You know what would probably be really effective at combating Islamic fundamentalism?

[white_wolf]

Leaving the Middle-East. Seriously, the U.S. needs to leave, they need to close the bases, get off Islamic holy sites, quit bombing innocent people, quit using drone strikes and I'm willing to bet that would decrease terrorism a lot more over the long term than bombing them. The anti-Islamic film was just the spark that lit the fuse, but the fuse was prepared by the U.S. occupation of the Middle-East. They don't want us there, and who can blame them? We are killing their families. Oh and as an aside I am really sick of this anti-Muslim sentiment I've seen here over the past few days, it isn't the majority I'm sure, but damn is it getting annoying.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Three reasons it won't happen

1.- OIL

2.- Strategic trade routes, one of them goes all the way to the Paleo lithic

3.- Control of the seas.

I wish things were that simple, I really do. But those three are the TOP reasons why that will not happen.

[white_wolf]

4. It probably never will happen, at least not anytime soon.

Still, though it is the only real solution to terrorism. If the U.S. keeps going the way it is, things are only going to get worse for the Middle-East and the rest of the world.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. The real long view from history

sooner or later the US will get out, like all empires. Current trends, it will be China and India's turn... no empire can allow that strategically important area to be on it's own. We have been playing these games for 4K now, so won't stop. The name will change.

Hell, heresy I know, but the US will not last as an Empire forever either. Nor will China or India...

[BOG PERSON]

8. it will happen eventually

shit's gonna get real (in the lacanian sense) in a couple of decades

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. i fear when humans disapear

Sorry... and this is not going to stop, I mean we have been at this game since well before the West in the modern sense came to be.

Rome was concerned about the same things, well not oil, in their time it was other we need to have it to survive, but...

[BOG PERSON]

19. maybe when spiders evolve into intelligent beings

they'll organize their societies in a more rational, less oppressive way. no spider patriarchy, no spider slavery, no spider sweat shops. they'll just begin and end with spider-communism.

[Loudly]

36. Spiders are already smart enough to remain solitary.

[robinlynne]

76. love it. spider communism.

[ThoughtCriminal]

40. Four

Israel's dominate influence on our foreign policy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Already taken into account

That trade route that goes all the way back to the Neo-Lithic...you have any idea how many Empires have fought over it over the last 10K years?

Some used chariots, some use merkavas (chariot in Hebrew), but that has been fought for so damn long it's not even funny.

Strategically it's not Israel, but control over that strategic piece of terrain.

[uppityperson]

2. Oil.

[treestar]

48. We get most of our oil from Venezuela, though

So really, the whole thing is the PNAC and their desire to rule the world - that kind of mentality, with the argument that the oil is needed because we can't drill in ANWAR. People fall for that argument without realizing we get most of our oil from Canada and Venezuela.

[uppityperson]

71. I do not know, but where does the oil come to make things? Not just gas, but all the plastic

things that we use so much of. Fabrics, cars, computers, etc etc etc. So much plastic in the world, where does the oil come from for it?

[RegieRocker]

3. Until they get nukes. They don't want us on the earth eventually.

As with all religions and non religion activities they want to convert everyone to their way of thinking. You even see atheists doing it. It's not religion or the lack of that the problem. It's humans.

[white_wolf]

5. I don't see them using nuclear weapons. I think MAD would be enough to deter them.

Iran knows it would be wiped out along with the U.S. if they tried to actually use nuclear weapons.

[RegieRocker]

9. We are talking about people that strap bombs to themselves

right?

[white_wolf]

11. Somehow I doubt the various leaders of Middle-Eastern nations share that enthusiasm.

Unless you are talking about terrorist organizations getting nukes. I was referring to nations. Iran is the only close to it and they are facing internal troubles of their own.

[RegieRocker]

17. What I am saying is "I don't see the governments taking

strong action against extremists". That only means two possibilities to me. Either they don't want to or can't. Therefore nukes are of a concern.

[BOG PERSON]

12. were we talking about the tamil tigers?

[Hugabear]

43. False analogy. Terrorist leaders do NOT "strap bombs to themselves"

Osama bin Laden never strapped a bomb to himself. You just don't see terrorist leaders doing that sort of thing - they always get somebody else to do it for them. They want to live to continue the fight.

By using a nuclear weapon, they would in essence be strapping a bomb to their self. They know that it would invite massive retaliation - either from Israel, the US, or both - and likely in the form of nuclear retaliation.

The people who are calling the shots aren't suicidal, not by a long shot.

