Have people forgotten about 9/11?

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Alceste,

First, it looks like you are conceding your absurd point that Iraq never sponsored any terrorism. Good.

Joe, is "Islamofascist" your catch-all name for all militant Islamic groups now, regardless of their aims?

I'm sure not all of them, but a number of them use the same fascistic methods that fascists have used in the past. One method is murdering people you disagree with. Many militant Islamic groups share this trait.

Can you clarify for me that you perceive, for example, the Taliban and Hamas as a part of a larger single entity with designs on world domination?

I said that I believe there is a larger militant Islamic movement (which I call Islamofascist) that is bigger than UBL and al Qeada. I certainly would classify the Taliban as part of the Islamofascist movement and also Hamas. Although Hamas has gone through a quasi-democratic process they still share many Islamofascistic characteristics such as suicide bombing civilians and pledging to ultimately destroy Israel.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi lilithu,

Pretty much the reason why I stopped arguing with him in this thread is so as to not give him the excuse to continue repeating that hateful word over and over again.

Talk about projecting. You have your own nefarious definition of the word 'Islamofascism' that you cling to. You don't even ask me what I mean by the word.

Here is an example, you know the guys that cut Nick Berg's head off and taped it (I've seen the tape). I think they are Islamofascists. I know, I'm so hateful. Cry me a river.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi gnomon,

This provides zero evidence in regards to the 9/11 attacks and Iraq harboring terrorists who conducted, would conduct or somehow engaged in the attacks upon U.S. soil.

It has been well established that those individuals who did participate in the 9/11 attacks had nothing to do with Iraq. This loose association theory could apply equally as well to those who conducted the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma and tie the U.S. as harboring terrorists to the 9/11 attacks. In other words, its absurd.

What we have here is a failure of logic. It is also a call to engage the U.S. itself into a nation state to engage in terrorism. I refuse to be a part of or loan support to such nation state or ethnocentric imbecility.

Let's also look at the facts that the instability in Iraq has garnered more support for any anti-U.S. terrorist organizations.

:sleep:

I do not have much respect for opinions about U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that has no regard for the past involvement in regards to the shah in Iran and the notion, quite validated, of blowback. It is a foreign policy introduced in force by the Wilson administration long ago and still in effect today.

Does anyone have any solid evidence linking Iraq to the attacks upon the U.S.?

I wasn't arguing that. You have failed to capture the depth and the nuance of my argument.

 

[Alceste]

Hi Alceste,

First, it looks like you are conceding your absurd point that Iraq never sponsored any terrorism. Good.

I will concede that at the time I made my comment I thought we were talking specifically about al Qaeda. (After all, "terrorist" is a pretty meaningless category - it was reasonable to assume you were talking about the people who attacked the US.) At that point, I didn't realize you were lumping every political group in the Muslim world together into a single unified mass of "terrorists", regardless of their methods or objectives.

Yes, Saddam provided refuge, training and financing to guerrillas who were opposed to his enemies in the region. Much like the US has done all over the world since the end of the second world war. Do you concede that Saddam's support of global terrorism was on a miniscule scale in comparison to that of the US?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Alceste,

Now you are changing your tune. You said this:

There has never been evidence of a connection of any kind between Iraq and financing or supporting Islamic terrorists.

Now you state this:

Do you concede that Saddam's support of global terrorism was on a miniscule scale in comparison to that of the US?

Do you concede that you completely contradicted yourself? Let's take that first step, then we can move on.

 

[lilithu]

Talk about projecting. You have your own nefarious definition of the word 'Islamofascism' that you cling to. You don't even ask me what I mean by the word.

Here is an example, you know the guys that cut Nick Berg's head off and taped it (I've seen the tape). I think they are Islamofascists. I know, I'm so hateful. Cry me a river.

If this were a different generation, I think the word you would be repeating over and over is Commie.

Some old, same old.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi lilithu,

If this were a different generation, I think the word you would be repeating over and over is Commie.

Some old, same old.

Let's try to find some common ground: Do you think that the people that cut Nick Berg's head off are evil?

 

[lilithu]

Let's try to find some common ground: Do you think that the people that cut Nick Berg's head off are evil?

I think that what they did was evil and they should be brought to justice.

That's a far cry from calling them "Islamofacists," then declaring war on "Islamofacism" and then invading other countries because "Omigawd, the Islamofacists are everywhere!! Bomb them!!" And then saying that one doesn't dislike Muslims, only "Islamofacists." :areyoucra

Bring the people who committed the crimes to justice. Period.

Did someone else bring this up? Terrorists bombed trains in Madrid. The govt of Spain responded by identifying who these people were, apprehending them, and bringing them to trial. The U.S. otoh, starts two wars, killing tens of thousands, and the person whom we know to be the mastermind, Osama bin Laden, is still free.

 

[McBell]

Let's try to find some common ground: Do you think that the people that cut Nick Berg's head off are evil?

Do the ones who cut his head off think of themselves as being evil?

Do you think cats are evil?
Wonder what mice think of cats...do you think that mice think cats are evil?
Good and evil are merely opposites points of view.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi lilithu,

I think that what they did was evil and they should be brought to justice.

Good, we agree.

That's a far cry from calling them "Islamofacists," then declaring war on "Islamofacism" and then invading other countries because "Omigawd, the Islamofacists are everywhere!! Bomb them!!" And then saying that one doesn't dislike Muslims, only "Islamofacists." :areyoucra

Complete straw man. Do you think the killers of Nick Berg have (or had) any political goals?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mestemia,

First, did my sources please you?

Do the ones who cut his head off think of themselves as being evil?

