America was attacked again on 9-11

[djAdvocate]

Sept 12, 2012 11:19:29 GMT -5 reasonfreedom said:

Sept 12, 2012 11:09:42 GMT -5 workpublic said:

I personally think we should expect these things when we try to be an influence in other countries affairs.

so we shouldn't have supported the "arab spring"?

nope

why not?

[workpublic]

What, you haven't heard about the radical religious right in this country bombing abortion clinics and killing abortion doctors because they think what they do is wrong?


i've heard of a few in the past. which resulted in a spate of lkaws being instituted against it. but imho it's really comparing apples to oranges in this case, nothing recent.

must be the left wing controlled MSM keeping them out of the headlines.

www.theawfultruth.com/abortion/

Although it hasn't been in the news as much lately (we suspect that they have operatives working inside the media) violence against abortion providers and clinics continues to take lives and terrorize clinic workers.

www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/11/meet-the-woman-in-charge-of-the-last-abortion-clinic-in-mississippi.html

The law was temporarily blocked by District Judge Daniel Jordan, a George W. Bush appointee, before it could take effect July 1. And today that same judge will hold a hearing on whether the law should go forward.


p.s. i'm pro choice. not sure everyone who is against abortion is a christian, let alone a christian "terrorist"

[happyhoix]

Sept 12, 2012 11:28:44 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 12, 2012 11:19:29 GMT -5 reasonfreedom said:

nope

why not?

I'm still waiting for someone to explain what we SHOULD have done when Egypt and Libya decided to overthrow their dictators.

Since what Obama did was clearly so wrong, according to some of you posters, and it has now come back to 'bite him in the butt" - what SHOULD he have done?

[djAdvocate]

Sept 12, 2012 11:32:45 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Sept 12, 2012 11:28:44 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

why not?

I'm still waiting for someone to explain what we SHOULD have done when Egypt and Libya decided to overthrow their dictators.

Since what Obama did was clearly so wrong, according to some of you posters, and it has now come back to 'bite him in the butt" - what SHOULD he have done?

i can tell you what we would have done, historically. we would have sent "military aid" to the regime that was most supportive of our interests in the region (typically the one that was wildly unpopular in their own country) like we did in Iraq in the 80's, and Egypt since the 50's.

[workpublic]

so we shouldn't have supported the "arab spring"?


nope


why not?

If Egypt wants to over throw their dictator and establish a new government, we need to stay out of their way. If we can stand on the sidelines and encourage them to try to establish a government that is more open and democratic, we should encourage that, too. And that is ALL we should do - no meddling.

isn't that what we did in eygpt, stand on the side and encourage?

if the peoples of the region want a theocratic dictatorship instead of a military or corporate one they should have that right. we should also have the right to deny those folks access to the US.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 12, 2012 11:35:37 GMT -5 workpublic said:

so we shouldn't have supported the "arab spring"?


nope


why not?

If Egypt wants to over throw their dictator and establish a new government, we need to stay out of their way. If we can stand on the sidelines and encourage them to try to establish a government that is more open and democratic, we should encourage that, too. And that is ALL we should do - no meddling.

isn't that what we did in eygpt, stand on the side and encourage?

if the peoples of the region want a theocratic dictatorship instead of a military or corporate one they should have that right. we should also have the right to deny those folks access to the US.

should we also deny Israel "access", and if not, why not?

[workpublic]

i am actually kinda shocked that Americans don't support democratic movements. i thought we at least PRETENDED to do that at one time.


we do. imho the "arab spring" may have started out as a democratic movement(i wasn't privy to the birth), it certainly didn't result in a democracy in eygpt.

i'll go a step further(to further my agenda ) we should work on our own"democracy/representative republic". no one in power "represents" my(and millions of other Americans) will

[TonyTiger]

Sept 12, 2012 11:21:21 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Sept 12, 2012 11:08:57 GMT -5 workpublic said:

So if a group of right wing Christians from Tennessee surrounded the Egyptian embassy in D.C. and burned it to the ground with some Egyptians inside, would that be an act of war by America against Egypt?

if

i'll eat my hat when that happens.

What, you haven't heard about the radical religious right in this country bombing abortion clinics and killing abortion doctors because they think what they do is wrong?

