Freedom Hatred? Or a result of intervention?

[MannyIsGod]

I posted this in another thread, but it really deserves it's own.





Conclusion
All of the examples of terrorist attacks on the United
States can be explained as retaliation for U.S. intervention
abroad. Empirically validating the connection between an
interventionist foreign policy and such attacks is more
critical than ever now that terrorists can more readily
obtain weapons of mass destruction and seem to be more
willing to use them. The extensive number of incidents of
terrorism linked to U.S. foreign policy implies that the
United States could substantially reduce the chance of
catastrophic terrorist attacks if it lowered its military
profile overseas.16 The United States needs to adopt a new
policy that would use military force only as a last resort
in the defense of truly vital national interests.
The Cold War has ended, yet the United States continues
to use its worldwide military dominance to intervene anywhere
and everywhere in an effort to maintain its defense
perimeter far forward. In a changed strategic environment
in which ostensibly weak terrorist groups might acquire
weapons of mass destruction, such an extended defense perimeter
may actually increase the catastrophic threat to the
American homeland. Even the U.S. Department of Defense
admits the problem:

Indeed, a paradox of the new strategic environment
is that American military superiority actually
increases the threat of nuclear, biological, and
chemical attack against us by creating incentives
for adversaries to challenge us asymmetrically.
These weapons may be used as tools of terrorism
against the American people.17
But proponents of America's current interventionist
foreign policy, such as the National Review, ignore the new
strategic realities and criticize the proposed policy of
military restraint as "preemptively capitulating to the
terrorists."18 Adopting a restrained foreign policy has
nothing to do with appeasing terrorists. Terrorist acts are
morally outrageous and should be punished whenever possible.
Reducing the motive for terrorists to attack the United
States with weapons of mass destruction is not the only
reason to adopt a policy of military restraint overseas,
although it is a sensible one. In the more benign environment
of a post-Cold War world, promiscuous military intervention
by the United States--which can result in lost
lives, high financial costs, and open-ended commitments--is
no longer needed. It is common sense, rather than appeasement,
for the United States to adapt its activist Cold War
foreign policy to the new strategic environment that requires
more restraint overseas.


And before you go calling it Liberal hogwash, know the source:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb50.pdf



About Cato

The Cato Institute was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane. It is a non-profit public policy research foundation headquartered in Washington, D.C. The Institute is named for Cato's Letters (http://www.libertyfund.org/details.asp?displayID=1595), a series of libertarian pamphlets that helped lay the philosophical foundation for the American Revolution.


Cato's Mission

The Cato Institute seeks to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets and peace. Toward that goal, the Institute strives to achieve greater involvement of the intelligent, concerned lay public in questions of policy and the proper role of government.


How to Label Cato

Today, those who subscribe to the principles of the American Revolution--individual liberty, limited government, the free market, and the rule of law--call themselves by a variety of terms, including conservative, libertarian, classical liberal, and liberal. We see problems with all of those terms. "Conservative" smacks of an unwillingness to change, of a desire to preserve the status quo. Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism--the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known--as conservative. Additionally, many contemporary American conservatives favor state intervention in some areas, most notably in trade and into our private lives.

"Classical liberal" is a bit closer to the mark, but the word "classical" connotes a backward-looking philosophy.

Finally, "liberal" may well be the perfect word in most of the world--the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina are supporters of human rights and free markets--but its meaning has clearly been corrupted by contemporary American liberals.

The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called "libertarianism" or "market liberalism." It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.

The market-liberal vision brings the wisdom of the American Founders to bear on the problems of today. As did the Founders, it looks to the future with optimism and excitement, eager to discover what great things women and men will do in the coming century. Market liberals appreciate the complexity of a great society, they recognize that socialism and government planning are just too clumsy for the modern world. It is--or used to be--the conventional wisdom that a more complex society needs more government, but the truth is just the opposite. The simpler the society, the less damage government planning does. Planning is cumbersome in an agricultural society, costly in an industrial economy, and impossible in the information age. Today collectivism and planning are outmoded and backward, a drag on social progress.