[RegieRocker]

83. LOL our Presidents don't go on missions

with the Seals either however Bin Laden is still dead. So....a brief case nuke should do the trick don't you think?

[malaise]

45. The first suicide bombers were not Muslims n/t

[Confusious]

81. They seem to have taken it and run with it. Nt

[BOG PERSON]

7. agreed. that's why we must never butt out of the middle east

because unlike them we dont care if humans agree with us,. we're more than human. over-men, you might say.

[RegieRocker]

13. They care if we agree with them....LOL

that is why they are killing diplomats and mad at the whole US? They majority is too lax about these extremists. That is our issue. Nothing else. As for corporations that however is not the case.

[freshwest]

24. People love any reason to stop thinking so they join groups to fill up their heads with non-think.

That's the appeal of a cult. It's like saying to one's brain:

'I'm tired of thinking. I'll repeat whatever someone else says so my mind can take a vacation.'

[RegieRocker]

26. Yes but I think it's because we had to stay in groups to survive

and that subconscious drive is still strong.

[chknltl]

53. nukes are defense only wepon.

Any nation using one offensively faces the worlds immediate wrath. For instance if Sadam had gained a nuke, had he used it on Israel, his capital would have been turned to rubble, his life measured in days, maybe even hours.

To suggest Sadam or any dictator for that matter is willing to use a nuke offensively like that is to suggest that this dictator is a martyr. Sadam was NOT a martyr, nor is any of the current dictators in the Middle East.

Otoh, Sadam with a nuke puts a whole different perspective on things should a rogue superpower like the U.S. seek to invade, like we did under President GW Bush. The Bush administration would never have dared to risk having our ground troops hit with a nuke used defensively 'protecting' Iraqi soil.

[wickerwoman]

6. It's less the US presence and more Israel.

The US leaving would just turn the focus back on Israel. And its not like there wouldn't still be anti-American sentiment since all dictatorships need an outside enemy to refocus their peoples' rage against.

[dkf]

14. If they were getting mad over our presence and bombings then maybe.

But getting mad over a movie? That tells me the only way we stop it is by agreeing to their beliefs.

Which is rather odd that they are focused on the cultural things, not the economics. They have more in common with the righties here in the US than the left.

[white_wolf]

15. Do you actually think they would have cared about a movie if they weren't being bombed?

Do you honestly think they would gain much support if the U.S. wasn't over there? No, they wouldn't. Hell, if the U.S. had stayed out there wouldn't have been an Al-qadia since it was the U.S. who armed them in the 80s.

[RegieRocker]

18. I would have to agree with dkf

Explain how your logic applies to Egypt?

[riderinthestorm]

57. They're rioting in Kuwait, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Mali and other places that we've never been

That we've never bombed or even tried to exploit, harass or occupy.

Furthermore, places like Central and South America where the US HAS been as hideously imperialistic and murderous, perhaps even more so than in the ME, have never behaved like we're seeing now in the ME.

[robinlynne]

77. Saudi Arabia is where we have the biggest military presence!

[Dokkie]

16. a whole lot less of the stick

and more carrot will do the trick. And by stick I mean bullets and bombs and by carrots I mean good will, lifting of sanctions and allowing free elections instead of continuing to install puppet leader after another (eg Morsi)

[HiPointDem]

20. kr

[MNBrewer]

21. Another way is Islamic moderation.

Just sayin'

[white_wolf]

23. The vast majority are moderates.

They probably don't agree with the fundies, but with the way the U.S. is treating the Middle-East, it's understandable that they aren't willing to fight the fundamentalists when they perceive the fundamentalist as the only ones standing up for them. The fundamentalists are just a reaction to the U.S.' actions in the Middle-East.

[MNBrewer]

27. I really doubt that your version of "moderate" is the same as mine.

Supporting the death penalty for homosexuals disqualifies one as a "moderate" in my book.

I doubt the majority of muslims in the world support civil rights for homosexuals. No doubt some do, but they are a small minority who hold no sway, anywhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Homosexuality
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics

[white_wolf]

28. And what is your solution?

I can't think of one. We aren't going to bomb the Middle-East into embracing secularism. They have to decide that for themselves and would probably decide for it a lot faster without U.S. backed dictators.

[MNBrewer]

32. The solution isn't up to me

It's up to Muslims who are actually "moderate". You're right, we can't bomb them into the 19th Century, much less the 21st. And, I agree that we should stop propping up dictators, starting with Saudi Arabia.

But then, maybe i'm expecting too much of them. Maybe it really IS too much to expect that they not murder people for their sexual orientation and we just learn to live with it. In that case, it is a moral imperative that we provide asylum for those people.