There are Christian religious extremists just like there are muslim extremists. When they do idiotic things that should not be interpreted as the official policy of the country they're from.

There are, indeed, extremists in any religious 'domain'...

The issues here, quite possibly, are...

1. the percentage of inhabitants of the domain who can easily be led into extremists behaviors on a hair-trigger

2. the degree to which the sacred texts of the domain encourage or give permission to commit violence, thereby allowing clerics to manipulate the opinions and behavior of the herd

3. the degree to which the founder of the domain made statements that can be interpreted as giving permission to commit violence under varying circumstances

...and, quite honestly, some 'religious domains' are far, far more heavily weighted in favor of permissions and encouragements to commit violence than others...

I suggest that we cannot merely write-off the behaviors of adherents to a more violence-prone religion with simple counterpointing that extremists exist in all such domains...

I suggest that we must also examine the degree to which this is true and the underlying causes, within each domain, on a comparative basis, in order to reach a better understanding, and to better equip ourselves to deal realistically with threats from Domain A or B...

I also suggest that in order to reach realistic conclusions we must also examine the nature of the targets (internal domestic, directed against foreigners, directed against same religion, directed against other religions) and compare them across domain boundaries...

A domestic abortion-clinic firebombing by a fringe-ist or two hardly equates to organized mob assaults and bombings of sovereign embassies... apples and oranges... vastly different animals...

Or so it seems to this admittedly biased observer...

[djAdvocate]

Sept 12, 2012 11:38:34 GMT -5 workpublic said:

i am actually kinda shocked that Americans don't support democratic movements. i thought we at least PRETENDED to do that at one time.


we do. imho the "arab spring" may have started out as a democratic movement(i wasn't privy to the birth), it certainly didn't result in a democracy in eygpt.

that is actually not the point. the point of democratic movements is that you accept the outcome, and let people handle their own affairs.

ie- i don't think that the outcome in 2000 was particularly democratic in the US. however, we didn't see the UN come in and overthrow our government and put in Gore. we were allowed to live by our mistakes. why should Egypt not be allowed to live by theirs?

edit: i think maybe you misunderstood me. i think that we should support EGYPTIANS, not their government. capice?

[workpublic]

you missed my ETA above

i'll go a step further(to further my agenda ) we should work on our own"democracy/representative republic". no one in power "represents" my(and millions of other Americans) will

[djAdvocate]

Sept 12, 2012 11:42:38 GMT -5 workpublic said:

you missed my ETA above

i'll go a step further(to further my agenda ) we should work on our own"democracy/representative republic". no one in power "represents" my(and millions of other Americans) will

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

ok, wp. i can see we are on the same wavelength today. no further questions.

[workpublic]

should we also deny Israel "access", and if not, why not?

nope. the jewish religion isn't bent on converting the world by killing if necessary. isreal is the only thing close to a democracy in that area. they are also tolerant to all religions(like we are).


the Palestinian issue is more political than religious. the refugee question was/is just as much caused by neighboring arab states as it is by isreal.

[Tennesseer]

Sept 12, 2012 11:12:35 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 12, 2012 11:09:23 GMT -5 b2r said:

The Movie clip in question.

wtf is that s(*t?

An Ed Wood production.

[deziloooooo]

Nothing much that Obama or our Government could do...beyond suggesting to Mubarak it was time for him to leave...listen to the Royal Saudi family and go with family and friend for a vcation there..he had that opportunity..

Possible these people after all those yers in power believe the people really love them..and the few who don't can be taken care of..seems Assad and friends are experiencing that now...seems those African dictators are a lot smarter and seem to know when to get out of Dodge when it is time..

[djAdvocate]

Sept 12, 2012 11:46:58 GMT -5 workpublic said:

should we also deny Israel "access", and if not, why not?

nope. the jewish religion isn't bent on converting the world by killing if necessary. isreal is the only thing close to a democracy in that area. they are also tolerant to all religions(like we are).


the Palestinian issue is more political than religious. the refugee question was/is just as much caused by neighboring arab states as it is by isreal.

for the record, i don't think Muslims, as a people, are interested in world domination, either. in fact, i doubt that most extremists are, either. they see themselves mostly as LIBERATORS. but i have no further time for this discussion, today.

