Have people forgotten about 9/11?

[kai]

But they can't sell that idea to other Muslims so easily when we are not occupying their lands by military force. Which is a direct affront to both their religion and their sense of nationalism.

they dont need to sell it ,its an ideal ,a dream, a return to islamic great empires. its a jihad

 

[lilithu]

they dont need to sell it ,its an ideal ,a dream, a return to islamic great empires. its a jihad

First of all, you didn't address PureX's point.

Second, of course dreams are sold. If you have a vision for how things should be, you have to convince others to believe in that vision too.

 

[Alceste]

Wow. What a discussion!

Big hugs to all you brave folks from south of the border who don't get all their news from Fox, and have the patience to explain the world to those who do.

I had no idea anyone but GOP PR firms held the views in the OP. On the up side, at least the tens of billions of public dollars the Bush administration has paid for top notch propaganda is money well spent!

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Seyorni,

I'm not condemning Van Gogh! Where'd you get that? I'm just stating facts. He was widely known as a firebrand who didn't pull any punches.
And, yes, I seek to understand and explain his killers.
How can you effectively deal with a problem if you don't understand it? Sure, you can shoot or arrest everyone who is problematic, but without understanding what's generating the miscreants the problem will only persist.

I have my suspicions about you really wanting to understand these people. Do you actually read the writings of UBL and other Islamofascist leaders? I do. That is how I understand them. I have a sneaking suspicion that you 'understand' these killers through the anti-western prism.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi lilithu,

I marvel at how you continue to repeat this ridiculous statement. The term was made-up by Americans in order to justify the killing of tens of thousands of Muslim civilians. Even if the average Iraqi resented al Qaeda, they would not think in such terms.

What the hell are you talking about?

Where is the evidence that the term 'Islamofascist' was made-up by Americans to justify the killing of Muslim civilians?

I use the term because it accurately describes our enemy; they are Mulsim fascists. The term, as I understand it, has nothing to do with Muslim civilians.

And whether Iraqis would actually use the term 'Islamofascist' is a red herring. You know, the guys that murder children as they go to school, the average Iraqi doesn't like them.

And yet you cannot distinguish between the two of them in your war! Whether you hate them or not, you have no problem with killing tens of thousands of them for your own sense of security. Their lives obviously don't matter to you.

This is terrific, accusing me of having no problem killing civilians because of your little hang up on a word.

Like I said before, if there was a neutral battlefield where we and Islamofascists could go and fight like a basketball game, then that would be terrific. But there is not. So, if we are going to do battle with Islamofascists, then I say we battle them anywhere not in the U.S. And of course in war you try to minimize casualty deaths.

Hopefully you can drop your silly hang-up on the word 'Islamofacsist.' It would go a long way in us having an actual debate.

It still remains that you did not answer the question asked.

I am not Iraqi. I would hope that they feel that they can change their country for the better, something they couldn't do under Saddam.

 

[Magic Man]

This point of view is often put out here as the 'American' point of view.

This saddens me.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Alceste,

Wow. What a discussion!

Big hugs to all you brave folks from south of the border who don't get all their news from Fox, and have the patience to explain the world to those who do.

I had no idea anyone but GOP PR firms held the views in the OP. On the up side, at least the tens of billions of public dollars the Bush administration has paid for top notch propaganda is money well spent!

Wow! What elitism.

It must be interesting to live in a world where you assume that people you disagree are complete morons that have been duped into believing X or Y. I tend to just accept that they came to another conclusion than me. No nefarious motives for me.

 

[Alceste]

Hi Alceste,



Wow! What elitism.

It must be interesting to live in a world where you assume that people you disagree are complete morons that have been duped into believing X or Y. I tend to just accept that they came to another conclusion than me. No nefarious motives for me.

Actually, it's not elitism, it's I-am-not-an-american-ism. Outside the US, there's no real disagreement about the causes, motives, prospects and failures of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. No real disagreement on why there are still Americans who repeat GOP talking points as "facts" either. The Bush administration's use of propaganda (ie. fake news) to promote this war is unprecedented, and surprises everyone outside your own country (and even some inside it). When your opinions are indestinguishable from traceable, documented GOP propaganda efforts, there's not much chance people who are not exposed to constant government brainwashing will believe you came up with them without being duped.

Fact of life.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Alceste,

Actually, it's not elitism, it's I-am-not-an-american-ism. Outside the US, there's no real disagreement about the causes, motives, prospects and failures of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. No real disagreement on why there are still Americans who repeat GOP talking points as "facts" either. The Bush administration's use of propaganda (ie. fake news) to promote this war is unprecedented, and surprises everyone outside your own country (and even some inside it). When your opinions are indestinguishable from traceable, documented GOP propaganda efforts, there's not much chance people who are not exposed to constant government brainwashing will believe you came up with them without being duped.