Market liberals have a cosmopolitan, inclusive vision for society. We reject the bashing of gays, Japan, rich people, and immigrants that contemporary liberals and conservatives seem to think addresses society's problems. We applaud the liberation of blacks and women from the statist restrictions that for so long kept them out of the economic mainstream. Our greatest challenge today is to extend the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity to those who are still denied it, in our own country and around the world.

[smackdaddy11]

This completely explains a British citizen blowing up his countrymen, an American soldier killing his superiors with a grenade in the name of Allah, and the decapitation of 900 Jews by Muhammed in 600 A.D.

Please explain the U.S. acting to save the slaughter of Mulsims by the Serbs WITHOUT a U.N. mandate and they still blame us?


What's the next step? Kill the gays, of course.

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/07/071805london.htm

UK Gay Leaders Receive Death Threats From Muslim Fundamentalists Group Says
by Malcolm Thornberry 365Gay.com European Bureau Chief

Posted: July 18, 2005 8:00 pm ET

(London) A British LGBT civil rights group says its leaders have received death threats from Muslim fundamentalists and warns that gay clubs could be targets for terrorist bombers.

"Gay venues could be bombed by Islamic terrorists," OutRage said Monday. "All gay bars and clubs should introduce bag and body searches. Muslim fundamentalists have a violent hatred of lesbians and gay men. They believe we should be killed. Our community could be their next target. This is no time for complacency."

The warning comes in the wake of this months terrorist attack in London. (story) More than 50 people died in the bombings that authorities say were the work of Islamic militants.

One bomb went off in a crowded bus, the others exploded in the subway system, two near stations in gay neighborhoods.

OutRage said that three of the group's officers have received "repeated death threats from Islamic fundamentalists in recent weeks and months."

Peter Tatchell, the leader of OutRage; Brett Lock its campaign coordinator; and Aaron Saeed, the organization's spokesperson on Muslim affairs, have been warned they will be murdered, Tatchell said Monday.

In a statement Tatchell said that they have been told they are on a "hit list" and are going to be "beheaded" and "chopped up", in accordance with "Islamic law".

The threats apparently began soon after OutRage stepped up its campaign in defense of LGBT Muslims, including gay Muslims fleeing attempted "honor killings" in Algeria, Iran Palestine and in the UK.

Tatchell said that since early April, Islamic fundamentalists have made various attempts to track his movements - posing as journalists, police officers and representatives of the Muslim Council of Britain.

He said that police have been made aware of the threats and are investigating. A spokesperson for the MET said it does not comment on any possible investigations.

"If the terrorists want to attack the gay community, they may well attempt to detonate a bomb in a crowded gay bar, restaurant, club or community center," according to Lock.

"We also urge extra security and special vigilance in gay areas like Canal Street and Old Compton Street, and at up-coming, publicly advertised gay events like Big Gay Out and Soho Pride.

©365Gay.com 2005



I sure wish the gays would change their foreign ploicy and keep their butts out of the Muslim lands.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

I KNEW you wouldn't address the issues brought about in the paper. I knew it. But you're alreayd acknowledged as the biggest bigot in here.

Besides, that Muslim group is just trying to keep pace with Pat Robertson. No biggie.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

This completely explains a British citizen blowing up his countrymen, an American soldier killing his superiors with a grenade in the name of Allah, and the decapitation of 900 Jews by Muhammed in 600 A.D.

Please explain the U.S. acting to save the slaughter of Mulsims by the Serbs WITHOUT a U.N. mandate and they still blame us?


What's the next step? Kill the gays, of course.

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/07/071805london.htm

UK Gay Leaders Receive Death Threats From Muslim Fundamentalists Group Says
by Malcolm Thornberry 365Gay.com European Bureau Chief

Posted: July 18, 2005 8:00 pm ET

(London) A British LGBT civil rights group says its leaders have received death threats from Muslim fundamentalists and warns that gay clubs could be targets for terrorist bombers.