[workpublic]

what is mohammad's bio? is there one? or is it the koran?

[djAdvocate]

Sept 12, 2012 11:53:03 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Sept 12, 2012 11:12:35 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

wtf is that s(*t?

An Ed Wood production.

ok, thanks.

[TonyTiger]

Sept 12, 2012 12:00:32 GMT -5 workpublic said:

what is mohammad's bio? is there one? or is it the koran?

There's always Wiki, to get started...

Muhammed...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

The Q'uran (Koran)...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran

...and one can find plenty of Wiki and other lighterweight summaries of supplemental materials and observations such as Sunnah, Hadith, etc., beginning in those same places...

Personally, I own a copy of the Q'uran, something I picked-up at the local Barnes & Noble chain bookstore, and read cover-to-cover, and reflected upon for some weeks afterwards...

Me, I picked up my copy on September 12, 2001...

[happyhoix]

"I suggest that we cannot merely write-off the behaviors of adherents to a more violence-prone religion with simple counterpointing that extremists exist in all such domains...

I suggest that we must also examine the degree to which this is true and the underlying causes, within each domain, on a comparative basis, in order to reach a better understanding, and to better equip ourselves to deal realistically with threats from Domain A or B..."

Ok so I got it.

We're gonna make a giant excel sheet of all the people in the world that hate our guts, and rate them on a scale of 1 to 10 on just how strongly they want to kill us.

I would hazard a guess that somewhere, in some governmental department, such a list already exists, and I imagine there are hundreds of thousands of religious sects, political groups and ethnic clans on that list that all hate our guts and, to varying degrees, want to destroy us.

So now what do we do with that information? Get a bunch of drones to start killing all the people that hate us the most? Isn't that going to antagonize the people that (at least for now) don't hate us? Or should we go the route of isolating ourselves from the rest of the world - pull back our diplomatic corps, don't let Americans travel abroad, and don't let anyone who doesn't absolutely love us come here?

Here is our problem, as a nation. For a very long time we were spared terroristic attacks, for the most part, and (with the exception of Pearl Harbor) most of them were home grown idiots, like Timothy McVeigh. Look at Great Britain, and how many IRA attacks took place there. Spain and France have similarly had their problems. There have been more Islamic fundamentalist attacks against European countries than against the States. When 9-11 happened, while we were shocked at the carnage, many Europeans said sadly 'welcome to the club.'

So my question remains, once we get this great big fine list and know exactly who wants to kill us, what do we do with it? While the Republicans are quick to bash Obama, I would suggest there is no easy answer. Certainly we don't want to follow George Bush Jr's strategy of invading everyone who doesn't like us - that's why we have such an enormous national debt to begin with, not to mention all the lives that have been lost.

So far I've only heard that Obama did it wrong. I haven't heard any constructive advice on what we need to do differently.

[TonyTiger]

Sept 12, 2012 14:21:39 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I suggest that we cannot merely write-off the behaviors of adherents to a more violence-prone religion with simple counterpointing that extremists exist in all such domains...

I suggest that we must also examine the degree to which this is true and the underlying causes, within each domain, on a comparative basis, in order to reach a better understanding, and to better equip ourselves to deal realistically with threats from Domain A or B...

Ok so I got it. We're gonna make a giant excel sheet of all the people in the world that hate our guts, and rate them on a scale of 1 to 10 on just how strongly they want to kill us.

No need. Merely recognize the brutal and unpleasant reality that some religions are far more prone and self-empowered to foster and inspire violence and intolerance in our modern age than others, so that we do not look at Religious Domain A or B and make the fatal mistake of attributing the same level of risk to each.

"...So now what do we do with that information?..."

Think and talk of (and to) them in more realistic terms, as an aid to the long-term survival or well-being of one's culture and society, vis-a-vis any such external risk?

"...Here is our problem, as a nation. For a very long time we were spared terroristic attacks, for the most part, and (with the exception of Pearl Harbor) most of them were home grown idiots, like Timothy McVeigh..."

That is not a problem. That is a function of thousands of miles of deep blue water between us and most of the more problematic regions of the world. Modern, affordable travel has begun to make a very slight 'dent' in that advantage, as we saw on 9-11.