Fact of life.

So, to you it is impossible for somebody to reason about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and come to a different conclusion than you?

And if they do, then they must have been tricked into believing X or Y about the wars?

You actually believe that?

So, it is safe to say that you believe every person that has different political beliefs from your own has been duped?

If so, your arrogance knows no bounds.

 

[Alceste]

Hi Alceste,

So, to you it is impossible for somebody to reason about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and come to a different conclusion than you?

And if they do, then they must have been tricked into believing X or Y about the wars?

You actually believe that?

So, it is safe to say that you believe every person that has different political beliefs from your own has been duped?

If so, your arrogance knows no bounds.

Productive reasoning requires exposure to facts. If you have watched (for example) Fox news and interpreted any of their reporting as factual information - rather than carefully controlled PR messaging on behalf of the GOP - you have been tricked. I "actually believe that". Yes, I do.

Again, not "arrogance", simply the wider perspective that comes from being on the outside of the fish bowl of American media and politics. Everything the US does, the rest of us get to observe, opinionate and worry about. The US has made the world less safe for all of us, so we do pay attention. Also, especially with an election coming up, we are dying to see if Americans still have the democratic willpower to reverse their blundering, murderous, terrifying rush toward fascism and come back to the diplomatic table. Ie. NOT vote republican. Ever.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Alceste,

Productive reasoning requires exposure to facts. If you have watched (for example) Fox news and interpreted any of their reporting as factual information - rather than carefully controlled PR messaging on behalf of the GOP - you have been tricked. I "actually believe that". Yes, I do.

Quite true. Although I would argue both us stress different facts or even disagree about what the facts are.

But there is a tremendous difference between you and I. I believe people argue from different premises and thus easily reach different conclusions. The deabte is about these premises. I don't think people have been tricked that come to different conclusions than I. I accept that they may be arguing from different premises and maybe even have different pieces of evidence. Now, they may be tricked but I think that is highly doubtful. I just think some people have been mistaken.

But I'll bite; specifically and exactly how have I been tricked to believe what I believe about the wars in the Middle East and our actions? You made the claim that I have been tricked, prove it.

 

[kai]

First of all, you didn't address PureX's point.
first of al i dont think he has a point he doesnt get it, nor do you,they will fight you wherever you are.they hate you and want to kill you, you are the great satan
Second, of course dreams are sold. If you have a vision for how things should be, you have to convince others to believe in that vision too.

When we are dreaming alone it is only a dream. When we are dreaming with others, it is the beginning of reality. “Death To America.” “Let the entire world hear me. Our hostility to the Great Satan is absolute. … I conclude my speech with the slogan that will continue to reverberate on all occasions so that nobody will think that we have weakened. Regardless of how the world has changed after 11 September, Death to America will remain our reverberating and powerful slogan: Death to America.” (Hezbollah Leader Nasrallah Supports Intifadah, Vows ‘Death to America,’ Aired On Beirut Al-Manar Television, 9/27/02)

 

[Alceste]

You made the claim that I have been tricked, prove it.

Hi, Joe. OK, I'll take one randomly selected example of your opinion which is traceable GOP propaganda:

I believe attacking Iraq was completely justified in that we are severely crippling the ability of Islamofascists to launch attacks because meant a nation-state that used to support their movement has been taken away.

Fact: Iraq was a secular nation before the invasion. This means it was an enemy of Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabian extremists, the Taliban, Iran, etc. There has never been evidence of a connection of any kind between Iraq and financing or supporting Islamic terrorists. In fact, Bin Laden has openly denounced Saddam Hussein's government as "infidels" on video.

Your propaganda source: "These al Qaeda affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they've been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months," said U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell in his presentation last month to the U.N. Security Council. (Feb. 2003)

So, if al Qaeda used to steer clear of Iraq, and now they are welcomed in Iraq to help fight the occupation, it means your conclusion - which is based entirely on false statements of US officials during the promotion of the war - is therefore propaganda-based, and wrong.

one source of many possible sources

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Alceste,

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

This is 100% false.

1. Abdul Rahman Yassin, indicted for the 1993 WTC bombing, after escaping our jurisdiction fled straight to Baghdad.

2. Abu Abbas, the Palestinian terrorist who led the hijacking of the Achille Lauro in 1985 recieved sanctuary in Iraq, in fact the Palestinian Liberation Front moved its headquarters to Iraq after the hijacking.

3. Abu Nidal was harbored by Saddam until he finally dispatched him.

4. Saddam paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Then there is this from the 9/11 Commission:

With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish trainnig camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to his request. (page 61).

So, if al Qaeda used to steer clear of Iraq, and now they are welcomed in Iraq to help fight the occupation, it means your conclusion - which is based entirely on false statements of US officials during the promotion of the war - is therefore propaganda-based, and wrong.