[white_wolf]

35. Provide Asylum? Yes, absolutely.

[BOG PERSON]

34. the arab bourgeoisie has failed in its historical task

of uniting the arab nation into a secular republic and developing industry, commerce, agriculture, etc . the arab masses face an uphill battle in educating themselves about what they have to do. there are too many bullshitters, too much TV ideology (democracy! freedom! "social justice!&quot , too many damn parasites that won't detach themselves

[4th law of robotics]

74. That's crazy talk

how is the US 100% at fault in your scenario?

[Nye Bevan]

22. Did you approve of us killing Osama Bin Laden?

Stuff like that is tough to do without military bases over there.

[white_wolf]

25. If we didn't meddle in their affairs, there may not have been an Al-Qadi.

The U.S. created Al-qadi when it armed and trained the Mujaheddin to fight the Soviets. Ignoring that, even if 9/11 had still happened, we didn't have to invade. The Taliban offered to turn Bin Laden over for trial, but Bush had to have his war.

[former9thward]

31. The Taliban did not seriously offer to turn over bin Laden.

It was a false offer and everyone knew it.

"If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved" and the bombing campaign stopped, "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country", Mr Kabir added.

But it would have to be a state that would never "come under pressure from the United States", he said.

Mullah Mohammed Omar said there was no move to "hand anyone over".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

[Ghost in the Machine]

38. I don't think it was too much to ask on their part..

Would *you* want our government to hand you over to another government for a trial, without them giving concrete evidence that you have committed a crime?

Then changing it to handing him over to a third party, an impartial party, isn't much to ask for either, since they only added that after Bush's reply to the request for proof that he was involved was "We don't need any proof, we KNOW he did it"!

Just something for you to think about..

Peace,

Ghost

[former9thward]

39. Sure maybe we should have just asked Germany to hand over Hitler to Switzerland.

Think of all those lives we could have saved. We could have had one of those nice international trials which go on for 20 years while Hitler was under 'house arrest' in some chateau. Just something to think about ....

Good luck finding some "impartial party". That is a real joke. Sorry but none exists.

[Ghost in the Machine]

44. "Good luck finding some "impartial party". That is a real joke. Sorry but none exists."

So it's your position that he wouldn't have gotten a fair trial anywhere in the world then, right? No right to due process, no right to have proof/evidence presented, just 'hand him over or we'll bomb the shit out of you'? Please clarify your position since your response was nothing more than some off topic, irrelevant blathering about Hitler and Switzerland and had nothing to do with this discussion.

I would love to see your answer to this: Why would he deny involvement of the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor? If you're the leader of a terrorist organization that just pulled this off, wouldn't you take credit for it? Wouldn't you be blowing your own horn? What better way to recruit new members for your "cause"?

Thanks in advance...

Ghost

[former9thward]

46. He did take credit for it.

Which is why the Obama administration had no problem killing him on sight when the opportunity presented itself. Which is also why the Taliban offer was false. Why did they need proof from the U.S. when OBL was taking credit for it?

The comment about Hitler was what is called an analogy. Look up the word. You may find it useful.

[Ghost in the Machine]

47. "Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks" Sept. 16, 2001

Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks
Sept. 16, 2001

Islamic militant leader Osama bin Laden, the man the United States considers the prime suspect in last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, denied any role Sunday in the actions believed to have killed thousands.

In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.

"I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations," bin Laden said.

Asked Sunday if he believed bin Laden's denial, President Bush said, "No question he is the prime suspect. No question about that."

http://articles.cnn.com/2001-09-16/us/inv.binladen.denial_1_bin-laden-taliban-supreme-leader-mullah-mohammed-omar?_s=PM:US

Want to try again? It would be helpful for you to know the timeline of how and when things happened. When, exactly, did he take credit for it?

[former9thward]

52. A poster defending OBL on DU. Amazing.

bin Laden's Declaration of War on the U.S. in 1996. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

Bin Laden Admits 9/11 Responsibility, Warns of More Attacks http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/binladen_10-29-04.html

Are you upset that OBL did not get "due process" when he was shot to death?

[Ghost in the Machine]

54. 2004? Really?? Your "defending OBL" comment is laughable, as are your debating skills..

Ever heard of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? Wasn't he the supposed mastermind.. you know, the one who got waterboarded so much? Didn't he confess too?

"Are you upset that OBL did not get "due process" when he was shot to death?"

Again, you're laughable... is that all you have? I'm glad that President Obama was able to take him out, since George W Bush sure didn't seem that concerned about him...