Does that previous lack of harm done to us 'cloud' or 'inform' our reaction? Yes. Do I ever want that to dissipate, or do I ever want our outrage and power and willpower to act against such vermin to dissipate? Nope.

"...Certainly we don't want to follow George Bush Jr's strategy..."

I, for one, supported a short, intense war in Afghanistan, to flush-out al-Qaeda - dethroning their nasty Taliban hosts was just an expected bonus. I thought Iraq was entirely unwarranted and idiotic, as well as costly in both human terms and in treasure.

"...So far I've only heard that Obama did it wrong. I haven't heard any constructive advice on what we need to do differently."

It's tricky, alright.

But, in order to DEAL with an enemy...

One must first have the common sense and courage to RECOGNIZE that enemy, and to honestly assess them vis-a-vis the rest of the world - including some serviceable attention to 'degrees' of danger - and their causes - in order to place them in a serviceable context for contemplation and action...

[Deleted]

We are on our way to WWIII. It is easy to criticize with Monday Morning QBing. NOw it is time for Obama to demonstrate some iota of leadership, or not.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 12, 2012 14:46:58 GMT -5 @shooby said:

We are on our way to WWIII.

with whom?

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Marines headed to Libya to reinforce securityBy ROBERT BURNS, AP

6 hours ago

WASHINGTON — U.S. officials say some 50 Marines are being sent to Libya to reinforce security at U.S. diplomatic facilities in the aftermath of an attack in the eastern city of Benghazi that killed the U.S. ambassador and three American members of his staff.

The Marines are members of an elite group known as a Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team, whose role is to respond on short notice to terrorism threats and to reinforce security at U.S. embassies. They operate worldwide.

The officials who disclosed the plan to send the Marines spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20120912/US.Embassy.Attacks.Marines/?cid=hero_media

[usaone]

Sept 12, 2012 14:46:58 GMT -5 @shooby said:

We are on our way to WWIII. It is easy to criticize with Monday Morning QBing. NOw it is time for Obama to demonstrate some iota of leadership, or not.

Lmao.....he's been bombing and killing terrorists including Bin laden for 3 1/2 years now.

[billisonboard]

Sept 12, 2012 14:37:19 GMT -5 TonyTiger said:

...

But, in order to DEAL with an enemy...

One must first have the common sense and courage to RECOGNIZE that enemy, and to honestly assess them vis-a-vis the rest of the world - including some serviceable attention to 'degrees' of danger - and their causes - in order to place them in a serviceable context for contemplation and action...

US drone attacks escalate inside Pakistan
www.wsws.org/articles/2012/aug2012/dron-a29.shtml
Aug 29, 2012 – At least four CIA drone attacks took place last week in North Waziristan, killing more than 35 people.

U.S. drone attack kills 6 suspected militants in Yemen - Yahoo! News
news.yahoo.com/u-drone-attack-kills-6-suspected-militants-yemen-...
Sep 5, 2012 – ADEN, Yemen (Reuters) - A U.S. drone strike killed six suspected Islamist militants in eastern Yemen on Wednesday, a security official said, the ...

[Reckless Roselia]

Sept 12, 2012 12:00:07 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 12, 2012 11:46:58 GMT -5 workpublic said:

should we also deny Israel "access", and if not, why not?

nope. the jewish religion isn't bent on converting the world by killing if necessary. isreal is the only thing close to a democracy in that area. they are also tolerant to all religions(like we are).


the Palestinian issue is more political than religious. the refugee question was/is just as much caused by neighboring arab states as it is by isreal.

for the record, i don't think Muslims, as a people, are interested in world domination, either. in fact, i doubt that most extremists are, either. they see themselves mostly as LIBERATORS.

[TonyTiger]

Sept 12, 2012 14:45:31 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

No need. Merely recognize the brutal and unpleasant reality that some religions are far more prone and self-empowered to foster and inspire violence and intolerance in our modern age than others, so that we do not look at Religious Domain A or B and make the fatal mistake of attributing the same level of risk to each.

"I reject that premise... "

Which would make you rather dangerous to the survival of your culture or society in a context of needing to make Key Decisions based upon the relative nature of Religious Threat A or B.