Not really. My information is based on the facts. The facts that Saddam was a state supporter of Islamofascism and Saddam and UBL shared the same political goals and enemies. You are mistaken. I am not going to assume you have been tricked. I'm not that arrogant.

 

[kai]

there is a arab saying that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" saddam supported international terrorism for decades.

 

[Alceste]

I'm sorry, Joe, I recognize at least one of your claims as already having been thoroughly debunked, and you began by talking about Al Qaeda and now you're talking about the PLF? What? Your criteria for defining what someone bent on Islamic world domination is is that they have to be brown? Or what? Please choose a topic. I believe the Palestinian Liberation Front was for liberating Palestine, not "Islamofascism" (for which you've provided a very weak argument, entirely based on differences in the use of language between the Arabs and the English, and on interpreting rage at America for invading a sovereign country and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Arabs as a baseless, constant feature of the Islamic landscape.)

The US was attacked because your foreign policy of constant, covert military interference in sovereign nations since WWII made the country a target. Much like your policy of constant, overt military interference is making you a target now, as well as any former ally that continues to stand beside you. This is why all the US's allies have either jumped ship or set strict limits on the contribution they're willing to give. We don't want a 9-11 in OUR backyard and we understand why it happened and how to prevent it from happening again.

 

[kai]

I'm sorry, Joe, I recognize at least one of your claims as already having been thoroughly debunked, and you began by talking about Al Qaeda and now you're talking about the PLF? What? Your criteria for defining what someone bent on Islamic world domination is is that they have to be brown? Or what? Please choose a topic. I believe the Palestinian Liberation Front was for liberating Palestine, not "Islamofascism" (for which you've provided a very weak argument, entirely based on differences in the use of language between the Arabs and the English, and on interpreting rage at America for invading a sovereign country and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Arabs as a baseless, constant feature of the Islamic landscape.)

The US was attacked because your foreign policy of constant, covert military interference in sovereign nations since WWII made the country a target. Much like your policy of constant, overt military interference is making you a target now, as well as any former ally that continues to stand beside you. This is why all the US's allies have either jumped ship or set strict limits on the contribution they're willing to give. We don't want a 9-11 in OUR backyard and we understand why it happened and how to prevent it from happening again.

how is that then? how are you going to stop it happening again? and you dont have to be brown just islamic isnt that obvious, oh thats how you could prevent it by converting and introducing sharia,thats it war over

 

[doppelganger]

I had no idea anyone but GOP PR firms held the views in the OP. On the up side, at least the tens of billions of public dollars the Bush administration has paid for top notch propaganda is money well spent!

Very astute.

Did you know that the U.S. media is only just now reporting on the fact that our Defense Department used our own tax money to propagandize U.S. citizens?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html

They hired pundits to pepper our "liberal media" with arguments, appearing as military "analysts", designed by the DOD to justify the torture centers at Guantanamo and direct public opinion favorably.

Despite an initial denial of any knowledge of this program by the White House, emails from the DOD produced in response to a Congressional inquiry revealed that persons in the Bush Administration knew and participated in this propaganda program.

Was Karl Rove involved in the military analyst program? - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Alceste,

I'm sorry, Joe, I recognize at least one of your claims as already having been thoroughly debunked, and you began by talking about Al Qaeda and now you're talking about the PLF? What? Your criteria for defining what someone bent on Islamic world domination is is that they have to be brown? Or what? Please choose a topic. I believe the Palestinian Liberation Front was for liberating Palestine, not "Islamofascism" (for which you've provided a very weak argument, entirely based on differences in the use of language between the Arabs and the English, and on interpreting rage at America for invading a sovereign country and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Arabs as a baseless, constant feature of the Islamic landscape.)

The nuance and depth of my point was lost on you. Allow me to clarify. I believe that the lifeblood of Islamofascism is nation-state support and I also believe that Islamofascism is a much larger movement than just UBL and al Qeada. You made the absurd claim that Saddam never sponsored Islamofascist groups. This is undisputidely false.

Saddam did sponsor Islamofascist groups and you can't (or haven't) refuted it.

 

[tomspug]

Some times I think people believe in propaganda too much. I've always felt like it's kind of obvious when something is propaganda.

For example, during presidential primaries, all those signs that say "(insert name) for (insert ambiguous value)" or "(ambiguous value/name) in 08". That's persuasive propaganda. But when politicians make a persuasive argument on a platform, that is not propaganda. Just because something is persuasive does not make it propaganda.

When 9/11 is investigated by every branch of government and comes to the same conclusions about the events that transpires (it's called the 9/11 commission report), that's not propaganda, that's fact (unless you believe that every single person involved in the bipartisan commission report is under the same blanket of propaganda machine, which makes you a nutjob).