PDA

View Full Version : "American foreign policy had NOTHING to do with Sept 11th..." --Rudy Giuliani


jAZ
07-29-2007, 11:52 PM
"American foreign policy had NOTHING to do with Sept 11th..."
--Rudy Giuliani

Do you agree or disagree with Rudy Giuliani's claim above?


Here's the full video...

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3OC_CRmyA0c"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3OC_CRmyA0c" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Fishpicker
07-30-2007, 12:04 AM
David Cross knows more about the root cause of terrorism than Rudy.

NSFW - language
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/K7aFXRAW7mg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/K7aFXRAW7mg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, & David Cross

Taco John
07-30-2007, 12:18 AM
Rudy wouldn't be pressing this button if the polling numbers weren't there to carry his argument. He's not the bold leader he paints himself to be, but a public sentiment wonk who will lead where he thinks people will follow.

That said, I hope he continues to push this button, because there needs to be a discussion about this important issue so that all the morons who don't understand that when you poke a hornets nest, the hornets get angry, might wake up to reality.

HolmeZz
07-30-2007, 12:46 AM
Rudy's ridden the 9/11 pony about as far as it'll go. I think the politically educated person can already see through him and his second rate campaign.

a1na2
07-30-2007, 05:46 AM
REPOST

This poll has been done before.

Why don't you just refer back to that one?

IIRC:

Are you a conservative?

Are you a liberal?

Other?

and the GAZ option.

You will get the same results.

a1na2
07-30-2007, 05:53 AM
Rudy wouldn't be pressing this button if the polling numbers weren't there to carry his argument. He's not the bold leader he paints himself to be, but a public sentiment wonk who will lead where he thinks people will follow.

That said, I hope he continues to push this button, because there needs to be a discussion about this important issue so that all the morons who don't understand that when you poke a hornets nest, the hornets get angry, might wake up to reality.

Your contention is that the Bush administration was the one poking the hornets nest? That is a very weak argument.

I don't honestly think it is the foreign policy, it's more in line with the freedoms we have in the U.S. Freedom for our women to bear all when ever they want to. The decadent manner in which we flaunt sexuality. The way we have the self righteous that our freedoms are not offensive to anyone else and the idea that they have no reason to be offended.

It's my opinion that our war with the jihadists started in 1962.

BigMeatballDave
07-30-2007, 06:11 AM
A few years ago, I would not believe for a second that our foreign policy bad. It has EVERYTHING to do with 9/11. I bought all that, "The terrorists hate us for our freedoms," BS. We need to get our ignorant asses out of the ME and leave those nutjobs alone.

banyon
07-30-2007, 07:10 AM
REPOST

This poll has been done before.

Why don't you just refer back to that one?

IIRC:

Are you a conservative?

Are you a liberal?

Other?

and the GAZ option.

You will get the same results.

Right Tom. Ron Paul is a liberal. Got it. Black or white only.



This is exactly why we need to legalize marijuana.

dirk digler
07-30-2007, 07:19 AM
LMAO

Rudy is a ****ing idiot he actually believes that crap. Maybe he should read Osama Bin Laden's own words for the reasons why. What a ****ing dumbass.

I posted below just a portion of his letter that was published in 2002.


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,,845725,00.html

As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

a) You attacked us in Palestine:

(i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily.

(ii) It brings us both laughter and tears to see that you have not yet tired of repeating your fabricated lies that the Jews have a historical right to Palestine, as it was promised to them in the Torah. Anyone who disputes with them on this alleged fact is accused of anti-semitism. This is one of the most fallacious, widely-circulated fabrications in history. The people of Palestine are pure Arabs and original Semites. It is the Muslims who are the inheritors of Moses (peace be upon him) and the inheritors of the real Torah that has not been changed. Muslims believe in all of the Prophets, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all. If the followers of Moses have been promised a right to Palestine in the Torah, then the Muslims are the most worthy nation of this.

When the Muslims conquered Palestine and drove out the Romans, Palestine and Jerusalem returned to Islaam, the religion of all the Prophets peace be upon them. Therefore, the call to a historical right to Palestine cannot be raised against the Islamic Ummah that believes in all the Prophets of Allah (peace and blessings be upon them) - and we make no distinction between them.

(iii) The blood pouring out of Palestine must be equally revenged. You must know that the Palestinians do not cry alone; their women are not widowed alone; their sons are not orphaned alone.

(b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.

(c) Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis;

(i) These governments prevent our people from establishing the Islamic Shariah, using violence and lies to do so.

(ii) These governments give us a taste of humiliation, and places us in a large prison of fear and subdual.

(iii) These governments steal our Ummah's wealth and sell them to you at a paltry price.

(iv) These governments have surrendered to the Jews, and handed them most of Palestine, acknowledging the existence of their state over the dismembered limbs of their own people.

(v) The removal of these governments is an obligation upon us, and a necessary step to free the Ummah, to make the Shariah the supreme law and to regain Palestine. And our fight against these governments is not separate from out fight against you.

(d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of you international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.

(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.

(f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down.

(g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there. With your help and under your protection, the Israelis are planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque. Under the protection of your weapons, Sharon entered the Al-Aqsa mosque, to pollute it as a preparation to capture and destroy it.

Ugly Duck
07-30-2007, 07:46 AM
Interesting that Rudy brings that up cuz I've been kind of wondering lately if maybe our support of Israel has pissed off some Muslims.... its a possibility....

BucEyedPea
07-30-2007, 08:07 AM
I have nothing to add

This poll has been done before.

Why don't you just refer back to that one?

IIRC:

Are you a conservative?

Are you a liberal?

Other?

and the GAZ option.

You will get the same results.

Or

Are you an Evangelical?


I mean come on polls in the ME show they don't hate us for our "freedoms".
They actually admire democracy ( which would be sharia law for them) and our institutions but not our permissive culture. ( <----just like the Evangelicals) Polls come out at 80%. But when asked about our policies in the ME the numbers plummet.

BucEyedPea
07-30-2007, 08:12 AM
Your contention is that the Bush administration was the one poking the hornets nest? That is a very weak argument.
It began with Bush Senior, in terms of terror being brought to our mainland...or should I say "homeland." Has a better ring? He should have never left permanent US military bases on Saudi soil on their holy lands after PGWI. ( a pansy UN police action.)


It's my opinion that our war with the jihadists started in 1962.
I'd go back earlier. And I'd say secular Arab nationalism died when Israel won the 1967 war. They won the war but not the peace. Radical Islam rose and the terror movement in response to that loss.

And it just keeps on going, and going, and going.

Nightwish
07-30-2007, 08:14 AM
Interesting that Rudy brings that up cuz I've been kind of wondering lately if maybe our support of Israel has pissed off some Muslims.... its a possibility....
Since bin Laden is on record as saying exactly that before, I'd say it is a strong possibility.

Taco John
07-30-2007, 08:16 AM
Your contention is that the Bush administration was the one poking the hornets nest? That is a very weak argument.

I don't honestly think it is the foreign policy, it's more in line with the freedoms we have in the U.S. Freedom for our women to bear all when ever they want to. The decadent manner in which we flaunt sexuality. The way we have the self righteous that our freedoms are not offensive to anyone else and the idea that they have no reason to be offended.

It's my opinion that our war with the jihadists started in 1962.



Shut up Tom... I'm not talking to you.

Cochise
07-30-2007, 08:17 AM
It's pretty lame to make this an all or nothing proposition. Although, it does fit very well if you want the only two choices to be, "It's all our fault" or "I hate muslims."

And even if our foreign policy did have something to do with it, that doesn't mean we ought to run back inside and lock the door, and beg them through the mail slot not to hurt us.

That being said, I think that even without whatever foreign policy they were angry about, these groups would still welcome the chance to attack us. We're evil, after all, the great satan, what with our televisions and alcohol and loose women and secular government and all the other abominations we have over here. They have been trying to attack us since the early 90s at least, it's not like some recent policy shift in August 2000 all of a sudden pissed them off.

And more than anything they are probably being fed all kinds of propaganda in the middle east through state-run media saying we're backing the baby-eating debbil Israelis no matter what. The United States is some kind of tall tale over there, I'd be willing to wager.

But to people like Al Queda, in their minds our culture is the embodiment of all they oppose. It wouldn't matter if we had some isolationist foreign policy, they would still think we needed to be slaughtered like all the other infidels.

Frankie
07-30-2007, 08:44 AM
I see recxjake has voted without posting. :hmmm:

BucEyedPea
07-30-2007, 09:07 AM
It's pretty lame to make this an all or nothing proposition. Although, it does fit very well if you want the only two choices to be, "It's all our fault" or "I hate muslims."
Who said "ALL our fault?"
Benito Guiliani is saying it had " nothing" to do with it.
BTW, it's not the American people who's doing it. It's flawed govt policy, pushed by special interests for that area.
If we have any responsibility it's to find out who is supporting it and vote accordingly.

And even if our foreign policy did have something to do with it, that doesn't mean we ought to run back inside and lock the door, and beg them through the mail slot not to hurt us.
"Something? " You won't even admit to just something?
Defending this country does not require social engineering a " new Middle East " either. Putting in democracy has put more fundamentalist Islamists in power. (Iraq)

That being said, I think that even without whatever foreign policy they were angry about, these groups would still welcome the chance to attack us. We're evil, after all, the great satan, what with our televisions and alcohol and loose women and secular government and all the other abominations we have over here.
That's the line of the religous right too, stemming from their historical rancour and blind support for defending Israel, when she should defend herself. I draw the line when our troops have to die for a teeny rigidly-socialist faraway ethnocracy when the rest of us have to live with open borders.

Some say the west has always been at war with Eurasia. There's truth in that, but why? Anyway, I say it flies in the face of modern hisorical events. As for being the great Satan, that has more to do than what you listed. They may not like what they consider cultural depravity, however, it has far more to do with puppet regimes, overthrow of some of their govts (Iran), western betrayal on agreements and our CIA's complicity with torture. Yet we decry them when their SHs torture.


They have been trying to attack us since the early 90s at least, it's not like some recent policy shift in the August 2000 all of a sudden pissed them off.
That's right—which is date coincident to leaving troops on Saud soil/holy lands. Even Wolfowitz said it was creating a lot of trouble. Can't you see that connection?

And more than anything they are probably being fed all kinds of propaganda in the middle east through state-run media saying we're backing the baby-eating debbil Israelis no matter what. The United States is some kind of tall tale over there, I'd be willing to wager.
That's happening on both sides. All wars use propaganda.
Our corporate media, in particular Murdoch's neo-conservative Fox News which has been outrageous in it's subtle but misplaced falsehoods and half-truths, has not been asking hard questions. The average journalist would be cut off from govt info if they did. Let's not forget that Rudy works for Murdoch's parent company over Fox. He's Murdoch's puppet.

But to people like Al Queda, in their minds our culture is the embodiment of all they oppose. It wouldn't matter if we had some isolationist foreign policy, they would still think we needed to be slaughtered like all the other infidels.
Bin Laden says troops on their lands, foreign occupation is their chief complaint...everything else is a secondary complaint.

The best policy is to let them live as they want inside their own borders. Trade with them. And have ships in the area not too close to their borders. Try to work with Israeli moderates as well as Arab moderates to chock off the extremists on both sides. Not a perfect solution but much better than supporting Likud, (Sharon, Olmhert,Bibi) many who want all of Palestine just like some Muslims.

jAZ
07-30-2007, 09:16 AM
I see recxjake has voted without posting. :hmmm:
Actually, Jake hasn't voted yet.

Taco John
07-30-2007, 09:19 AM
It's pretty lame to make this an all or nothing proposition. Although, it does fit very well if you want the only two choices to be, "It's all our fault" or "I hate muslims."

And even if our foreign policy did have something to do with it, that doesn't mean we ought to run back inside and lock the door, and beg them through the mail slot not to hurt us.

That being said, I think that even without whatever foreign policy they were angry about, these groups would still welcome the chance to attack us. We're evil, after all, the great satan, what with our televisions and alcohol and loose women and secular government and all the other abominations we have over here. They have been trying to attack us since the early 90s at least, it's not like some recent policy shift in August 2000 all of a sudden pissed them off.