Although I respect your opinion on the subject and recognize your absolute right to form and hold such an opinion, and although whatever modest fragment of humanist and egalitarian and internationalist might lurk within me really and truly wants your own perspective in the matter to be the real one, the pragmatist within is obliged to stand firm on the original observation.

"...There are certain regions of the world that are far more prone to violence, etc., and the Middle East is certainly on that list. But this is due to a whole host of reasons, not just religion. Poverty, subjugation, societal discord, there are a whole bevy of factors that make this a volatile region..."

All true. But the situation is greatly exacerbated by a Religious Domain that won most of its geography at the point of a sword in the name of their vision of the godhead and whose sacred texts and canonical corpus juris are absolutely saturated with both a long and bloody history and the legal and canonical basis for committing violence, as repeatedly outlined by its Founder.

Although critics of Judaism and Christianity can point to the Old Testament and cite a wide variety of exhortations to violence, there are tremendous and all-important distinctions to be made:

1. neither Judaism nor Christianity have undertaken holistic and large-scale violence in the name of their own vision of the Creator in a very, very long time [how long has it been since the 30 Years War or since the Pope has declared a Crusade, vis-a-vis how long has it been since various high-profile and influential adherents to Islam have called for Jihad in modern times?]

2. the Founder of Islam calls for violence and war and killing under various circumstances... with respect to Christianity, where does its Founder (Jesus of Nazareth) call for war and the killing of one's fellow man in the name of God under various circumstances? On the contrary, I seem to recall something about simple admonishments to Love Thy Neighbor and Turn the Other Cheek and stuff like that. I'm not talking about what fallible disciples spin-doctored the faithful into believing centuries ago - I'm talking about the teachings attributed to that Founder.

3. the sacred texts of Islam themselves call for violence and war and killing under various circumstances, but you will be hard-pressed to find similar teachings anywhere in the New Testament, which is the cornerstone of the Christian domain, and which is commonly understood to supercede any teachings to the contrary in the Old.

Similar and well-formed arguments may be made when comparing Buddhism vis-a-vis Islam, etc., although I am not even vaguely or marginally competent to make such a comparison, even from the perspective of a layman or interested outsider or bystander.

You may reject the premise all you like, but it is, truly, the 10,000-pound elephant in the room, in our time.

"...There is also a reserve of dislike for the western culture which overran and ruled over their lands for so long. There is manipulation by politicos and false prophets to channel hate and violence..."

I am on your side when it comes to a resentful and re-emergent Islam resurfacing after a couple of centuries of European Colonialism and Imperialism (which put them on the opposite side of the Conquest Coin for one of the few times in their history).

"...Furthermore all religions tend to be exclusionary, and thus foster some distrust (at the least) to those of other faiths. Islam has no monopoly on that."

True.

Then again, you'll find very few calls in the sacred texts of Judeo-Christianity or Buddhism or the like, to kill all nonbelievers, and to continue killing them until they admit the supremacy and rightness of their vision of the godhead.

We see these things much differently.

[b2r]

[reasonfreedom]

Sept 12, 2012 11:28:44 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 12, 2012 11:19:29 GMT -5 reasonfreedom said:

nope

why not?

Because it is arab spring, not American spring. Who is to say that the arab spring will cause peace instead of more unrest? Who is to say that the people willing to revolt really want peace or just a bigger piece of the pie? Mainly it is because I don't know the people there personally enough to be able to judge their character, just because a cause is righteous doesn't mean righteous people are behind the movement.

[Deleted]

Sept 12, 2012 14:37:19 GMT -5 TonyTiger said:

No need. Merely recognize the brutal and unpleasant reality that some religions are far more prone and self-empowered to foster and inspire violence and intolerance in our modern age than others, so that we do not look at Religious Domain A or B and make the fatal mistake of attributing the same level of risk to each.

I'd agree with this except I think to demarcate domains of behaviour by specific faith is too crude; there are certain common movements within the different religions which are probably more appropriate. For instance there is often a reformed contingent, an orthodox contingent, and a fundamentalist contingent. There might be others but the one I had in mind was the fundamentalists -it seems to me that the fundamentalists of various faiths perhaps have more in common with each other than they do with the other movements in their own respective religion.

Generally the violence, regardless of which religion is responsible, appears to be perpetrated by those on the fundamentalist edge.