"Gay venues could be bombed by Islamic terrorists," OutRage said Monday. "All gay bars and clubs should introduce bag and body searches. Muslim fundamentalists have a violent hatred of lesbians and gay men. They believe we should be killed. Our community could be their next target. This is no time for complacency."

The warning comes in the wake of this months terrorist attack in London. (story) More than 50 people died in the bombings that authorities say were the work of Islamic militants.

One bomb went off in a crowded bus, the others exploded in the subway system, two near stations in gay neighborhoods.

OutRage said that three of the group's officers have received "repeated death threats from Islamic fundamentalists in recent weeks and months."

Peter Tatchell, the leader of OutRage; Brett Lock its campaign coordinator; and Aaron Saeed, the organization's spokesperson on Muslim affairs, have been warned they will be murdered, Tatchell said Monday.

In a statement Tatchell said that they have been told they are on a "hit list" and are going to be "beheaded" and "chopped up", in accordance with "Islamic law".

The threats apparently began soon after OutRage stepped up its campaign in defense of LGBT Muslims, including gay Muslims fleeing attempted "honor killings" in Algeria, Iran Palestine and in the UK.

Tatchell said that since early April, Islamic fundamentalists have made various attempts to track his movements - posing as journalists, police officers and representatives of the Muslim Council of Britain.

He said that police have been made aware of the threats and are investigating. A spokesperson for the MET said it does not comment on any possible investigations.

"If the terrorists want to attack the gay community, they may well attempt to detonate a bomb in a crowded gay bar, restaurant, club or community center," according to Lock.

"We also urge extra security and special vigilance in gay areas like Canal Street and Old Compton Street, and at up-coming, publicly advertised gay events like Big Gay Out and Soho Pride.

©365Gay.com 2005



I sure wish the gays would change their foreign ploicy and keep their butts out of the Muslim lands.
I sure hope you're joking and that isn't you're best response to Manny's article, otherwise, you're just sad.

[smackdaddy11]

But you're alreayd acknowledged as the biggest bigot in here.

And your a apologist for the religion. You seem to think I WANT to be right. If I'm right, 20 years from now the world is in shambles and we have full scale religious war. Islam vs. the world. Full blown fighting in the streets. Everywhere. Do you think I WANT that? Your a dipshit for thinking that.

If your right, the world will keep revolving. Muslims will continue the pepper homicide bombings and the CIVILIZED world will cave into "political correctness".


I KNEW you wouldn't address the issues brought about in the paper.

LMAO! What does a gay in Britain have to do with U.S. foreign policy?

The U.S goes and protects Mecca and catch shit for it. The U.S saves Mulsims in the Balkins and catch shit for it. The U.S gets a pussy attack on 9/11 and retaliates and catches shit for it. The fucks use it as an excuse. The U.S give Billions a year and catches shit for it. If an election was held in Saudi Arabia, Bin Laden would win easy. Anyone who catogorizes Christians in the same mold as Muslims is the bigot.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/


Everyon fucking one are Muslims, dumbass.

http://www.americandaily.com/article/8172


Islamic Nations Slaughter and Enslave Christians
By Tom Barrett (07/10/05)

THERE IS NOT ONE CHRISTIAN NATION ON EARTH WHERE MUSLIMS ARE PERSECUTED. Yet in 83% of nations where the majority of the population are Muslims, there is systematic government persecution of Christians. (See "Religious Freedom in the Majority Islamic Countries" in the Resources section below.) This persecution includes imposing the death penalty for sharing the Christian faith with a Muslim; national laws prohibiting conversion from Islam to Christianity; destruction of churches; and murder or expulsion of Christian missionaries. Even in the few predominantly Muslim countries where the government does not openly participate in the persecution, it ignores and even encourages illegal persecution by Muslims against Christians.


Shut up with the bigotry, FUCKTARD! Who is a bigot? Your just a dumb, ignorant dipshit.