And more than anything they are probably being fed all kinds of propaganda in the middle east through state-run media saying we're backing the baby-eating debbil Israelis no matter what. The United States is some kind of tall tale over there, I'd be willing to wager.

But to people like Al Queda, in their minds our culture is the embodiment of all they oppose. It wouldn't matter if we had some isolationist foreign policy, they would still think we needed to be slaughtered like all the other infidels.



I read things like this, and I think "how do these smart people even function in the morning to get themselves dressed?" August 2000? Where in the world have you gotten the idea that anybody believes this started due to anything that happened starting in August of 2000?

By the way... No one says it's "all our fault."

You guys can't even have an honest conversation about this stuff. I suspect that's a big part of the reason why Americans have started turning their backs on Republicans.

Cochise
07-30-2007, 09:31 AM
I read things like this, and I think "how do these smart people even function in the morning to get themselves dressed?" August 2000? Where in the world have you gotten the idea that anybody believes this started due to anything that happened starting in August of 2000?

By the way... No one says it's "all our fault."

You guys can't even have an honest conversation about this stuff. I suspect that's a big part of the reason why Americans have started turning their backs on Republicans.

I was referring to the poll. There's no "some part of each" option. There are only two choices - it's either our fault, or you're a bigot.

Taco John
07-30-2007, 09:33 AM
I was referring to the poll. There's no "some part of each" option. There are only two choices - it's either our fault, or you're a bigot.



You should try reading the options again:

"Rudy's an idiot if he believes 9/11 had nothing to do with our foreign policy"



Where do you get "it's all our fault" out of that?

jAZ
07-30-2007, 09:46 AM
I was referring to the poll. There's no "some part of each" option. There are only two choices - it's either our fault, or you're a bigot.
Actually, it's either "American foreign policy had NOTHING to do with Sept 11th..." or Rudy is an idiot for saying something so absolute and well, absolutely stupid.

jAZ
07-30-2007, 10:32 AM
So jake... do you think our strong relationship supporting Isreal, or our establishing permanant bases in Saudi Arabia has *anything* to do with Bin Laden's motivations to attack us on 9/11?

jAZ
07-30-2007, 10:34 AM
What about our Marine Barracks in Lebanon?

BucEyedPea
07-30-2007, 10:48 AM
What about our Marine Barracks in Lebanon?
After which our pull-out by Reagan led to attacks dying down.
There's a good article over at the Independent Institute, that shows when we stop certain actions or policies these attacks DO die down. Attacks soared again during PGWI, then died down. When bases were established they went up again. The insurgency in Iraq is also fueled by US occupation, the building of 14 permanent bases and an embassy the size of the Vatical. If I had the time, I'd put in a chart to show the date-coincidence of such things.

Frankie
07-30-2007, 10:48 AM
Actually, Jake hasn't voted yet.
1- How do you know?
2- Do you actually mean there's another one out there in love with Rudy the transdresser?

Nightwish
07-30-2007, 10:56 AM
1- How do you know?It's a public poll, just click on the number of votes for either option, and it'll tell you who voted for which. I don't know if Jake had voted at the time jAZ said he hadn't, and Cleveland Bronco was the first to vote the first option, but Jake has voted since then, and true to form, he voted the "if Rudy said it, it's gospel" option. I agree with Cochise, for once, that it isn't an "all our fault" or "all their fault" issue, but I find it awfully hard to believe that anybody would believe the first option, that 9/11 had NOTHING to do with our foreign policy (which is what Rudy claims). That's naivete of the highest order!

Cochise
07-30-2007, 10:57 AM
Actually, it's either "American foreign policy had NOTHING to do with Sept 11th..." or Rudy is an idiot for saying something so absolute and well, absolutely stupid.

I read it partially wrong, I guess. It's still kind of silly in that the poll's language is loaded and obviously intended to align everyone against the big bad republican. At least one middle option would be useful in providing a gradient.

Nightwish
07-30-2007, 11:00 AM
I read it partially wrong, I guess. It's still kind of silly in that the poll's language is loaded and obviously intended to align everyone against the big bad republican. At least one middle option would be useful in providing a gradient.
Since we have it straight from bin Laden's mouth that our foreign policy wrt Israel was a major determining factor in 9/11, then it would be kind of a waste to include a "maybe" option, as it would be tantamount to voting, "Gee, I haven't watched the news or picked up a newspaper since Hector was a pup!"

Frankie
07-30-2007, 11:05 AM
It's a public poll, just click on the number of votes for either option, and it'll tell you who voted for which.
I guess this old dog can be taught something new. Thanks, I never knew that.

Logical
07-30-2007, 11:08 AM
I was referring to the poll. There's no "some part of each" option. There are only two choices - it's either our fault, or you're a bigot.

Seriously, how do you read that into the poll?:rolleyes:

Logical
07-30-2007, 11:12 AM
I read it partially wrong, I guess. It's still kind of silly in that the poll's language is loaded and obviously intended to align everyone against the big bad republican. At least one middle option would be useful in providing a gradient.

Well if the poll was worded completely differently and Rudy's opinion was not the actual subject you might be right. However since Rudy did not provide a gradient that makes little sense either.

Logical
07-30-2007, 11:14 AM
Right now it appears that only recxjake (big suprise) and Cleveland Bronco support Rudy's nutcase statement.

And people thought Ron Paul's statement in that one debate was nutty.:rolleyes:

Duck Dog
07-30-2007, 12:51 PM
Some would blame Americas policy towards Israel while others blame the lunacy of a f u c k e d up religion hell bent on world domination.

Our policies are no excuse for what these barbaric animals do.

ClevelandBronco
07-30-2007, 01:41 PM
If "foreign policy" includes our weak response to the first WTC bombing, then I'll give you a "Maybe." Otherwise, I'm not buying it.

BucEyedPea
07-30-2007, 01:42 PM
Some would blame Americas policy towards Israel while others blame the lunacy of a f u c k e d up religion hell bent on world domination.

Our policies are no excuse for what these barbaric animals do.
Sorry, but it takes two to tango, and sometimes 3 or more like interests in the region that are out for themselves. Both sides could take responsibility where they could take some. In the end it's still their turf, so stay off it or pay the consequences. Blowback is just the laws of unintended consequences. If conservatives can claim this is true of much legislation then why is it any different with foreign policy.

I'd agree that their desert, tribal culture of blood feuds even between families and clans is barbaric and tends to color their religion. That's their justice system. They are not like us and it's hard for us to understand such customs let alone have to fight that mentality directly. I know I don't want to. It's not worth it to me. I'd rather just let them be to some extent.

But that's just another reason to not tangle excessively in the region beyond trade. We can't expect everybody to be like that, any more than the violence of other primitive societies ( for example in Africa).

So both sides need to make some adjustments. I say us first. Just get troops out at least. Not one residual troop.

Pitt Gorilla
07-30-2007, 01:44 PM
Nobody, and I mean nobody, is stupid enough to truly believe that our foreign policy had NOTHING to do with the attack. Some might think it was a minor factor, but I can't imagine someone thinking that it had nothing to do with it.

noa
07-30-2007, 01:49 PM
If "foreign policy" includes our weak response to the first WTC bombing, then I'll give you a "Maybe." Otherwise, I'm not buying it.

I'm interested in why you think this. You don't think our foreign policy was a factor at all? Do you think 9/11 happened because they hate our freedom of religion and our freedom for women?

StcChief
07-30-2007, 02:20 PM
So this goes all the way back to 1970s. Iran hostages under Jimmy. Beruit and on and on.

Blame game on everyone. all Foreign policy issues. We give in to everybody. And when we dont they are pissed

noa
07-30-2007, 02:24 PM
So this goes all the way back to 1970s. Iran hostages under Jimmy. Beruit and on and on.

Blame game on everyone. all Foreign policy issues. We give in to everybody. And when we dont they are pissed

I don't think people are blaming it ALL on foreign policy. Rather, that foreign policy was at least one factor among several. But Rudy refuses to acknowledge this. The only motivation he acknowledges is their hatred for our freedom.

ClevelandBronco
07-30-2007, 02:43 PM
I'm interested in why you think this. You don't think our foreign policy was a factor at all?

Not to an important degree. I think WTC was primarily a recruitment tool that went bad for them.

Do you think 9/11 happened because they hate our freedom of religion and our freedom for women?

No, they probably hate the rulers of their own governments more than they hate us. Our foreign policy doesn't affect the average Arab to anywhere near the extent that the Saudi princes do. It's just easier to market the idea that we (and, of course, Israel) are the problem.

IMO, they were primarily trying to energize their own people into joining the cause so they could first gain control over their own regional governments. With that accomplished, they could have dealt from a position of advantage over the infidels, both economically (oil) and militarily (Pakistan's nukes).

But instead of just punching a couple of cartoon-like airplane-shaped holes in a symbolic building, they brought WTC down to the ground and killed thousands in the process. The symbol that they wanted to leave standing in NYC turned inside out against them and it became a rallying point for us. Also, they ran headfirst into a U.S. administration that didn't react the way they expected and they lost the one government (Afghanistan's) that was openly friendly.

I think all out war with the U.S. really wasn't on their schedule for a while. They weren't strong enough for that yet, but I think they saw a way to get that strong. It just didn't work out very well for them.

Now we're reading that al Qaeda is approaching their pre-9/11 strength. So they're just now getting back to where they were six years ago (less one friendly government)? I'm guessing that's probably not what they had in mind.

At any rate, they're real, they're stupid and they're angry. If they're stupid enough to try anything here again, I hope we can still get angry enough to do what we have to do.

HolmeZz
07-30-2007, 03:03 PM
while others blame the lunacy of a f u c k e d up religion hell bent on world domination.

Let's leave Christianity out of this.

Silock
07-30-2007, 03:04 PM
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CUod3jGQt0U"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CUod3jGQt0U" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

noa
07-30-2007, 03:23 PM
ClevelandBronco, this link was posted in another thread and I think its pretty relevant.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/7/24/212905.shtml?s=al&promo_code=379B-1

Its an interview with Michael Scheuer, the retired CIA veteran who headed the agency's secret unit dedicated to capturing Osama bin Laden.

Here one relevant quote:

I think that if you matched the real motivation - which I believe is the impact of our foreign policy in the Muslim world - with the assessment that the threat is growing, I think that people can better understand that…

When Mr. [Ron] Paul tried to raise that in the [GOP] debate in South Carolina, [Rudy] Giuliani suggested that any contention that we were responsible for any of this motivation of the enemy was unpatriotic.

Saggysack
07-30-2007, 03:32 PM
So this goes all the way back to 1970s. Iran hostages under Jimmy. Beruit and on and on.

Blame game on everyone. all Foreign policy issues. We give in to everybody. And when we dont they are pissed

Actually, 1953 with the U.S. and British successful coup of the Iran's first democratically elected Govt., and the installation of the Shah.

Nightwish
07-30-2007, 03:39 PM
So this goes all the way back to 1970s. Iran hostages under Jimmy. Beruit and on and on.

Blame game on everyone. all Foreign policy issues. We give in to everybody. And when we dont they are pissed
Actually, it goes back at least to the 1940s and our unapologetic role in the dubious establishment of the state of Israel. Thousands of people were forcefully ejected from their homes using means ranging from strongarmed coercion to the murder of whole families by the Israeli Haganah, with help from British and American troops, to make way for the Israeli state. These weren't people who had any role in the Holocaust, nor people who had fought against us during the war, they were people who were lowly farmers and traders, most of whom had remained neutral during the war, and some of whom had fought at our sides. Rather than taking a sensible approach and partitioning parts of Germany and Austria (the countries that had been responsible for the Holocaust) to create the new Jewish state, they instead took a nonsensical approach and partioned (without their permission) parts of nations that had nothing to do with the plight of the Jews, all because of some antiquated notion about divine provenance. It is quite understandable why so many people think that Israel is not a legitimate state. If you think about what we did to the Native Americans during the 18th and 19th centuries, it's a strong parallel. It's to the Native Americans' credit that they didn't resort to similar tactics as the islamists to rid themselves of their particular "white devils," but if they had, I doubt there are many who would fail to understand why. Thus it amazes me that so few people can comprehend how the islamists could possibly be bitter at us about the disrespect and mess we helped foment between Israel and their neighbors. That's one of the biggest problems I have with Republicans, they tend to take a blockheaded approach to international affairs. There's no attempt or desire to understand where anti-American sentiment roots from; easier instead to just invent crap like they hate us for our freedom!