George W. Bush: "I Truly Am Not That Concerned About Osama Bin Laden"

I'm done with you since you don't seem to have anything of value to add to the discussion...

Have a nice day,..

[former9thward]

55. You spend this whole sub-thread complaining about lack of due process for OBL

And then you are glad he was taken out. The declaration of war was in 1996 that you ignore. If you declare war against the U.S. you might expect bad things to happen to you due process or not.

[Ghost in the Machine]

58. No, actually it was about disproving your false assertion that the offer to turn him over wasn't

serious... Do you think they actually *wanted* to get bombed? Seriously? All they asked for was concrete proof of his involvement.. Bush started bombing anyways.. that's when they changed and said "hey, stop the bombing and we'll turn him over to a 3rd Country." Bush basically said fuck you, and continued to bomb... you should know yourself that der Chimpenfurher wasn't very diplomatic, just a reactionary cowboy, right?

Why didn't they ask to turn him over for one of the many of the other crimes he was already on the Top Ten Wanted for? Crimes that OBL *had* already taken credit for? That could have very easily shown whether their offer was legit or not, wouldn't you agree?

Like I said, knowing your timeline of events is important. See, I've had this discussion before, and all the other person could come up with was some circular logic. Why did OBL deny involvement? "Well.umm.. then he would have been arrested because, as per his denial, the government where he was living didn't allow those operations from their soil". So, given proof, they wouldn't have turned him over anyways, but if he admitted it they would have arrested him... does that make sense to you? It sure didn't to me.. like I said.. circular logic. Actually failed circular logic.

Peace,

Ghost

[former9thward]

59. Look this comes down to whether you believe the Taliban or not.

Last edited Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:54 PM - Edit history (1)

You seem to think they are (were) good faith and honest operators. I don't believe that. I think Bush could have bombed them with reams of material showing OBL's guilt and they would have ignored that or made some other excuse. So we have to disagree on this because I don't think there is the slightest evidence this 'offer' was serious.

[Ghost in the Machine]

80. No, it comes down to the fact that I prefer a little tact and diplomacy first...

Then if that doesn't work, destroy the living shit out of your foe. A little bit of tact and diplomacy is a lot better than a whole lot of bloodshed, violence and mayhem, but I also know from firsthand experience that violence is the only thing some people understand. I made my living for several years as a bouncer in a biker bar, and as an enforcer for a notorious 1%'er MC, which I won't name for my own personal reasons.

Had Bush* offered up some concrete proof, and they still wouldn't turn him over, by all means, carpet bomb them back to the stone ages, but dammit man, try a little tact & diplomacy first. It *could* have saved thousands of lives, and billions of dollars. Prolonged War in Afghanistan is what broke the Soviet Union, is it not? We've been there almost 11 years... don't you see us going down that same path?

As a self proclaimed Criminal Defense Attorney, I find it rather ironic to see you arguing *against* 'due process'. Personally, if GWB told me the sky was blue, I'd have to look and see it for myself.

"So we have to disagree on this because I don't think there is the slightest evidence this 'offer' was serious."

Yes, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this point, for the simple reason that we'll never know because the option was never put to the test to find out.

Peace,

Ghost

[robinlynne]

78. Bush's wars had nothing to do with bin Laden. and everything to do with earning billions of dollars

[Cleita]

29. I couldn't agree more.

We need to leave, every single one of us.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

64. Then they can no longer use the U.S. as the excuse for their problems

and the U.S. will no longer be the target of the fundamentalists.

It's a win-win situation.

[Turbineguy]

30. If our leaving

would promote greater economic opportunity perhaps.

[Initech]

33. Three reasons why we won't: profit, profit, and more profit.

[cr8tvlde]

41. Yes. We called it Manifest Destiny against the "savages" on our own continent. On theirs,

it's the War on Terror ... a Reign of Terror.

We are illegally bombing them back into the 19th century when they barely made into the 20th. Their average wage is now, what, $1 a day? And of this we are fearful? It's financially lucrative for the US.

And it is amazing the apologists here for our continued meddling/bombing/murdering in the Middle East. For shame.

Time to feed, clothe and take care of the health of our own, rather than blow trillions of tax dollars on pounding sand in the ME.

But I get this nagging feeling that our Fundies believe this will usher in the Apocalpse so that Jesus can come. I've lived around them my entire life, and it's not all that crazy to them. It's in the Bible...Revelations. Prophecy yet to be revealed.