I spent hours going through the well-documented profiles of the forty-six countries listed in the report mentioned above. Of these, six did not have significant Muslim populations. Of the thirty-nine with a strong Muslim majority, only seven could be considered to be either neutral or tolerant toward their Christian minorities. If the United States were to treat its roughly two million Muslims with one-tenth of the violence and humiliation that these Islamic nations heap on their Christians, the worldwide outcry would be immediate, and justified. Why, then, does the "Community of Nations," including the United States, turn a deaf ear to the cries of the persecuted Christians in Muslim nations?

The laws of most of these Islamic nations give lip service to religious freedom. Nothing could be further from the truth. In most of the countries I researched, the death penalty was common for converting from Islam to Christianity (or any other religion). Christians receive no protection from these governments when they are persecuted; indeed, most often the governments themselves are the persecutors. Children of Christians are stolen from their parents so that they can be raised as Muslims. Speaking about Christianity to a Muslim can result in beatings, long prison sentences and even death.

The most urgent situation demanding our attention today is in Indonesia, which has the largest Muslim population of any non-Arab country. There Islamic fundamentalists have promised a bloodbath of Christians before Christmas. This is no idle threat; in 1996 Islamic fundamentalists slaughtered 3,000 Christians in East Timor. More recently, a group called Laskar Jihad, which hails Osama bin Laden as its hero, slaughtered thousands of Christians with the help of government troops. (See "Christians Terrorized in Muslim Indonesia" in the Resources section.)

An Indonesian military officer is quoted as saying that the government has the power to stop the Jihad, but government officials "all the way to the top" profit from it. Their goal is nothing less than to exterminate every Christian in Indonesia or force them to leave. According to Steven Snyder, the president of International Christian Concern who visited Indonesia in November, about 15,000 Laskar Jihad troops equipped with AK-47 assault rifles, rocket launchers and bulldozers are threatening to kill 50,000 Christians and destroy their homes and churches.

In Sudan, Christians are sold into slavery or murdered for no other crime than naming the Name of Christ. Over two million have been murdered, and 200,000 have been sold into slavery by their government. An organization named Christian Solidarity International (PLEASE visit C.S.I.'s website listed in Resources Section) has raised money to buy almost 60,000 slaves from their captors and free them. One 22-year-old Protestant girl, a virgin, was captured by government soldiers and raped repeatedly for five days as she was marched through the jungle tied to twenty other slaves. Many women and children died during this march. She was then used as a slave and forced to study Islam until bought out of slavery by C.S.I. You can read her complete story and those of other slaves on C.S.I.'s website.

What about our "allies"? You can dress a monster up in a pinstriped suit, teach him to speak formally and use the right fork at state dinners, and put him in a group of diplomats for a photo opportunity, but that doesn't make him civilized. Our "friends" in the international community, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, and our most recent buddy, Pakistan, are all guilty of atrocities against Christians based on nothing other than their profession of faith. Let me emphasize that we are not talking about a radical minority of citizens acting on their own. We are talking about systematic state persecution, state murder and state crimes against humanity, all legal according to the various constitutions and laws of these vicious nations.

Let's start with our "friend and ally," Saudi Arabia. Their "Constitution" is the Koran. This nation, whose population is 98% Muslim, finances Islamic terrorist groups in moderate Islamic nations which force conversion to Islam under the threat of death. In Saudi Arabia, rape is punishable by death- unless it is a Muslim man violating a Christian woman. The Saudis are so rich from their oil that most refuse to do common labor, so they import six million foreign workers. Of these, ten percent are Christians. They are not allowed to wear a cross in public and or to celebrate Christmas, but are forced to observe Ramadan. Christians, even tourists, have been arrested by the Religious Police for participating in prayer meetings in private homes. Any who speak of their faith publicly are tortured in an attempt to convert them to Islam. Those who refuse are executed. Punishment for distributing Bibles can range from lashes with a whip or amputation of a limb, to beheading.