ClevelandBronco
07-30-2007, 03:41 PM
...but why do they want face us from a power of power? If that is their goal, don't you think they intend to treat us as an enemy?...If so, why are we their enemy? Because of our freedoms?...

Yes, we're their enemy. So is every other government in the world to a greater or lesser degree.

You're free to call that "hating us for our freedoms" if you want to.

ClevelandBronco
07-30-2007, 03:46 PM
...There's no attempt or desire to understand where anti-American sentiment roots from...

I understand that that's their story, I just don't believe that Israel is their problem. And even if they're convinced that it is, I don't particularly care.

dirk digler
07-30-2007, 03:51 PM
I understand that that's their story, I just don't believe that Israel is their problem. And even if they're convinced that it is, I don't particularly care.

I don't understand why you don't believe it. On the first page I posted a letter from Osama Bin Laden that states exactly that.

The thing is I don't care either but to say that our foreign policy is not part of the reason why they hate America is beyond stupid.

noa
07-30-2007, 03:55 PM
Yes, we're their enemy. So is every other government in the world to a greater or lesser degree.

You're free to call that "hating us for our freedoms" if you want to.

Do you think they want us off their land? Do you think that is possibly a motivation for them, or not at all?

ClevelandBronco
07-30-2007, 03:57 PM
I don't understand why you don't believe it. On the first page I posted a letter from Osama Bin Laden that states exactly that.

The thing is I don't care either but to say that our foreign policy is not part of the reason why they hate America is beyond stupid.

Take Bin Laden's word for it? No, thanks.

dirk digler
07-30-2007, 04:00 PM
Take Bin Laden's word for it? No, thanks.

LMAO

Why the hell not? THE POTUS takes his word for it when he talks about AQ in Iraq so that isn't good enough for you?

ClevelandBronco
07-30-2007, 04:00 PM
Do you think they want us off their land? Do you think that is possibly a motivation for them, or not at all?

They don't have any land. The land is governed by others.

noa
07-30-2007, 04:03 PM
They don't have any land. The land is governed by others.

So you don't think there are members of Al Qaeda who want the U.S. off Saudi soil?

What do you think of U.S. intelligence experts who say that our foreign policy and its effect on the Muslim world is at least one motivation for terrorism? Are they just wrong?

Nightwish
07-30-2007, 04:16 PM
No, they probably hate the rulers of their own governments more than they hate us.
I don't know about "more." They certainly hated Saddam, and bin Laden was recorded calling for a jihad against him, promising reward to whoever took Saddam's head. But he was still willing to talk to him (but apparently couldn't get past their differences enough to actually work together) when they found themselves on the same side of the war against the US.

Our foreign policy doesn't affect the average Arab to anywhere near the extent that the Saudi princes do. It's just easier to market the idea that we (and, of course, Israel) are the problem.
True, but they haven't exactly ignored the Saudi princes in their recruitment efforts, either. They've made some very visible attacks against the Saudis in recent years, and bin Laden hasn't been shy about denouncing them in his rants.

IMO, they were primarily trying to energize their own people into joining the cause so they could first gain control over their own regional governments. With that accomplished, they could have dealt from a position of advantage over the infidels, both economically (oil) and militarily (Pakistan's nukes).
Agreed.

But instead of just punching a couple of cartoon-like airplane-shaped holes in a symbolic building, they brought WTC down to the ground and killed thousands in the process. The symbol that they wanted to leave standing in NYC turned inside out against them and it became a rallying point for us.
Yep, handed us worldwide support such as we'd never seen on a silver platter. If we had had a more capable government at the time, we might not have squandered it so quickly.

Also, they ran headfirst into a U.S. administration that didn't react the way they expected
You're right about that, but probably not in the way you intended. I have no doubt that they fully expected retaliation, and the scale to which we retaliated probably didn't surprise them much. If there was anything that would have likely surprised them, it is the degree to which we f'd it up, and the quickness with which we turned our attention away from bin Laden to focus on parties uninvolved with 9/11.

and they lost the one government (Afghanistan's) that was openly friendly.
If you've paid much attention to the news lately, I'd say Afghanistan is still very much in play for them. They have lost it for the moment, but we haven't gained it, so it could easily slip back to the Taliban.

I think all out war with the U.S. really wasn't on their schedule for a while.
They aren't in an all out war with the US. The only place where we are involved in anything that could be described as an all-out war (other than a war of words), is in Iraq, and only a very small percentage of Al Qaeda's forces and resources are concentrated there. If we were to wipe out Al Qaeda's entire presence in Iraq, it would hardly affect the organization overall.

They weren't strong enough for that yet, but I think they saw a way to get that strong.
They still aren't strong enough for that. But to their credit, they've created a new paradigm (or at least brought an old one from marginalization to prominance) which we obviously don't understand and don't know how to fight. Think about our own revolution, where our forces were scrappy locals who didn't fight in uniforms and tidy formations, but employed hit-and-run guerilla tactics (that we'd probably call terrorism today if the roles were reversed). Today, we're the redcoats, and they are the colonists, in terms of fighting styles. Add to the mix a religious fanaticism that is alien to us, and the task becomes even more daunting. Toss in social conditions that can easily be exploited by a skilled propaganda machine, and suddenly you've got one very formidable, and largely invisible, foe.

It just didn't work out very well for them.
Seems to have worked well enough.

Now we're reading that al Qaeda is approaching their pre-9/11 strength.
Actually, we're reading that they've already reached it, if not surpassed it.

So they're just now getting back to where they were six years ago (less one friendly government)? I'm guessing that's probably not what they had in mind.
From what I've seen, the finding wasn't that they are only just now getting back to those levels. It was that our analysis up to now has been wrong, and that despite all our redoubled efforts to curb the growth of Al Qaeda, they've mostly managed to just sidestep. We never seriously dented their numbers.

At any rate, they're real, they're stupid and they're angry.
Well, you got two out of three right, anyway. Stupid, they ain't. Despite our best efforts, they've sidestepped us every step of the way. Osama has managed to escape our clutches in Yemen (thanks to a Yemeni government reneging on an agreement with Clinton) and in Tora Bora with a skill that would make Houdini take notice. That doesn't sound like "stupid" to me.

If they're stupid enough to try anything here again, I hope we can still get angry enough to do what we have to do.
If they do, hopefully we'll have an administration in power that will be able to get us off the island we've made for ourselves in the world, and get the rest of the planet at our backs again.

Nightwish
07-30-2007, 04:20 PM
I understand that that's their story, I just don't believe that Israel is their problem. And even if they're convinced that it is, I don't particularly care.
Of course Israel is their problem. We're not talking about a nation or a national identity here. The whole of the Muslim world, especially specifically Muslim states is their "country." And if what they perceive as a Muslim state (whether the UN recognizes Palestine as a state has no bearing on the matter) has a problem with Israel, then so do they. If you want to understand why they think the way they do, you have to learn to think like they do, not like we do, to see it from their perspective, not from what you believe would be your perspective if their lands and governments were yours.

noa
07-30-2007, 04:30 PM
I think some people are concerned that if we acknowledge the terrorists' motivations, it will seem like we are caving to their demands. But nobody is suggesting total retreat and asking for forgiveness. Its just important to know your enemy, and willful ignorance will not help us in this struggle IMO.

Duck Dog
07-30-2007, 04:35 PM
Sorry, but it takes two to tango, and sometimes 3 or more like interests in the region that are out for themselves. Both sides could take responsibility where they could take some. In the end it's still their turf, so stay off it or pay the consequences. Blowback is just the laws of unintended consequences. If conservatives can claim this is true of much legislation then why is it any different with foreign policy.

I'd agree that their desert, tribal culture of blood feuds even between families and clans is barbaric and tends to color their religion. That's their justice system. They are not like us and it's hard for us to understand such customs let alone have to fight that mentality directly. I know I don't want to. It's not worth it to me. I'd rather just let them be to some extent.

But that's just another reason to not tangle excessively in the region beyond trade. We can't expect everybody to be like that, any more than the violence of other primitive societies ( for example in Africa).

So both sides need to make some adjustments. I say us first. Just get troops out at least. Not one residual troop.

I'm not talking about what the desert dwelling tribes do to one another. I'm speaking of what the educated Muslim does to innocent civilians because he has taken his religion past the realm of reality and sanity. I realize our military presence in the ME and our favoritism of Israel are core components of their excuses, however it is ultimately their religious beliefs that lead them to commit horrific acts.

Duck Dog
07-30-2007, 04:35 PM
Let's leave Christianity out of this.


You're not serious? You probably are. :shake:

Nightwish
07-30-2007, 04:37 PM
I think some people are concerned that if we acknowledge the terrorists' motivations, it will seem like we are caving to their demands. But nobody is suggesting total retreat and asking for forgiveness. Its just important to know your enemy, and willful ignorance will not help us in this struggle IMO.
I've said it before, but if we can understand the real conditions that have bred such discontent in the hearts and minds of the Muslim people, the conditions that Al Qaeda et al. have been successful and exploiting, we can work toward alleviating some of those conditions, and if successful, can essentiall steal away the carrot that the recruiters have been dangling. That won't happen, of course, as long as the people running things, and the people who elect them, don't want to understand.

ClevelandBronco
07-30-2007, 04:42 PM
I'm not talking about what the desert dwelling tribes do to one another. I'm speaking of what the educated Muslim does to innocent civilians because he has taken his religion past the realm of reality and sanity. I realize our military presence in the ME and our favoritism of Israel are core components of their excuses, however it is ultimately their religious beliefs that lead them to commit horrific acts.

I agree.

Nightwish
07-30-2007, 04:43 PM
You're not serious? You probably are. :shake:
While Christianity today (with a few radical exceptions) is not on a par with the Islam of today, the Christianity of the past could certainly be said to have been. And there are certainly plenty of Christians who would love to see the world solely in the grip of Christianity. Whether there is any organized group of Christians with any real means to pursue such a goal is another story, but the same is true of Muslims - there is zero, I repeat ZERO evidence that there is any such movement among Muslims "hell-bent on world domination." As for the "f'd up religion" part, I'd say the argument can be readily made for just about any religion you can name, so in a word, yes, Christianity fits the bill as neatly as any other, and more neatly than most.

Nightwish
07-30-2007, 04:45 PM
I'm not talking about what the desert dwelling tribes do to one another. I'm speaking of what the educated Muslim does to innocent civilians because he has taken his religion past the realm of reality and sanity. I realize our military presence in the ME and our favoritism of Israel are core components of their excuses, however it is ultimately their religious beliefs that lead them to commit horrific acts.
I'm going to assume here that you're not trying to equate "educated Muslims" with radical islamists, to a man. And providing that that's not what you're trying to do, I agree with you.

HolmeZz
07-30-2007, 04:54 PM
You're not serious? You probably are. :shake:

I saw you denigrating a whole religion. It looked like fun so I joined in.

I guess it's not as fun when it relates to you though.

a1na2
07-30-2007, 05:10 PM
Or

Are you an Evangelical?


I mean come on polls in the ME show they don't hate us for our "freedoms".
They actually admire democracy ( which would be sharia law for them) and our institutions but not our permissive culture. ( <----just like the Evangelicals) Polls come out at 80%. But when asked about our policies in the ME the numbers plummet.

No, I'm a Christian.

The war isn't with the Middle Easterners, it's with the radical fringe.

a1na2
07-30-2007, 05:13 PM
Shut up Tom... I'm not talking to you.

That's good! I value your inability to run wild like this on your own board. You post stuff here that you don't allow on your own board.

Yes Jane, I'm a member of your board and post daily. I'm pretty sure you don't have a clue as to who I am there. Start your IP search.

a1na2
07-30-2007, 05:20 PM
It's difficult to vote when you don't cover the range of possibilities. But that seems to be the way most politically motivated polls are created. Only options that are win win for the poll writer.

