:
Iran loathes Wahhabism as much or more, because of its massacres of
Shias and wholesale destruction of Islamic holy sites, among other
issues.
http://www.nationalreview.com/interr...tory111802.asp
The Wahhabism branch of Islam that the article suggests is such a
danger is not prevelant in Iran, but is in Saudi - which is a staunch
American ally. Iran and Saudi don't get on and a recent report suggests
that the two may begin a proxy war against each other in Iraq to defend
their respective Sunni and Shia interests.
3) "Thanks, in large part to the hypocritical and disastrous policies
of the Jimmy Carter State Department the revolution was set into
motion, the Shah was deposed, his arm forces scattered or murdered and
stage one was complete. The Third Jihad now had a base of operations
and the oil wealth to support its grand design or what they call the
"Great Caliphate".
Revolutions don't happen in such a structure way that you can call them
a "grand design". The 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran occurred because
the Iranian people had had enough of the Shah's corruption - his regime
was rotten to the core. In the article, they blame Carter, but
Republican Presidents Nixon and Ford are just as culpable for
supporting the despot Shah and arming him to the teeth. The Iranians
overthrew the Shah because they'd had enough - Khomenei saw his chance
and seized the moment - it was not part of a grand plan of a "third
jihad". It was ultimately the Iranian population who decided and it
wouldn't have occurred without their will - the civil unrest was
intense and had gone on for much of 1978.
4) "What was known, were serious indications of on-going collaboration,
as Saddam funneled money to families of suicide bombers attacking the
Israelis and others in Kuwait."
I'd like to see a citation for this.
5) "Should George W. Bush be defeated in November and a new
administration come to power we could expect to see the dominoes start
to fall in the secular Islamic countries and The Clash of Civilizations
would then become a life changing event in all of our lives."
This is just a completely baseless assumption.
6) "They were not expecting this reaction, based on what had happened
in the past, nor were they expecting the determined resolve of the
President himself. I believe that this is one of the reasons we have
not had any further attacks within our borders. "
Ditto. The only reasonable explaination as to why there haven't been
any further terrorist attacks in the U.S since 9/11 is because the
thread has been exaggerated. You could argue that the security has
improved, but if the the threat was that severe, somone would have
succeeded by now.
7) "Jimmy Carter is the one man who must bear the bulk of the
responsibility for setting the stage of the Third Jihad. Americans
should find little comfort in how the Democrat contenders constantly
seek the "advice and counsel" of this despicable little hypocrite
who now prances around with his Nobel Prize, while attacking President
Bush with almost as much venom as his fellow Nobel Laureate, Yassir
Arafat."
LOL! Blame it all on Jimmy Carter! Everything is the fault of Carter.
8) " Iran and Syria are daily growing more overt and bold in their
support of insurgents within Iraq,"
Maybe that's because America weakened its position by making such a
mess of Iraq?
9) "The very idea that we should spend our sons and daughters blood or
our tax dollars on trying to building a "democracy" in the region
which has neither a history nor a desire for such, is sheer nonsense. "
Right, so there's that whole "nation-building" thing gone out the
window LOL!
10) "They see this war as their "entry to paradise" and a release
from the miserable existence they have built for themselves within the
confines of an evil and perverse religion."
Not the most impartial comment ever.
Overall, the article raises some important issues about fundamentalist
Islam, but apart from the history at the beginning there wasn't much we
didn't know already. It is far too extreme in its analysis and makes
too many baseless assumptions. It also has too many Anti-Democrat
comments and sounds like a piece designed to push for Bush's
re-election in 2004. Maybe it worked.
Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran 
Linear Mode