Turkey, our "military ally", is 99.8% Muslim. Recently, eight Americans were arrested in Turkey for the "crime" of giving away copies of the New Testament. In 1974 Turkey overran Cyprus - which is 80% Christian - and has ruled that small nation with an iron fist since then. The Turkish government expelled thousands of Orthodox Christians, then took a thousand-year-old monastery and turned it into a mosque! Imagine the international outcry if a mosque anywhere were to be stolen by a government and turned into a Christian church.

Egypt, described by our State Department as a "friend of the United States" is one of the worst persecutors of Christians. In Cairo an entire Christian neighborhood was set on fire by Islamic terrorists. Children were thrown out of windows in front of their horrified parents, churches were burned and Christian's homes destroyed. This went on for two days without the government doing anything to stop it. Egyptian security forces have been accused by eye-witnesses of raping, then crucifying adolescent girls.

In Pakistan recently a 14-year-old Christian girl was kidnapped, forced to convert to Islam, then raped and given to a Muslim to be one of his wives. The pleas of her parents were ignored by the police. In 1997, Islamic extremists, aided by Pakistani police, destroyed the homes of 800 Christians as well as thirteen churches, because they had "insulted Islam." A few weeks ago six children and nine adults were gunned down as they worshiped in a Christian church. This terrorist nation is our newest "ally" in the war against terrorism.

The Libyan government took a Christian Cathedral and converted it to a mosque. In Kuwait, the nation America's military saved from a brutal occupation by Iraq, the government tries to bribe Christians to convert to Islam. A Kuwaiti Christian was recently condemned to die by the religious court for converting from Islam. It should come as no surprise that 150,000 Christians have fled Iraq to avoid persecution. Over 150 Christian churches have been demolished in Iraq, where death is the penalty for proclaiming faith in Christ, and where Saddam Hussein has proclaimed himself "The Defender of the Islamic Faith."

Hundreds of Christian missionaries have been murdered in Algeria and other Islamic nations. Iran pretends to have religious freedom, but students in all schools are forced to study Islam, as are draftees in their military services. Conversion to any religion other than Islam brings a swift death sentence. If space permitted, I could give hundreds of other examples of atrocities committed by Muslims against Christians simply because of their faith. The events I have described are happening as you read this. Christians are being tortured today because they will not convert to Islam. Christians are dying today because they dare to speak the Name of Christ.

Our President has stated repeatedly that Islam is a peaceful religion which has "been hijacked by radicals." I know why he makes that statement. If Bush said anything else, he would be labeled a hate-monger, as I am sure I will be for speaking the truth. The facts speak for themselves. Do the research, as I have done. Eighty-three percent of the governments of nations with a Muslim majority kill, enslave, and persecute Christians with the blessings (and very often, the complicity) of their Islamic clergy. I'm sure that there are many kind, loving Muslims who live in those countries. I just wonder why they allow such atrocities to be committed in the name of their religion.



Most of you who have written to me about the goodness and kindness of Muslims know only Muslims who live in this country. They have been influenced by the values of America, which include tolerance toward other religions, values based on the Bible. Many U.S. Muslim immigrants are as horrified as we are by the actions of Muslims in the countries of their birth.
God tells us in Proverbs 31:8 that we must speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves.

President Bush needs to speak up in behalf of the good people of this nation who are appalled by the cruelty of Islamic governments towards our brothers and sisters in Muslim nations. Our President needs to demand that Muslim nations treat Christians as Muslims are treated here in America. Write to President Bush. Tell him not to be seduced by promises from liars, in order to get their cooperation in our battle against terrorism. The war against terrorism is a just war, but if in our zeal to punish international terrorists we ally ourselves with religious terrorists, what have we gained?
Editor's Note: This article was first published on December 16, 2001.


INTERNET RESOURCES:

DETAILED RESEARCH on Religious Persecution in 46 Muslim Nations: http://www.alleanzacattolica.org/acs/acs_english/acs_index.htm#A

"Christians Terrorized in Muslim Indonesia":
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25599

International Christian Concern:
http://www.persecution.org/

Voice of the Martyrs:
http://www.persecution.com/

Christian Solidarity International
http://www.csi-int.org/


Ed: Views are those of individual authors and not necessarily those of American Daily.