This poll is only a way to draw out arguments. Some of the arguments would be interesting if there was any way of meeting in the middle. Usually both sides have some semblance of fact intertwined in the opinions, too bad that the views from each side are so incompatible that no real conclusions can be made.

noa
07-30-2007, 05:32 PM
It's difficult to vote when you don't cover the range of possibilities. But that seems to be the way most politically motivated polls are created. Only options that are win win for the poll writer.

This poll is only a way to draw out arguments. Some of the arguments would be interesting if there was any way of meeting in the middle. Usually both sides have some semblance of fact intertwined in the opinions, too bad that the views from each side are so incompatible that no real conclusions can be made.

I think the two sides are incompatible by definition. One side believes that our foreign policy was at least a bit of a factor in 9/11. This side can disagree over the extent of the impact of our foreign policies. Some believe it was the main reason while others believe it played a smaller role. IMO, this is where the interesting conversations and debates can occur.

The other side refuses to believe that our foreign policies had ANY impact at all, contrary to the opinions expressed by U.S. intelligence experts and by Bin Laden himself.

Sully
07-30-2007, 05:49 PM
It's difficult to vote when you don't cover the range of possibilities. But that seems to be the way most politically motivated polls are created. Only options that are win win for the poll writer.

This poll is only a way to draw out arguments. Some of the arguments would be interesting if there was any way of meeting in the middle. Usually both sides have some semblance of fact intertwined in the opinions, too bad that the views from each side are so incompatible that no real conclusions can be made.
I'm not sure in what world this poll does not cover the entire range of possibilities. It's much like asking the question, "Does 1+1=2?" The answer is yes or no. When a word like "All" or "Nothing" is emphasized, that is the absolute position... there are no gradients here. It's simple. Either you think it has NOTHING to do with it, or it has something. The discussion lies in the amount... the purpose was to find out who actually believes the NOTHING proposition.

By the way.....
...Cali.

a1na2
07-30-2007, 05:53 PM
I think the two sides are incompatible by definition. One side believes that our foreign policy was at least a bit of a factor in 9/11. This side can disagree over the extent of the impact of our foreign policies. Some believe it was the main reason while others believe it played a smaller role. IMO, this is where the interesting conversations and debates can occur.

The other side refuses to believe that our foreign policies had ANY impact at all, contrary to the opinions expressed by U.S. intelligence experts and by Bin Laden himself.

That's not entirely true. Many of those that are conservative understand the total situation, I find it amusing that each side will continually say that the other is completely ignorant of their stance.

In the long run it doesn't really matter what we think or post here as none of us, that I can determine, has done thing one to help find a way out of the situation. There has been plenty of recommendations by both sides here but to date I'd bet there are zero hours being devoted to any more than arguing on this board or others with similar forums.

Until there is a political party that stands clear of both of the major party lines and takes a stand for the American people we will be stuck in this quagmire.

Dave Lane
07-30-2007, 06:59 PM
A few years ago, I would not believe for a second that our foreign policy bad. It has EVERYTHING to do with 9/11. I bought all that, "The terrorists hate us for our freedoms," BS. We need to get our ignorant asses out of the ME and leave those nutjobs alone.


Amen!

Dave

Hydrae
07-30-2007, 07:01 PM
Not to an important degree. I think WTC was primarily a recruitment tool that went bad for them.



No, they probably hate the rulers of their own governments more than they hate us. Our foreign policy doesn't affect the average Arab to anywhere near the extent that the Saudi princes do. It's just easier to market the idea that we (and, of course, Israel) are the problem.

IMO, they were primarily trying to energize their own people into joining the cause so they could first gain control over their own regional governments. With that accomplished, they could have dealt from a position of advantage over the infidels, both economically (oil) and militarily (Pakistan's nukes).

But instead of just punching a couple of cartoon-like airplane-shaped holes in a symbolic building, they brought WTC down to the ground and killed thousands in the process. The symbol that they wanted to leave standing in NYC turned inside out against them and it became a rallying point for us. Also, they ran headfirst into a U.S. administration that didn't react the way they expected and they lost the one government (Afghanistan's) that was openly friendly.

I think all out war with the U.S. really wasn't on their schedule for a while. They weren't strong enough for that yet, but I think they saw a way to get that strong. It just didn't work out very well for them.

Now we're reading that al Qaeda is approaching their pre-9/11 strength. So they're just now getting back to where they were six years ago (less one friendly government)? I'm guessing that's probably not what they had in mind.

At any rate, they're real, they're stupid and they're angry. If they're stupid enough to try anything here again, I hope we can still get angry enough to do what we have to do.


You know, I don't think I have seen much if any discussion on how and why Al Queda (whichever spelling is correct) continues to grow. If we are making headway in this GWOT how can their numbers be growing? Could it be that this is not the way to combat terrorists? :hmmm:

a1na2
07-30-2007, 07:21 PM
I'm not sure in what world this poll does not cover the entire range of possibilities. It's much like asking the question, "Does 1+1=2?" The answer is yes or no. When a word like "All" or "Nothing" is emphasized, that is the absolute position... there are no gradients here. It's simple. Either you think it has NOTHING to do with it, or it has something. The discussion lies in the amount... [b]the purpose was to find out who actually believes the NOTHING proposition.[B]



Not really, the purpose was to ridicule those that voted that U.S. Policy had nothing to do with the attacks.

The way the questions were worded made the intent very obvious. It's a shame that you guys can't do things on the up and up to prove your points. I understand it's the liberal agenda, but that doesn't make it right.

BTW, who gives a rip if you think Cali? I don't.

Sully
07-30-2007, 07:22 PM
Not really, the purpose was to ridicule those that voted that U.S. Policy had nothing to do with the attacks.

The way the questions were worded made the intent very obvious. It's a shame that you guys can't do things on the up and up to prove your points. I understand it's the liberal agenda, but that doesn't make it right.

BTW, who gives a rip if you think Cali? I don't.
LOL
You are a paranoid loon. The intent of the poll was evident from the beginning. It was based on a direct quote from Giuliani.

a1na2
07-30-2007, 07:23 PM
Right Tom. Ron Paul is a liberal. Got it. Black or white only.



This is exactly why we need to legalize marijuana.

The post wasn't intended to drag in the libertarian party, or any other party. As I posted, this was just something to ridicule those that do not follow the liberal agenda.

a1na2
07-30-2007, 07:24 PM
LOL
You are a paranoid loon. The intent of the poll was evident from the beginning. It was based on a direct quote from Giuliani.

That doesn't matter. The poll was not an attempt to ridicule Guiliani it was a method to take a cheap shot at conservatives.

Name calling, how quaint.

Fishpicker
07-30-2007, 07:27 PM
That doesn't matter. The poll was not an attempt to ridicule Guiliani it was a method to take a cheap shot at conservatives.

Name calling, how quaint.

you're wrong. both sides of the argument originated within the conservative party.

Sully
07-30-2007, 07:27 PM
That doesn't matter. The poll was not an attempt to ridicule Guiliani it was a method to take a cheap shot at conservatives.

Name calling, how quaint.
It's a cheap shot at Rudy, as well as anyone who agrees with him.
If you are so paranoid to believe it isn't, you deserve the paranoid loon label.

a1na2
07-30-2007, 07:54 PM
It's a cheap shot at Rudy, as well as anyone who agrees with him.
If you are so paranoid to believe it isn't, you deserve the paranoid loon label.

You have just proven my point. You don't know what I believe as you haven't read anything I've posted. You react to the name rather than the content.

Sully
07-30-2007, 07:56 PM
What are you talking about. How is this confusing to you.
I know that you don't believe this thread is about Rudy (which is what it is) because of my great mind reading... or because that WHAT YOU SAID!!!!!

a1na2
07-30-2007, 07:58 PM
What are you talking about. How is this confusing to you.
I know that you don't believe this thread is about Rudy (which is what it is) because of my great mind reading... or because that WHAT YOU SAID!!!!!

I'm not confused but I'd love to see what your blood pressure reading is about now!!

ROFL

Sully
07-30-2007, 08:01 PM
I couldn't be calmer. It doesn't take much energy to type in caps. I am having a decent laugh at your expense, though.

Fishpicker
07-30-2007, 08:07 PM
You have just proven my point. You don't know what I believe as you haven't read anything I've posted. You react to the name rather than the content.

dude, get it straight. he didnt prove your point... you dont have a point.
you're wrong. get over it.

a1na2
07-30-2007, 08:07 PM
I couldn't be calmer. It doesn't take much energy to type in caps. I am having a decent laugh at your expense, though.

Right. You are as calm as anyone can get!


ROFL ROFL ROFL

I'm leaving now, I don't want you to stroke out.

a1na2
07-30-2007, 08:10 PM
dude, get it straight. he didnt prove your point... you dont have a point.
you're wrong. get over it.

How long have you been on this board? Did you see who posted the thread? Have you any clue as to his political position?

It was something to incite a reaction from conservatives, nothing more. The guy did say that he believed that 9/11 had nothing to do with our foreign policy but that was about the only thing that was not meant to illicit a response from conservatives in the poll.

Fishpicker
07-30-2007, 08:17 PM
did you watch the Republican debates when this argument first originated? I know Jaz is Liberal, big whoop. he supports the position that foreign policy had something to do with 9/11. that argument was first put forward by Ron Paul (a conservative mind you).

the video in the first post is Rudy responding to Ron Paul's assertion.

look at who voted for the 2nd option. they're a mixed group. not all liberal, not all conservative.

if you'd like to know how long I've been on this board; just look underneath my avatar...it will tell you.

Sully
07-30-2007, 08:22 PM
Right. You are as calm as anyone can get!


ROFL ROFL ROFL

I'm leaving now, I don't want you to stroke out.
You must be a mess most days if you think typing out an insult actually takes energy. It always makes me laugh when people think this, as it must be some sort of mirror to how they feel when they post.

Fishpicker
07-30-2007, 08:27 PM
You must be a mess most days if you think typing out an insult actually takes energy. It always makes me laugh when people think this, as it must be some sort of mirror to how they feel when they post.

oh yeah, what is that called again? projection?

Sully
07-30-2007, 08:31 PM
oh yeah, what is that called again? projection?
Probably. I just refuse to use that word. Too many people throw it around on here without knowing what it really means.

Fishpicker
07-30-2007, 08:34 PM
yeah, that's why I was feigning ignorance.

Sully
07-30-2007, 08:35 PM
yeah, that's why I was feigning ignorance.
:p

a1na2
07-30-2007, 08:47 PM
You must be a mess most days if you think typing out an insult actually takes energy. It always makes me laugh when people think this, as it must be some sort of mirror to how they feel when they post.

You are one arrogant MF aren't you? I wasn't the one that got all fired up dude, you were.

Maybe you need to stroke out, might do you good to have the time off.

a1na2
07-30-2007, 08:48 PM
yeah, that's why I was feigning ignorance.

There was no faking involved, you really are ignorant.

Sully
07-30-2007, 08:51 PM
You are one arrogant MF aren't you? I wasn't the one that got all fired up dude, you were.

Maybe you need to stroke out, might do you good to have the time off.
Typing in caps is fired up???
LOL

I'M FRIGGIN CRAZY. CAPS LOCK IS THE BUTTON TO MY SOUL!!!!
I'm not terribly arrogant, but I can certainly tell when I'm in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

BucEyedPea
07-30-2007, 09:11 PM
I'm not talking about what the desert dwelling tribes do to one another. I'm speaking of what the educated Muslim does to innocent civilians because he has taken his religion past the realm of reality and sanity. I realize our military presence in the ME and our favoritism of Israel are core components of their excuses, however it is ultimately their religious beliefs that lead them to commit horrific acts.
I'm not just talking about desert tribes but raised this for historical culture that can trickle down into attitudes and opinions and how such people deal with problems especially to people they feel caused thir people great harm aka "infidel."

The only way I can see it being solely their religious beliefs is when you see what they mean by the word "infidel"...it's not just a non-believer. It is a murderer for one...and also one who does their people great harm, betrayal and injustice.