Do you think cats are evil?
Wonder what mice think of cats...do you think that mice think cats are evil?
Good and evil are merely opposites points of view.

So, is it fair to say in your worldview people who cut people's heads off don't deserve condemnation and ought not to be stopped?

 

[lilithu]

Complete straw man. Do you think the killers of Nick Berg have (or had) any political goals?

It's not a straw man. THAT IS THE ISSUE.

The bombers of Oklahoma City had political goals. Yet, we saw fit to arrest the two perpetrators and try them. Why the double standard, Joe?

 

[Alceste]

Hi Alceste,

Now you are changing your tune. You said this:

There has never been evidence of a connection of any kind between Iraq and financing or supporting Islamic terrorists.

Now you state this:

Do you concede that Saddam's support of global terrorism was on a miniscule scale in comparison to that of the US?

Do you concede that you completely contradicted yourself? Let's take that first step, then we can move on.

I already explained the context of the first statement, and in the second statement amended my definition of "terrorism" to match yours: all militant groups, regardless of their political objectives.

So move on and answer my question: Do you concede that the US provides far more support for such groups than Saddam ever did?

 

[McBell]

Hi Mestemia,

First, did my sources please you?

I have no quarrel with them.
I thought I had thanked you already, but if not:

Thank You.
​

So, is it fair to say in your worldview people who cut people's heads off don't deserve condemnation and ought not to be stopped?

No it is not.
However it seems you missed the point.
Evil is fine when you are the one doing it or it is being perpetrated by those whom you agree with.
Evil is bad when the other side is perpetrating it.

Are you of the notion that capital punishment is bad?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi lilithu,

It's not a straw man. THAT IS THE ISSUE.

We can move past your silly straw man because we are in complete agreement on two important points:

1. Islamofascists (or whatever you want to call them) are evil.

2. Islamofascists have political goals.

The bombers of Oklahoma City had political goals. Yet, we saw fit to arrest the two perpetrators and try them. Why the double standard, Joe?

Not a double standard at all. You see, Timothy McVeigh gave himself up peacefully and some Islamofascists do that as well. The sticky part is a lot of Islamofascists hide in nation-states that are hostile to us. It is not as easy is walking up to one and cuffing him. They tend to be armed with bombs and guns and they use them. Hence, we go after them with guns and bombs and when they shoot at us we shoot back.

I know you are not suggesting that we win the war on Islamofascism by simply arresting all of them. You can't be that naive.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Alceste,

I already explained the context of the first statement,

Wait, I didn't hear you say that you made a false statement about Iraq never supporting terrorism. Maybe you could show me where you admitted your mistake. You might've been tricked. Nah, you were just mistaken.

and in the second statement amended my definition of "terrorism" to match yours: all militant groups, regardless of their political objectives.

That is not my definition.

So move on and answer my question: Do you concede that the US provides far more support for such groups than Saddam ever did?

No, we allied with the Soviets, does that mean we endorsed Soviet communism? Of course not. Saddam supported Islamofascist groups because he shared their vision.

 

[lilithu]

Not a double standard at all. You see, Timothy McVeigh gave himself up peacefully

Oh really, so you're satisfied that he acted alone but convinced that when it comes to Muslims it's a worldwide conspiracy.

I know you are not suggesting that we win the war on Islamofascism by simply arresting all of them.

I'm suggesting that there is no "war on terrorism." The concept itself doesn't make sense as there is no target. No "war on terrorism," just the U.S. waging war on Afghanistan and Iraq, and threatening war with Iran.

There's no "war on drugs" either and that front is just as ridiculous and disastrous, but that's another thread. Why do we think we can solve all of our problems with wars??

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mestemia,

I have no quarrel with them.
I thought I had thanked you already, but if not:

Thank You.
​

I apologize that I didn't see it earlier. Your welcome.

No it is not.
However it seems you missed the point.
Evil is fine when you are the one doing it or it is being perpetrated by those whom you agree with.
Evil is bad when the other side is perpetrating it.

Maybe you are hung up on the word 'evil.' We will change things up a little bit: do you believe that people that cut off people's heads with whom they disagree with should be stopped?

Are you of the notion that capital punishment is bad?

No

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi lilithu,

Oh really, so you're satisfied that he acted alone but convinced that when it comes to Muslims it's a worldwide conspiracy.

Where have I called the Islamofascist movement a 'worldwide conspiracy?' They are very open about it and there are a considerable number of people that support their political aims, much much more than McVeigh's bunch.

I'm suggesting that there is no "war on terrorism." The concept itself doesn't make sense as there is no target. No "war on terrorism," just the U.S. waging war on Afghanistan and Iraq, and threatening war with Iran.

There's no "war on drugs" either and that front is just as ridiculous and disastrous, but that's another thread. Why do we think we can solve all of our problems with wars??

That is why I am being crystal clear and saying that we are in a war against Islamofascism. I know you don't want to believe that, but these people are real (we agree that they are evil) and they have real political goals (we both agree on that as well). We are at war with these people.

Cue the insane 'you're a racist anti-Muslim bigot and I cry every time I hear the word 'Islamofascist' rant.

 

[lilithu]

That is why I am being crystal clear and saying that we are in a war against Islamofascism.

Just because you can say the sentence doesn't mean that it means something. You can repeat it over and over until others start to believe you, which is what the govt does, but it will still be a made-up construct in order to prey on people's fears and justify unwarranted invasions and occupations of other countries.

I'm outta here Joe. I'm not mad, just increasingly aware of the fact that I am spending an inordinate amount of time arguing with folks whom I know will never differently. I'm arguing with you about the war and Obama when I could be actually doing something to make a difference in each case. Good night.