Tom Barrett has been an ordained minister for 30 years. He has written for local and national publications for most of his life, and has authored several non-fiction books. He has been interviewed on many TV and radio programs, and speaks at seminars nationwide. Tom is the editor and publisher of Conservative Truth, an email newsletter read by over fifty thousand weekly which focuses on moral and political issues from a Biblical viewpoint.

[scott]

All of the people we were fighting in the Vietnamese war were Vietnamese. Obviously Vietnamese is the ethnicity of war.

[E20]

Are you sure it's your typical poor broken down Indonesian/Iranian/Iraqi/Afghan/Pakistani/Lebanese/Sudanese/Jordinan etc.... Doing all this?

I mean seriously they are not all terrorists.

This is what most of the population looks like in any Muslim country:
http://www.informationwar.org/wars%20gallery/afghani-landmine_victim_15april2003.jpg
So you are saying that all these people hate everybody else with a passion and want them dead? Or is it the select few who run the area and have beef with the US and go hardcore extermist on everybody, including there own people. These guys will kill innocent muslims who have done nothing but, disobey one of them not doing anything wrong in Islam, Insurgents in Iraq killing MUSLIM children and people because they want to live in peace and not in fear, according to Islam they are not Muslim.

Look I know Muslims and I talked to about the whole OBL, killing infidel stuff. They said if God put them here he must have a reason for them, God who will do the killing and the life saving, all the desciosn making. The ending verse in one of the muslim prayer means leave it to God for he who knows everything, it doesn't end in Leave it to the Muslims for they know everything. If God put the Christians, the Jews, the Muslims, the Buddhists, Hindus, Gays, Athesists, it is his doing and no on should take there life because they don't think it connects with there beliefs or not.

[Guru of Nothing]

It just dawned upon me how the vast majority views the world through media, or the front porch from which they were raised.

It explains a lot.

[MannyIsGod]

I post a well respected think tanks perspective on a corolation (more like causation actually) between terrorism against america and interventionist foriegn policy and he posts articles about how bad islam is.

In actuality, the origional article has nothing to say about the intentions of Islam or of the United States for that matter, simply that international activism plays a primary role in putting us at risk of terrorism.

[smackdaddy11]

simply that international activism plays a primary role in putting us at risk of terrorism.

So, I believe you agree with this article, disengagement will improve the situation.

Have you taken a look at that part of the world? Have you looked at their history? Please explain to me how disengagement will improve the situation. They have been killing each other, and anyone else century after century. The world has become too small a place to let chaos, mayhem and madness run rampant in that part of the world. We aren't talking about Europe here.

You report is based on a bunch of intellects who believe talking to people will solve issues. Talking to that part of the world hasn't solved anything, ever. Everything is solved at gunpoint. Having discussions is wasted breath.

Disengagement would allow the madrassas to continue thier hatred for anything past 800 A.D.

Disengagement won't allow Saudi women to drive a car.

Disengagemnet won't allow the women to stay married to her husband since her father in law raped her.

http://washtimes.com/world/20050718-111059-2058r.htm

Victim ordered to wed rapist
By Shaikh Azizur Rahman
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 19, 2005