It's cloaked in religion only because they are a religious people. But it's really political. They don't separate the two...at least these days particularly binLaden. I know Christians cite the Muslim conquest and conversion via the sword as evidence but that's ancient history. Radical Islam was created when Arab nationalism which was a secular movement died out after the losses to Isarel.

This does have something to do with how Israel was established because of two sets of conflicting promises made to the Arabs, who helped Britain win WWI, and the Jews. When they lost to Israel in conventional warfare they felt, that having turned away from Islam was a 'cause of the problem.

Fishpicker
07-30-2007, 09:18 PM
There was no faking involved, you really are ignorant.

:deevee:

just because I am tempted to put you on the ignore list?

a1na2
07-30-2007, 09:23 PM
Typing in caps is fired up???
LOL

I'M FRIGGIN CRAZY. CAPS LOCK IS THE BUTTON TO MY SOUL!!!!
I'm not terribly arrogant, but I can certainly tell when I'm in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.


Dude! Caps don't mean shit! It's your comments and expression.

Again, you lack the ability to argue and you revert to calling names. Really classy dude, classy.

a1na2
07-30-2007, 09:23 PM
:deevee:

just because I am tempted to put you on the ignore list?

Please do, I don't like fakers, you aren't good at it, but you try to be.

Your avatar also is suspect.

Fishpicker
07-30-2007, 09:25 PM
suspect of what exactly?

Pitt Gorilla
07-30-2007, 09:28 PM
That doesn't matter. The poll was not an attempt to ridicule Guiliani it was a method to take a cheap shot at conservatives.

Name calling, how quaint.The actual quote originated with Guiliani. Either you agree with him or you don't. Honestly, this has nothing to do with conservatives.

FYI, not everything is about you.

noa
07-30-2007, 10:03 PM
That's not entirely true. Many of those that are conservative understand the total situation, I find it amusing that each side will continually say that the other is completely ignorant of their stance.

In the long run it doesn't really matter what we think or post here as none of us, that I can determine, has done thing one to help find a way out of the situation. There has been plenty of recommendations by both sides here but to date I'd bet there are zero hours being devoted to any more than arguing on this board or others with similar forums.

Until there is a political party that stands clear of both of the major party lines and takes a stand for the American people we will be stuck in this quagmire.

I don't think this has anything to do with conservatism or liberalism. If you want to argue that, fine, but in this thread, I am siding with one Republican presidential candidate (Ron Paul) over another (Rudy). Nothing partisan to it. They are both in the same party and both would consider themselves conservative.

Logical
07-30-2007, 10:55 PM
Please do, I don't like fakers, you aren't good at it, but you try to be.

Your avatar also is suspect.ROFLROFLROFL

OMG could there possibly be a more ironic and hypocritical statement ever made on this bulletin board?

a1na2
07-30-2007, 11:05 PM
The actual quote originated with Guiliani. Either you agree with him or you don't. Honestly, this has nothing to do with conservatives.

FYI, not everything is about you.

And absolutely nothing is about you!

a1na2
07-30-2007, 11:06 PM
ROFLROFLROFL

OMG could there possibly be a more ironic and hypocritical statement ever made on this bulletin board?

Well, now that you ask the question, yes. Every thing you say and do is hypocritical and the irony is that you don't, or won't, realize or admit the fact.

noa
07-30-2007, 11:15 PM
Every thing you say and do is hypocritical and the irony is that you don't, or won't, realize or admit the fact.

That was good for a laugh. Quite the insult.

Ugly Duck
07-31-2007, 12:08 AM
Rudy is an idiot for saying something so absolute and well, absolutely stupid.

No way... this is a smart move for Rudy. He's baiting the kneejerk "Libs blame America!" reaction from the Republican base. Whipping up the base into patriotic frenzy works real well for them. The following dramatization is this very moment playing in households across the land:

Dust and gravel fly as a red Camero skids to a stop in front of the decrepid mobile home. Joe Repub walks up the steps with yet another six-pack in hand. He cracks open a cold one as he settles down to watch Faux News, ripping off a loud fart that further stains his favorite recliner. On the tube, laughing Libs are ridiculing Guiliani's foreign policy statement, and the Faux News talking heads are railing about Libs blaming America for 9-11. His knee begins to jerk wildy, banging painfully against the stained Lazy-Boy.

Joe lets out a belch and yells to his wife, "You see that Judy Sue? Libs blame America! If you don't vote Republican next time I'm gonna black yer other eye!"

Logical
07-31-2007, 12:09 AM
Well, now that you ask the question, yes. Every thing you say and do is hypocritical and the irony is that you don't, or won't, realize or admit the fact.Yes I am well known for using mulitiple user logins and then simultaneously using them to argue my points Tom.ROFL

Fishpicker
07-31-2007, 12:14 AM
Yes I am well known for using mulitiple user logins and then simultaneously using them to argue my points Tom.ROFL

I was wondering why a1na2 was fervently arguing his point... but he hasn't even voted in the poll.

ClevelandBronco
07-31-2007, 12:17 AM
No way... this is a smart move for Rudy. He's baiting the kneejerk "Libs blame America!" reaction from the Republican base. Whipping up the base into patriotic frenzy works real well for them. The following dramatization is this very moment playing in households across the land:

Dust and gravel fly as a red Camero skids to a stop in front of the decrepid mobile home. Joe Repub walks up the steps with yet another six-pack in hand. He cracks open a cold one as he settles down to watch Faux News, ripping off a loud fart that further stains his favorite recliner. On the tube, laughing Libs are ridiculing Guiliani's foreign policy statement, and the Faux News talking heads are railing about Libs blaming America for 9-11. His knee begins to jerk wildy, banging painfully against the stained Lazy-Boy.

Joe lets out a belch and yells to his wife, "You see that Judy Sue? Libs blame America! If you don't vote Republican next time I'm gonna black yer other eye!"

Your characters are likely on food stamps and/or rely on a low level blue collar union gig. It's a good opening scene, but try them as Democrats who are feeding at the tit of taxes paid by more affluent Republicans. It'd be more believable.

a1na2
07-31-2007, 12:40 AM
Yes I am well known for using mulitiple user logins and then simultaneously using them to argue my points Tom.

And when was that? This week? Last week? Last month? Last Year? How about 2002. You seem to be stuck in the past, very far in the past. What you are very well known for being is an ass. Simple and plain.

a1na2
07-31-2007, 12:41 AM
I was wondering why a1na2 was fervently arguing his point... but he hasn't even voted in the poll.

There isn't a proper option for my opinion. Why vote just to let the libs continue with their game?

Nightwish
07-31-2007, 01:29 AM
No way... this is a smart move for Rudy. He's baiting the kneejerk "Libs blame America!" reaction from the Republican base.
Considering that the person who publically raised the idea was not a liberal, but a conservative Republican, it would speak well to Rudy's talent to be able to pull that one off. Either that, or it would speak ill of the Republican constituency to buy it hook, line and sinker without realizing it came from their own camp. And judging by the knee-jerk reactions we're seeing here from some of our own conservative and Republican posters, I'd say it's working. Kudos to Rudy for being able to snow people that well, and shame on the Repubs who haven't been able to figure it out.

Nightwish
07-31-2007, 01:43 AM
There isn't a proper option for my opinion. Why vote just to let the libs continue with their game?Y'know, I don't think I've seen someone wriggle and squirm this much to avoid answering a question since recxjake played "pick-an-excuse" for why he wouldn't join the military! It's pretty cut and dry, Tom. Rudy said it was absurd to believe that the motivations behind 9/11 had anything to do with our activities and policies in the Middle East. Either he is right, it is absurd to think that. Or he's wrong, it's not absurd to think that. I'm not sure what middle ground you're hoping to find. Despite the cheeky wording, it is a pretty standard black & white, yes or no question. Even if you allow for the fact that bin Laden might have been lying when he explicitly said that our support of Israel was a big factor in 9/11, and that various intelligence experts who concurred might all have swiss cheese for brains, that still leaves the jury out at best, which leaves the topic open for discussion and ponderance, which takes the absurdity out of the suggestion, which brings it right back to a two option scenario. Any way you slice it, it comes down to yes or no.

a1na2
07-31-2007, 05:06 AM
Y'know, I don't think I've seen someone wriggle and squirm this much to avoid answering a question since recxjake played "pick-an-excuse" for why he wouldn't join the military! It's pretty cut and dry, Tom. Rudy said it was absurd to believe that the motivations behind 9/11 had anything to do with our activities and policies in the Middle East. Either he is right, it is absurd to think that. Or he's wrong, it's not absurd to think that. I'm not sure what middle ground you're hoping to find. Despite the cheeky wording, it is a pretty standard black & white, yes or no question. Even if you allow for the fact that bin Laden might have been lying when he explicitly said that our support of Israel was a big factor in 9/11, and that various intelligence experts who concurred might all have swiss cheese for brains, that still leaves the jury out at best, which leaves the topic open for discussion and ponderance (preponderance??), which takes the absurdity out of the suggestion, which brings it right back to a two option scenario. Any way you slice it, it comes down to yes or no.

It's not asked as a Yes or No question. Rudy obviously said it and virtually everyone knows that there is some truth to the fringe elements of the Muslim religion feel that our policy is bad. I didn't vote in the poll be cause regardless of what Rudy said I don't consider him any more an idiot than I consider you one. The wording of the second option is not something I'll admit about Rudy. His comment was at worst ill advised.

Ugly Duck
07-31-2007, 07:29 AM
I'd say it's working. Kudos to Rudy for being able to snow people that well, and shame on the Repubs who haven't been able to figure it out.

By George, I think he's got it!

mlyonsd
07-31-2007, 07:31 AM
Yes, it would have been much more simple for Rudy to just flat out say eight years of Clinton foreign policy caused 911.

I'd like to hear him explain his position with a little more context before calling him an idiot. As usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Nightwish
07-31-2007, 09:31 AM
Yes, it would have been much more simple for Rudy to just flat out say eight years of Clinton foreign policy caused 911.
Please tell me you're not naive enough to try to play the "Clinton's to blame" angle. Clinton's eight years, Bush Sr's four years, Reagan's eight years, Carter's four years, Ford, Kennedy, Eisenhower, LBJ, etc. It goes back a lot further than Clinton and reflects what has been essentially a standing policy of support for Israel.

Nightwish
07-31-2007, 09:33 AM
It's not asked as a Yes or No question. Rudy obviously said it and virtually everyone knows that there is some truth to the fringe elements of the Muslim religion feel that our policy is bad. I didn't vote in the poll be cause regardless of what Rudy said I don't consider him any more an idiot than I consider you one. The wording of the second option is not something I'll admit about Rudy. His comment was at worst ill advised.
Okay, I'll buy that. I believe this is the first time I've seen you post something that made much sense.

Duck Dog
07-31-2007, 02:50 PM
I'm going to assume here that you're not trying to equate "educated Muslims" with radical islamists, to a man. And providing that that's not what you're trying to do, I agree with you.


Some radical Islamists are very educated. Just last month a doctor tried to blow up an airport.

Duck Dog
07-31-2007, 02:51 PM
I saw you denigrating a whole religion. It looked like fun so I joined in.

I guess it's not as fun when it relates to you though.

No you didn't. Your lack of reading comprehension has no bounds.

Logical
07-31-2007, 03:17 PM
And when was that? This week? Last week? Last month? Last Year? How about 2002. You seem to be stuck in the past, very far in the past. What you are very well known for being is an ass. Simple and plain.

Possibly so but I don't try to hide it and I also don't try to hide my identity.

a1na2
07-31-2007, 04:34 PM
Okay, I'll buy that. I believe this is the first time I've seen you post something that made much sense.

Stick around, you could be surprised.

Adept Havelock
07-31-2007, 04:47 PM
Possibly so but I don't try to hide it and I also don't try to hide my identity.

How about challenging planet members to a fight and then when they show up...

You probably don't do that, either. :)

CHIEF4EVER
07-31-2007, 04:57 PM
Please tell me you're not naive enough to try to play the "Clinton's to blame" angle. Clinton's eight years, Bush Sr's four years, Reagan's eight years, Carter's four years, Ford, Kennedy, Eisenhower, LBJ, etc. It goes back a lot further than Clinton and reflects what has been essentially a standing policy of support for Israel.