[M_M]

49. #4: Telling Bibi to Go Fuck Himself

Added to your three, I think it would work wonders.

[Nye Bevan]

50. Will that stop them executing gay people?

Scholars of Islam, such as Sheikh al-Islam Imam Malik, and Imam Shafi amongst others, ruled that Islam disallowed homosexual activity and ordained capital punishment for a person guilty of it.[1] Homosexual activity is a crime and forbidden in most Muslim-majority countries. In the Islamic regimes of Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, North Sudan and Yemen, homosexual activity is punished with the death penalty. In Nigeria and Somalia the death penalty is issued in some regions.[2] The legal punishment for sodomy has varied among juristic schools: some prescribe capital punishment; while other prescribe a milder discretionary punishment such as imprisonment. In some relatively secular Muslim-majority countries such as Indonesia,[3] Jordan and Turkey this is not the case; and there are no specific civil laws against homosexual practice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam

[Lydia Leftcoast]

62. Are we supposed to invade every country that is bad on human rights?

Uganda wants to execute gay people, too, so should we invade them?

[Confusious]

82. I think the point is

It was there before us, it will be there after us.

Leaving will solve our problems, it won't do anything about fundamentalism.

If so, the US wouldn't have any Christian fundies.

[dynasaw]

51. Another way

Is to get rid of our own fundamentalists.

[virgogal]

56. FDR,The Saudis,and oil,oil,oil.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

60. Stupid....

You can't engage in diplomacy if you don't engage the other side. And in the twentieth century you can't just bury your head in the sand. Don't know if this has been pointed out to you, but one CAN travel from the mideast to the United States. And they have cable over there, too. So if your thinking is that the Atlantic Ocean is somehow going to protect us from extremists, your thinking is about seventy years out of date.

How to Conduct Diplomacy in the Middle East.

Step 1. Stop killing them. Seriously, when you're trying to build a lasting friendship with another nation, lobbing Predator Drones at their civilians is a really (really) bad way to go about it.

Step 2. Cultivate friends among the Islamic community here in the U.S. We could start by cleansing Armed Forces Radio of the filth that is the Rush Limbaugh program, and any of its third-string imitators. We could also make it clear by having the President and progressive faith leaders make it clear that there is no place for intolerance in our society.

Step 3. Provide support to Islamic organizations in the middle east that agree to be moderate in their foreign policy. That doesn't mean that some middle eastern countries WON'T become Islamic Republics and be governed according to Sharia or some variant thereof, but they WILL agree to peacefully co-exist with any nation that deals fairly with them.

Step 4. Stop using foreign policy as a tool of western corporate interests. All that oil in Iraq? It belongs to the Iraqi's and they may or may not decide to sell some of it to us. That's for them to decide. Hint: Deal fairly with them and chances are they'll be happy to do business with us.

Just a suggestion.

[EX500rider]

61. "get off Islamic holy sites"

What Islamic holy sites do you think we are "on"?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

63. There was the one that U.S. forces destroyed in the early part of the Iraq War

a mosque with a golden dome.

[EX500rider]

66. If you mean the 2006 al-Askari Mosque bombing..

..that was done by Al Qaeda

The most holy sites are Mecca and Medina and there are no US troops there.

[white_wolf]

67. There are other holy sites besides Mecca and Medina...

[EX500rider]

70. Yep..

..and which ones have US troops at em?

[Warren DeMontague]

65. An airlift of Kind Bud, HDTVs and Andrew Blake films.

[Prometheus Bound]

68. Then there are the Sydney riots.

http://news.google.ca/news/more?cf=all&ned=au&topic=n&ncl=d2YygcBT59GyZ6Mf_YwGFvhwEfUyM

I do agree with you though.

[riderinthestorm]

69. And France, and the UK, and Indonesia.

Unfortunate facts that don't fit the OP's paradigm.

I do agree we need to get out of the ME but I don't think that will do anything to stop the rise of Islamic fundamentalism

[Alduin]

72. That, or...

let their women be in power to combat the fundamentalism.

That'd be great because there'd be no more female genital mutilation. No more females being subordinate to men. No more covering up in public. No more women being treated as sub-human.

[white_wolf]

73. Once again what do you propose we do about it?

Our current strategy isn't working. You can't force societies to change, they have to do that themselves. The best we can do is offer asylum to those who want to leave. Seriously, what do you propose?

[Alduin]

75. I'm not the leader of the country.

It's not my job to come up with ideas like this.

[oberliner]

79. Extremely doubtful

Islamic fundamentalism would still continue to flourish.

I don't think leaving the Middle East would have any effect.