What, if anything, do you have against Israel? Just asking. I get an Anti Jew vibe when you post..........

jAZ
07-31-2007, 04:58 PM
Yes, it would have been much more simple for Rudy to just flat out say eight years of Clinton foreign policy caused 911.
"The idea of trying to cast blame on President Clinton is just wrong for many, many reasons, not the least of which is I don't think he deserves it..." -Rudy Giuliani

CHIEF4EVER
07-31-2007, 05:00 PM
"The idea of trying to cast blame on President Clinton is just wrong for many, many reasons, not the least of which is I don't think he deserves it..." -Rudy Giuliani

The fact that Ruuuuuuuuuudy doesn't believe Clintoris has any share of the blame is reason enough for me to believe the opposite. Giuliani is a complete WANKER.

jAZ
07-31-2007, 05:23 PM
The fact that Ruuuuuuuuuudy doesn't believe Clintoris has any share of the blame is reason enough for me to believe the opposite. Giuliani is a complete WANKER.
Well, with that statement... you too will enter (the converse) of Rudy's bizarro world.


(Just a few months later Rudy flip-flopped.)

"Islamic terrorists killed more than 500 Americans before Sept. 11. Many people think the first attack on America was on Sept. 11, 2001. It was not. It was in 1993," said the former New York mayor.

Giuliani argued that Clinton treated the World Trade Center bombing as a criminal act instead of a terrorist attack, calling it "a big mistake" that emboldened other strikes on the Khobar Towers housing complex in Saudi Arabia, in Kenya and Tanzania and later on the USS Cole while docked in Yemen in 2000.

"The United States government, then President Clinton, did not respond," Giuliani said. "(Osama) bin Laden declared war on us. We didn't hear it."

ClevelandBronco
07-31-2007, 05:29 PM
Well, with that statement... you too will enter (the converse) of Rudy's bizarro world.


(Just a few months later Rudy flip-flopped.)

"Islamic terrorists killed more than 500 Americans before Sept. 11. Many people think the first attack on America was on Sept. 11, 2001. It was not. It was in 1993," said the former New York mayor.

Giuliani argued that Clinton treated the World Trade Center bombing as a criminal act instead of a terrorist attack, calling it "a big mistake" that emboldened other strikes on the Khobar Towers housing complex in Saudi Arabia, in Kenya and Tanzania and later on the USS Cole while docked in Yemen in 2000.

"The United States government, then President Clinton, did not respond," Giuliani said. "(Osama) bin Laden declared war on us. We didn't hear it."

That quote says nothing about cause.

HolmeZz
07-31-2007, 06:07 PM
That quote says nothing about cause.

Nobody's talking about cause.

One quote said Clinton didn't deserve blame and the second quote blames Clinton.

CHIEF4EVER
07-31-2007, 06:13 PM
Nobody's talking about cause.

One quote said Clinton didn't deserve blame and the second quote blames Clinton.

Yet jAZ's quote dispels neither. Fact is, Clintoris had the opportunity to have Bin Nutball on a silver platter but refused. He is just as culpable as his predecessors and those who succeeded him.

HolmeZz
07-31-2007, 06:14 PM
Anyhow, Rudy can't blame Clinton or anyone's foreign policy because his stance is that foreign policy didn't play a factor.

mlyonsd
07-31-2007, 06:15 PM
"The idea of trying to cast blame on President Clinton is just wrong for many, many reasons, not the least of which is I don't think he deserves it..." -Rudy Giuliani

Which is a position I have always believed.

Feel free, check the planet archives. I have never blamed Clinton for 911. Instead I blamed the terrorists for taking advantage of our weaknesses.

My point is maybe we should let Rudy explain his position. Much like we let Obama explain his idiotic butt F Chavez statement in the press.

Once the dust settles they both might make sense.

ClevelandBronco
07-31-2007, 09:42 PM
Nobody's talking about cause.

One quote said Clinton didn't deserve blame and the second quote blames Clinton.

My bad. I thought we were still discussing the original topic. Guess I have to catch up.

banyon
08-01-2007, 08:08 AM
The post wasn't intended to drag in the libertarian party, or any other party. As I posted, this was just something to ridicule those that do not follow the liberal agenda.

Okay. Well whatever you meant, per tradition, it wasn't funny or clever as you thought it was.

a1na2
08-01-2007, 11:49 AM
Okay. Well whatever you meant, per tradition, it wasn't funny or clever as you thought it was.

If you were to get off your pedestal you might be able to find your humor, I think you left it behind.

You seem to be a petty person.

beer bacon
08-02-2007, 11:34 PM
Bush, Giuliani, and Company must be horrible chess players.

banyon
08-04-2007, 03:07 PM
You seem to be a petty person.


ROFL Coming from you, that's hilarious.

go bowe
08-04-2007, 04:05 PM
Yes I am well known for using mulitiple user logins and then simultaneously using them to argue my points Tom.ROFLomg, it IS tom, isn't it?

i thought it was him but i was waiting for confirmation...

soa*, soa i say


* = same old asshole...

go bowe
08-04-2007, 04:10 PM
You are one arrogant MF aren't you? I wasn't the one that got all fired up dude, you were.

Maybe you need to stroke out, might do you good to have the time off.what can we do to get YOU to stroke out, tom?

go bowe
08-04-2007, 04:18 PM
Yet jAZ's quote dispels neither. Fact is, Clintoris had the opportunity to have Bin Nutball on a silver platter but refused. He is just as culpable as his predecessors and those who succeeded him.i've seen that mentioned several times lately...

do you recall the incident in question?

can you recall any of the details?

why did bill refuse, as you put it?

enquiring minds and all that shit... :D :D :D

i still owe you a beer...

hey, can you work your schedule out so that you can come to joe's party?

it would be great to see you again...

CHIEF4EVER
08-04-2007, 04:31 PM
i've seen that mentioned several times lately...

do you recall the incident in question?

can you recall any of the details?

why did bill refuse, as you put it?

enquiring minds and all that shit... :D :D :D

i still owe you a beer...

hey, can you work your schedule out so that you can come to joe's party?

it would be great to see you again...
I wish I could bro but we had to postpone our trip to Lebanon once already because of the previous violence so all our money is set aside for the trip and with funds as tight as they are it just isn't in the cards to go to Joe's party this time around.

go bowe
08-04-2007, 04:49 PM
And when was that? This week? Last week? Last month? Last Year? How about 2002. You seem to be stuck in the past, very far in the past. What you are very well known for being is an ass. Simple and plain.i'd rather be a well known ass than be you...

simple and plain...

Adept Havelock
08-04-2007, 04:54 PM
i'd rather be a well known ass than be you...

simple and plain...


Yep. Yet that beaten dog keeps crawling back and whimpering for more. Just sad.

go bowe
08-04-2007, 04:54 PM
I wish I could bro but we had to postpone our trip to Lebanon once already because of the previous violence so all our money is set aside for the trip and with funds as tight as they are it just isn't in the cards to go to Joe's party this time around.there's always next year (sounds just like a chiefs fan, doesn't it?)...

but as fun as joe's parties are, i'd rather go on a trip to lebanon...

travel safe and godspeed to you and your family...

a1na2
08-04-2007, 05:02 PM
i'd rather be a well known ass than be you...

simple and plain...

Is that supposed to be hurtful? I'd rather be me any day!

BTW, you are a well known ass.

memyselfI
08-04-2007, 05:39 PM
A few years ago, I would not believe for a second that our foreign policy bad. It has EVERYTHING to do with 9/11. I bought all that, "The terrorists hate us for our freedoms," BS. We need to get our ignorant asses out of the ME and leave those nutjobs alone.

Trust me on this. BCD's conversion has not been on a whim or because he 'wants America to lose.' He just woke TFU.

Logical
08-04-2007, 05:43 PM
Is that supposed to be hurtful? I'd rather be me any day!

BTW, you are a well known ass.
This is so wrong, John who is well respected on this BB being criticized by you.:shake:

Logical
08-04-2007, 06:06 PM
i've seen that mentioned several times lately...

do you recall the incident in question?

can you recall any of the details?

why did bill refuse, as you put it?

enquiring minds and all that shit... :D :D :D

....
I cannot be sure but I think C4E and others are referencing this,
In August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation — from such people as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) — that he was acting precipitously to draw attention away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil. Some said he was mistaken for personalizing the terrorism struggle so much around bin Laden. And when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House after domestic terrorism in Oklahoma City, some Republicans accused him of hysteria.

. . . the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during Clinton's watch, to about $6.7 billion. After the effort to kill bin Laden with missiles in August 1998 failed — he had apparently left a training camp in Afghanistan a few hours earlier — recent news reports have detailed numerous other instances, as late as December 2000, when Clinton was on the verge of unleashing the military again. In each case, the White House chose not to act because of uncertainty that intelligence was good enough to find bin Laden, and concern that a failed attack would only enhance his stature in the Arab world.
by the way I obtained this from the Snopes website.

a1na2
08-04-2007, 06:11 PM
This is so wrong, John who is well respected on this BB being criticized by you.:shake:

Why not? I criticize you when I can.

Logical
08-04-2007, 06:48 PM
Why not? I criticize you when I can.Primarily because he has earned respect on this BB and you have not.

Adept Havelock
08-04-2007, 07:03 PM
This is so wrong, John who is well respected on this BB being criticized by you.:shake:


Out of curiousity...considering his credibility why would any of Tom's criticisms carry the least bit of weight with anyone?

irishjayhawk
08-04-2007, 07:37 PM
Take Bin Laden's word for it? No, thanks.

Do you take Bin Laden's word for it when he says he'll attack?

a1na2
08-04-2007, 07:55 PM
Primarily because he has earned respect on this BB and you have not.

Yeah, right. Nobody here has shown anything the deserves respect, least of all you. This is nothing more than a popularity contest that I don't care to participate in. After all, everything you write here has no effect other than to make you feel good about your bullying techniques.

So boys, have all the fun you want. If you don't read what I post and only go by what has happened in the past you might miss something good, not that you would recognize it anyway.

a1na2
08-04-2007, 07:55 PM
Out of curiousity...considering his credibility why would any of Tom's criticisms carry the least bit of weight with anyone?

My credibility here isn't in question, it's your gullibility.

|Zach|
08-04-2007, 07:56 PM
Is that supposed to be hurtful? I'd rather be me any day!

BTW, you are a well known ass.
Obviously not, you get mad when people use your name and have had different user names on this board.

You have been everything but you.

If there is a word that is much better served for your time here it would be coward.

a1na2
08-04-2007, 08:00 PM
My God it is nice to have zach on ignore.

Mr. Kotter
08-04-2007, 08:01 PM
My credibility here isn't in question, it's your gullibility.

You are NOT this naive', are you?

HolmeZz
08-04-2007, 08:03 PM
Do you take Bin Laden's word for it when he says he'll attack?

CODE ORANGE

banyon
08-04-2007, 08:23 PM
My God it is nice to have zach on ignore.
Is it?

Okay I'll post it for you then. :evil:

Logical
08-04-2007, 08:38 PM
Out of curiousity...considering his credibility why would any of Tom's criticisms carry the least bit of weight with anyone?Excellent point.

Logical
08-04-2007, 08:41 PM
Obviously not, you get mad when people use your name and have had different user names on this board.

You have been everything but you.

If there is a word that is much better served for your time here it would be coward.I am sure he will be assuming a new identity soon if he already does not have one.

a1na2
08-04-2007, 08:50 PM
It's really funny, it's always the same players that have a problem.

But it's also very boring that you can't come up with a new shtick.

banyon
08-04-2007, 08:58 PM
It's really funny, it's always the same players that have a problem.

But it's also very boring that you can't come up with a new shtick.

ROFL Yeah, it's all of us that can't come up with a new schtick. LMAO

Sully
08-04-2007, 08:58 PM
It's really funny, it's always the same players that have a problem.

But it's also very boring that you can't come up with a new shtick.
One in particular.

patteeu
08-04-2007, 09:20 PM
Blowback is real.

Our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are blowback for 9/11, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the Khobar Towers, the first WTC bombing, Lockerbie, the Achille Lauro, the Beirut bombing of our marine barracks, the US embassy in Beirut, the hostages taken in the embassy in Tehran, and numerous other bombings and kidnappings throughout the middle east, africa, and europe committed by islamic radicals. And if you don't understand the connection between all of these terrorist attacks and our response, you don't really understand our GWoT.

I didn't vote in the poll because neither option is right. Our foreign policy obviously has an impact on the world in which we live, but it doesn't cause foreign terrorism. Rudy's no idiot for not accepting the foolish neo-isolationist fantasies of Ron Paul and BEP. Is making a decent poll really so hard?

Sully
08-04-2007, 09:24 PM
For those bitching about the poll options...
Can you please explain to me where the in between is between nothing and something.

go bowe
08-04-2007, 09:43 PM
Is that supposed to be hurtful? I'd rather be me any day!

BTW, you are a well known ass.well known ass?

didn't you say that logical was a well known ass?

well known ass is all you can come up with?

take it back to the schoolyard, tommy, your act is so passe, although it is fun to poke you and watch you go ape shit...

so maby you should hang around for when we get bored or there's not much traffic on the board, then we can give you all of attention you so richly deserve...

Logical
08-04-2007, 10:06 PM
Blowback is real.

Our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are blowback for 9/11, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the Khobar Towers, the first WTC bombing, Lockerbie, the Achille Lauro, the Beirut bombing of our marine barracks, the US embassy in Beirut, the hostages taken in the embassy in Tehran, and numerous other bombings and kidnappings throughout the middle east, africa, and europe committed by islamic radicals. And if you don't understand the connection between all of these terrorist attacks and our response, you don't really understand our GWoT.

I didn't vote in the poll because neither option is right. Our foreign policy obviously has an impact on the world in which we live, but it doesn't cause foreign terrorism. Rudy's no idiot for not accepting the foolish neo-isolationist fantasies of Ron Paul and BEP. Is making a decent poll really so hard?
Being as far as I can remember you have never done a poll, how can you criticize those that attempt it?

Fishpicker
08-04-2007, 11:09 PM
Our foreign policy obviously has an impact on the world in which we live, but it doesn't cause foreign terrorism.


that is still in-line with the 2nd option. something or nothing are the options. even if you dont believe the USFP "caused" 9/11, it is still a contributing factor.

HolmeZz
08-04-2007, 11:29 PM
I didn't vote in the poll because neither option is right.

Logic says one of the options MUST be correct. Everyone has a differing opinion but one of those options is an absolute truth. Either it played some role or it played no role. There's no other scenario.

a1na2
08-05-2007, 06:47 AM
well known ass?

didn't you say that logical was a well known ass?

well known ass is all you can come up with?

take it back to the schoolyard, tommy, your act is so passe, although it is fun to poke you and watch you go ape shit...

so maby you should hang around for when we get bored or there's not much traffic on the board, then we can give you all of attention you so richly deserve...

You can play in the school yard, that seems to be your forte'. Play ground bully.

Keep it up, you bore me.

Adept Havelock
08-05-2007, 10:33 AM
If you don't read what I post and only go by what has happened in the past you might miss something good.

Considering your history here, I'd say that probability is low enough to be unmeasurable.

I'll congratulate you on one point. Nothing else can unify the wingnuts, moonbats, centrists, and other assorted wonks here like the collective contempt they appear to hold for you. "Well Done, :thailor:. Well Done, indeed."

That should tell you something about how you come across to others, but it probably won't.

You can play in the school yard, that seems to be your forte'. Play ground bully.

Keep it up, you bore me.

ROFL
Looks like - ahem, shut your mouth - never got over getting picked last for kickball.

a1na2
08-05-2007, 12:32 PM
Considering your history here, I'd say that probability is low enough to be unmeasurable.

I'll congratulate you on one point. Nothing else can unify the wingnuts, moonbats, centrists, and other assorted wonks here like the collective contempt they appear to hold for you. "Well Done, :thailor:. Well Done, indeed."

That should tell you something about how you come across to others, but it probably won't.



ROFL
Looks like - ahem, shut your mouth - never got over getting picked last for kickball.

Actually there are very few that seem to have a problem with me, you are one of them. I'd say that less than 1% of all posters have a problem with me.

We never played kickball when I was a kid. We played real sports, baseball, football and a little stomp the weaklings for fun. And for the record, I was never picked last.

banyon
08-05-2007, 12:41 PM
Actually there are very few that seem to have a problem with me, you are one of them. I'd say that less than 1% of all posters have a problem with me.

We never played kickball when I was a kid. We played real sports, baseball, football and a little stomp the weaklings for fun. And for the record, I was never picked last.

1%? Is this some kind of non Base-10 math? What percent of people in this forum do you think don't have a problem?

HolmeZz
08-05-2007, 12:45 PM
Considering there are 8,900+ members, 1% is probably accurate.

Adept Havelock
08-05-2007, 01:18 PM
We played real sports, baseball, football and a little stomp the weaklings for fun.

Well, I'm glad you enjoyed getting stomped. It certainly goes a long way to explaining your behavior here.

a1na2
08-05-2007, 03:07 PM
Well, I'm glad you enjoyed getting stomped. It certainly goes a long way to explaining your behavior here.

Well, we were never state champions but we held our own. I'm sure your behavior tells the psychologists plenty.

Logical
08-05-2007, 07:48 PM
Actually there are very few that seem to have a problem with me, you are one of them. I'd say that less than 1% of all posters have a problem with me.

We never played kickball when I was a kid. We played real sports, baseball, football and a little stomp the weaklings for fun. And for the record, I was never picked last.

So your BB persona is just a continuation of your suppressed desire to be a bully. Not really suprising.

go bowe
08-05-2007, 10:24 PM
Well, we were never state champions but we held our own. I'm sure your behavior tells the psychologists plenty.psychologist?

calling skip towne...

skip, come in...

we have a cleanup in aisle 5...

patteeu
08-06-2007, 12:52 AM
Being as far as I can remember you have never done a poll, how can you criticize those that attempt it?

Whether your memory is accurate or not, it would be interesting to apply this standard you suggest to you on any number of topics in which you engage in criticism: from football (have you ever coached or managed a professional football team) to President Bush's foreign policy decisions (have you ever spent a day in the Oval Office or even worked as a high level foreign policy adviser to a President) to military strategy (have you ever commanded men in combat), etc.

patteeu
08-06-2007, 12:56 AM
For those bitching about the poll options...
Can you please explain to me where the in between is between nothing and something.

that is still in-line with the 2nd option. something or nothing are the options. even if you dont believe the USFP "caused" 9/11, it is still a contributing factor.

Logic says one of the options MUST be correct. Everyone has a differing opinion but one of those options is an absolute truth. Either it played some role or it played no role. There's no other scenario.

If Rudy isn't an "idiot" then option 2 can't be right. Good polls don't induce bias in this way. This is the kind of poll you'd expect from a political hack who isn't very subtle. Normally I think that jAZ's political hackery is more subtle than this.

Given the two options, if Rudy is even a smidgen wrong, your only option is to call him an idiot as though he's as wrong as Ron Paul is about how to deal with radical islamists.

ClevelandBronco
08-06-2007, 01:14 AM
...as though he's as wrong as Ron Paul is about how to deal with radical islamists.

Now you've gone and done it. The resident fanatical Paulians are going to issue a fatwah on you for that, you're on vacation and I'm going to have to read all the crap they're going to throw at you.

Thanks. Thanks a bunch.

Fishpicker
08-06-2007, 01:45 AM
If Rudy isn't an "idiot" then option 2 can't be right. Good polls don't induce bias in this way. This is the kind of poll you'd expect from a political hack who isn't very subtle. Normally I think that jAZ's political hackery is more subtle than this.

Given the two options, if Rudy is even a smidgen wrong, your only option is to call him an idiot as though he's as wrong as Ron Paul is about how to deal with radical islamists.

so you would choose the 2nd option if it were worded differently?

patteeu
08-06-2007, 02:02 AM
so you would choose the 2nd option if it were worded differently?

I don't think Rudy is literally correct when he makes such an absolute statement, so yes.

I think foreign relations are complex with lots of interrelationships. If our foreign policy had been different, 9/11 may not have happened. Of course, something far worse may have taken it's place. For example, if we hadn't worked so hard to prevent nuclear proliferation for decades, 9/11 may have been a nuclear bomb in a ship in New York harbor instead of a plane in the WTC. If we hadn't interfered in Arab politics, the Soviet Union might still be a superpower with a sphere of influence extending to the middle east. It's hard to know what a dramatically different foreign policy would have produced but it's easy to say that it's interrelated with foreign policies of other nations and other global actors.

a1na2
08-06-2007, 03:07 AM
So your BB persona is just a continuation of your suppressed desire to be a bully. Not really suprising (surprising) .

Probably the same as you! Your perception of the times are somewhat skewed, but that's not really surprising!

BucEyedPea
08-06-2007, 09:42 AM
If we hadn't interfered in Arab politics, the Soviet Union might still be a superpower with a sphere of influence extending to the middle east.
So what.

HolmeZz
08-06-2007, 10:23 AM
If Rudy isn't an "idiot" then option 2 can't be right. Good polls don't induce bias in this way. This is the kind of poll you'd expect from a political hack who isn't very subtle. Normally I think that jAZ's political hackery is more subtle than this.

Given the two options, if Rudy is even a smidgen wrong, your only option is to call him an idiot as though he's as wrong as Ron Paul is about how to deal with radical islamists.

You're arguing the part of it that isn't important. Ignore Jaz's added commentary. It's a simple poll. Either our foreign policy played a part or it didn't.

Pitt Gorilla
08-06-2007, 10:29 AM
If Rudy isn't an "idiot" then option 2 can't be right. Good polls don't induce bias in this way. This is the kind of poll you'd expect from a political hack who isn't very subtle. Normally I think that jAZ's political hackery is more subtle than this.

Given the two options, if Rudy is even a smidgen wrong, your only option is to call him an idiot as though he's as wrong as Ron Paul is about how to deal with radical islamists.Rudy is an idiot if he believes that our foreign policy had NOTHING to do with 9/11. We could certainly discuss the degree, but such statements make the assessment easier.

Ultra Peanut
08-06-2007, 09:08 PM
Please tell me you're not naive enough to try to play the "Clinton's to blame" angle. Clinton's eight years, Bush Sr's four years, Reagan's eight years, Carter's four years, Ford, Kennedy

KENNEDYYYYYY

KENNEDYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

KENNEDYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

KENNEDYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

KENNNNNNNEDEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

KENNEDYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

KENNEDYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

KENNEDYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

KENNEDYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

patteeu
08-06-2007, 09:22 PM
So what.

Help me out here. Was the end of the cold war unimportant to those of you in the neo-isolationist school?

patteeu
08-06-2007, 09:25 PM
You're arguing the part of it that isn't important. Ignore Jaz's added commentary. It's a simple poll. Either our foreign policy played a part or it didn't.

When we start to pick and choose which parts of the polls we want to ignore, the results become meaningless (and misleading, which is what jAZ was going for here).

But to address the part of the question that you find important, I think we're better off with our foreign policy as it was than the neo-isolationism of those who would like to avoid giving the OBLs of the world any reason to look America's way.

patteeu
08-06-2007, 09:26 PM
Rudy is an idiot if he believes that our foreign policy had NOTHING to do with 9/11. We could certainly discuss the degree, but such statements make the assessment easier.

I don't think Rudy's an idiot.

go bowe
08-08-2007, 01:29 PM
i dunno...

it seems to me that rudy is essentially a one issue candidate...

every time i've seen him in the debates he harps and harps about 9/11, 9/11, 9/11...

it's gotten to the point that i'm starting to look hard at the other candidates' positions...

but if obama gets the nomination, i'd vote for him...

Logical
08-08-2007, 02:32 PM
If Rudy isn't an "idiot" then option 2 can't be right. Good polls don't induce bias in this way. This is the kind of poll you'd expect from a political hack who isn't very subtle. Normally I think that jAZ's political hackery is more subtle than this.

Given the two options, if Rudy is even a smidgen wrong, your only option is to call him an idiot as though he's as wrong as Ron Paul is about how to deal with radical islamists.

I know you can read better than you are doing, the poll does not say:

"Rudy's an idiot, he believes 9/11 had nothing to do with our foreign policy"

The poll does make the conditional statement:

Rudy's an idiot if he believes 9/11 had nothing to do with our foreign policy

So clearly if you choose the second option you believe that such a statement of 9/11 having nothing to do with our foreign policy would make Rudy or anyone else agreeing an idiot.

Programmer
08-08-2007, 03:20 PM
I know you can read better than you are doing, the poll does not say:

"Rudy's an idiot, he believes 9/11 had nothing to do with our foreign policy"

The poll does make the conditional statement:

Rudy's an idiot if he believes 9/11 had nothing to do with our foreign policy

So clearly if you choose the second option you believe that such a statement of 9/11 having nothing to do with our foreign policy would make Rudy or anyone else agreeing an idiot.

So shouldn't the poll actually be worded "Anyone that believes 9/11 etc?"

The real story is that nobody knows precisely what triggered the jihad on the U.S. and it's possible that the belief that our foriegn policy is nothing more than an urban legend concocted to polorize the nation further than it already is regarding the issue.

BucEyedPea
08-08-2007, 03:32 PM
The real story is that nobody knows precisely what triggered the jihad on the U.S. and it's possible that the belief that our foriegn policy is nothing more than an urban legend concocted to polorize the nation further than it already is regarding the issue.
I wouldn't say that. Bin Laden is KNOWN for stating precisely what his complaint's are and why he did it. Former chief of the binLaden counter-terrorism unit in the CIA, a 22 year veteran Micheal Sheuer ( as well as some other CIA verterans) has said the same and he believes BL. It's not rocket science. It just takes a willingness to let go of some hubris or swallow some pride. Afterall, it doesn't make Americans bad— just some folks in our govt who had ideas that are having bad consequences.

Nightwish
08-08-2007, 03:35 PM
The real story is that nobody knows precisely what triggered the jihad on the U.S. and it's possible that the belief that our foriegn policy is nothing more than an urban legend concocted to polorize the nation further than it already is regarding the issue.
Dude, we have Osama recorded saying it! If it's just an urban legend, then whoever concocted the urban legend either enlisted the aid of bin Laden to do so, or hired a voice that was convincing enough to fool our best intelligence agencies.

CHIEF4EVER
08-10-2007, 02:11 PM
Dude, we have Osama recorded saying it!

Yup. Osama said it so it MUST be true. I mean, he would NEVER lie, fabricate or mislead for propaganda purposes now would he? After all, he isn't a murdering scumbag, just a misunderstood lover of flowers and butterflies and puppies. [/sarcasm] :rolleyes: :shake:

noa
08-10-2007, 02:17 PM
Yup. Osama said it so it MUST be true. I mean, he would NEVER lie, fabricate or mislead for propaganda purposes now would he? After all, he isn't a murdering scumbag, just a misunderstood lover of flowers and butterflies and puppies. [/sarcasm] :rolleyes: :shake:


If the point of terrorism is to frighten people into bending to your will, why would you lie about your motives for an attack?
I guess like ClevelandBronco said earlier, he could just be lying to recruit more people, but I don't really see why he would obfuscate his motives.

Nightwish
08-10-2007, 02:58 PM
Yup. Osama said it so it MUST be true. I mean, he would NEVER lie, fabricate or mislead for propaganda purposes now would he? After all, he isn't a murdering scumbag, just a misunderstood lover of flowers and butterflies and puppies. [/sarcasm] :rolleyes: :shake:In his mind, he's not a murderer. He's a religious fanatic, not a greedy politician. What we view as criminal is merely a means to an end for people like him, it isn't something done for personal gain, so lying about his motives would be pretty out of character. You make the mistake of assuming that because one kind of evil is second nature to him (and not evil, by his reckoning), then all kinds of evil must be equally second nature to him. That's the kind of slippery slope that is pure fallacy.

The fact is, the reason that some parties in America can't bring themselves to believe that our foreign policy could have possibly been the (or even "a") trigger for AQ's actions against us, is pride, pure and simple. Plain, sinful pride. The same reason Israel won't ever accept any degree of responsibility for the refugee crisis in Palestine. The same reason Turkey refuses to call the Armenian Genocide "genocide."

Baby Lee
08-10-2007, 03:08 PM
If the point of terrorism is to frighten people into bending to your will, why would you lie about your motives for an attack?
I guess like ClevelandBronco said earlier, he could just be lying to recruit more people, but I don't really see why he would obfuscate his motives.
It reminds me of a hostage taker's demands, I want $100K in cash, an armed escort, a chartered jet. . . and a pizza.
'out of the area' is something they want, but it's not necessarily what motivating the hate and violence.

Nightwish
08-10-2007, 03:16 PM
It reminds me of a hostage taker's demands, I want $100K in cash, an armed escort, a chartered jet. . . and a pizza.
'out of the area' is something they want, but it's not necessarily what motivating the hate and violence.There are a lot of things motivating the hate and violence, and it would be impossible to sit down and list them all. Many of them are not within our power to change, and many of them are. Some of them we can change by force, some we can change by diplomacy, some we can change by changing our own direction in the Middle East, some would require a radical shift in the American mindset, some would require a radical shift in the Muslim and/or Middle Eastern mindset, and some I don't even care to ponder what would be required. To say that our foreign policy was not a significant contributor to those motivations is just as disingenuous as those on the other side saying it was the sole or primary contributor.

CHIEF4EVER
08-10-2007, 03:20 PM
In his mind, he's not a murderer. Therein lies the difference between you and me in this case.

He's a religious fanatic, not a greedy politician. What we view as criminal is merely a means to an end for people like him, it isn't something done for personal gain, so lying about his motives would be pretty out of character. You make the mistake of assuming that because one kind of evil is second nature to him (and not evil, by his reckoning), then all kinds of evil must be equally second nature to him. That's the kind of slippery slope that is pure fallacy.

I see him as a murderer who uses his "faith" as an excuse to vent his hatred. Lying about his motives isn't at all out of character. He is just using his 'motives' as an excuse to kill. It also serves to prevent recruits from being driven away from him.

The fact is, the reason that some parties in America can't bring themselves to believe that our foreign policy could have possibly been the (or even "a") trigger for AQ's actions against us, is pride, pure and simple. Plain, sinful pride. The same reason Israel won't ever accept any degree of responsibility for the refugee crisis in Palestine. The same reason Turkey refuses to call the Armenian Genocide "genocide."

You forget your history. They hated us long before the 1st Gulf War and they also attacked us LONG before the 1st Gulf War. You can use the same arguments you posted in the opposit direction....the acts of the Palestinians are never called 'Terrorism' by them, nor are the acts of the PKK.

Baby Lee
08-10-2007, 03:21 PM
There are a lot of things motivating the hate and violence, and it would be impossible to sit down and list them all. Many of them are not within our power to change, and many of them are. Some of them we can change by force, some we can change by diplomacy, some we can change by changing our own direction in the Middle East, some would require a radical shift in the American mindset, some would require a radical shift in the Muslim and/or Middle Eastern mindset, and some I don't even care to ponder what would be required. To say that our foreign policy was not a significant contributor to those motivations is just as disingenuous as those on the other side saying it was the sole or primary contributor.
I don't know if you're saying I'm being disingenuous, but I believe wholeheartedly that, even if we were 'out of there' they'd still find axes to grind and justifications for their actions. Like the pizza, it's a concern they threw in, but it's not the root motivation.

Nightwish
08-10-2007, 03:33 PM
Therein lies the difference between you and me in this case.In this case, I'm right. I see him as a murderer who uses his "faith" as an excuse to vent his hatred.You display a characteristically egocentric ignorance of the mindset of the radical fundamentalist. Your lack of any real understanding of Muslims, especially radical islamists, prevents you from being able to form an opinion that even approaches objectivity in this regard. Likewise, I don't fully understand it, but I am at least able to attempt to understand why he thinks the way he thinks. Of course, having grown up in an environment where radical mindsets prevailed (Northern Ireland, during the 70s), I am perhaps better equipped to understand these things than someone whose only exposure to such things is from the evening news and the Sunday morning pulpits.
Lying about his motives isn't at all out of character.Yes, it is. You can believe it isn't, but you are simply wrong.
He is just using his 'motives' as an excuse to kill.No, he isn't.
It also serves to prevent recruits from being driven away from him.No, it doesn't. In fact, it is one of the big reasons why a lot more people haven't joined his cause, despite having the same feelings of discontent and the same desires for a Middle East united under Islamic Law.You forget your history. They hated us long before the 1st Gulf War and they also attacked us LONG before the 1st Gulf War.Where did I say anything about Gulf War I? The American foreign policy issues that have caused them such distress go all the way back to the 1940s, maybe further than that.
You can use the same arguments you posted in the opposit direction....the acts of the Palestinians are never called 'Terrorism' by them, nor are the acts of the PKK.True, but not relevant.

Nightwish
08-10-2007, 03:39 PM
I don't know if you're saying I'm being disingenuous, but I believe wholeheartedly that, even if we were 'out of there' they'd still find axes to grind and justifications for their actions. Like the pizza, it's a concern they threw in, but it's not the root motivation.I'm not sure what you mean by "out of there." The foreign policy issues that bin Laden is on record speaking of are not limited to Iraq, but focused primarily on our role in the creation of the state of Israel, and our continued support of Israel, our continued denial of the ethnic cleansing that took place, the disrespect we showed to sovereign Islamic nations by partitioning their lands without their consent because they lacked the military power to stop us, and our continuous propping up of Israel in their denial of the same. It's got relatively little to do with Iraq. Iraq is just a point of convenience. Our forces are easier to shoot at there. But pulling out of Iraq won't solve the Al Qaeda problem, nor will remaining in Iraq until a some definable "success" is achieved. Playing "whack a mole" with Al Qaeda (as Logical put it) also isn't going to stem their tide much. The measures it would take to begin to solve the Al Qaeda are measures we won't dare to take, because we've already invested far too much.

It is true that Ron Paul specified that it was our actions in Iraq, which was a gross oversimplification, and I'm not sure that he meant to make such a narrowly-focused comment, or if he meant it merely as an example, but that's not what bin Laden claims to have been his motivator.

noa
08-10-2007, 03:47 PM
I don't know if you're saying I'm being disingenuous, but I believe wholeheartedly that, even if we were 'out of there' they'd still find axes to grind and justifications for their actions. Like the pizza, it's a concern they threw in, but it's not the root motivation.


But how we decide which is the pizza and which is the money in the bank? Which motives do we actually choose to believe?

CHIEF4EVER
08-10-2007, 04:16 PM
I don't know if you're saying I'm being disingenuous, but I believe wholeheartedly that, even if we were 'out of there' they'd still find axes to grind and justifications for their actions. Like the pizza, it's a concern they threw in, but it's not the root motivation.

Bingo. They would cite our support of Israel (even though we support our Allies in Saudi Arabia, UAE etc) as an excuse, or that we are the 'Great Devil' or some other pitiful excuse for their violent hatred. Logic and reason doesn't play a role in their hatred IMO.

go bowe
08-10-2007, 07:24 PM
Therein lies the difference between you and me in this case.



I see him as a murderer who uses his "faith" as an excuse to vent his hatred. Lying about his motives isn't at all out of character. He is just using his 'motives' as an excuse to kill. It also serves to prevent recruits from being driven away from him.



You forget your history. They hated us long before the 1st Gulf War and they also attacked us LONG before the 1st Gulf War. You can use the same arguments you posted in the opposit direction....the acts of the Palestinians are never called 'Terrorism' by them, nor are the acts of the PKK.when did osama begin to hate america?

i would guess that it was around the time he and his arab fighters helped drive the soviets out of afghanistan, using weapons provided by us...

i don't recall what the date was for the soviet withdrawal from afghanistan...

and i don't recall when osama first went ape-shit. but i think it was the around the time of the first gulf war when we stationed troops in saudi arabia...

were there other events that involved osama between the soviet withdrawal and gwI?

and we're talking about osama's crew, not terrorists who have attacked us over the years, right?