BOMBAY -- Hard-line Islamic clerics in a northern Indian village have declared that a woman's 10-year-old marriage was nullified when her father-in-law raped her -- and ordered the mother of five to marry the rapist.
The fatwa, or religious edict, was issued by Darool Uloom Deoband, South Asia's most powerful Islamic theological school known for promoting a radical brand of Islam that is said to have inspired the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The decision has outraged both Muslim and Hindu leaders and prompted a fierce debate that has dominated the front pages of national newspapers across India.
The fatwa ordered Imrana Ilahi, 28, to separate from her husband and treat him as her son because she had sex with his father.
"She had a physical relationship with her father-in-law, and it nullifies her marriage," said Mohammad Masood Madani, a cleric at the theological school. He said it made no difference whether the sex was consensual or forced. The village council then decreed that Mrs. Ilahi would have to marry her father-in-law.
Feminists and liberal Muslims reacted with fury, staging nationwide street protests.
But Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mulayam Singh on June 29 supported the fatwa, saying: "The decision of the Muslim religious leaders in the Imrana case must have been taken after a lot of thought. ... The religious leaders are all very learned and they understand the Muslim community and its sentiments."
The rape took place June 4 in the village of Charthawal in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh, when Mrs. Ilahi's husband, Noor Ilahi, was away.
When Mr. Ilahi, a brick kiln laborer, learned of the attack, the village court instructed him to divorce his wife.
But Mr. Ilahi, 32, told his wife: "My father is dirty and you are clean. I still love you and I cannot desert you." Mrs. Ilahi, with her husband and five children, sneaked out of Charthawal and took shelter in Kukra, the village of her parents.
Mrs. Ilahi received another rude shock when the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, the country's most influential Muslim umbrella organization, endorsed the punishment meted out by Darool Uloom Deoband. "The fact that the woman was 'used' by her husband's blood relative makes her [unclean] for her husband and there is no way she can be allowed to live with him," the law board said.

Under Shariah law, the rape has made her the mother of her husband, said Naseem Iqtedar, the law board's only female member.
Outraged leaders of Muslim social organizations met with Mrs. Ilahi's family and took them to police. Police immediately took Mohammad Ali, Mrs. Ilahi's 65-year-old father-in-law, into custody and ordered a medical test of Mrs. Ilahi for the rape.
Although the All India Muslim Personal Law Board supported the fatwa, the All India Muslim Women Personal Law Board decried it and asked Mrs. Ilahi and her husband not to separate.
"The fatwa goes against the light of Koran. No tenet of Koran can justify the injustice done to an innocent victim. Imrana should never be punished for no fault of hers. The victim has every right to continue with her marriage and live with her husband," said Shaista Amber, president of women's law board.
"The Islamic clerics have failed to differentiate between sex by consent and rape by force. The ruling was against the spirit and essence of Islam, which gives equal rights to women."
Javed Akhtar, a noted Muslim poet, said: "Islam teaches compassion, justice, equality and a fair deal for women. The fatwa, on the other hand, appears to treat women as mere commodities."
Although police have filed a case against her father-in-law, legal analysts say, Mrs. Ilahi might not be able to prove the crime because she underwent the medical examination almost two weeks after the attack and "doctors could not find any definite sign of the rape."


It's a mindset the Cato Institute falis to take into consideration, IMO. The Arab world has blamed their problems on everyone but themselves for ions. I don't feel isolationism will cure the ill that will eventually bear it's head here, if not addressed.

[MannyIsGod]

First of all, you make the assumption that socities can't find their own way without the United States. That's really foolish.

Secondly, you keep making it seem as though the primary goal of intervention overseas is to help other people. It is obviously not. The goal of US international actions is the security of Americans.

If you really want to provide security for Americans, it makes more sense to stop this nonsense.

But you're right. When a nuclear weapon goes off in this country killing 500 thousand, it will have been worth it. Afterall, Saudi women will be able to drive!

[The Ressurrected One]

For every person, in a particular country, made angry over U.S. foreign policy there are more -- in that same country -- that are thankful.

You can't base your foreign policy on who it pisses off. Because they're more than likely the bad guys.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

For every person, in a particular country, made angry over U.S. foreign policy there are more -- in that same country -- that are thankful.

You can't base your foreign policy on who it pisses off. Because they're more than likely the bad guys.



did clandestino get ahold of your password? certainly your not stupid enough to believe that are you

[The Ressurrected One]

Name a country in which we have a military or diplomatic presence where the government doesn't want us there or where there is public pressure for the government to get us to leave.

Even in Iraq, there is a recognition that we are a force for good and there is no talk of us leaving before the country is stable and able to defend itself.

Here's how Australian Prime Minister John Howard, who was in London with Tony Blair when the two received word of today's explosions, responded to a reporter who seemed to think that British participation in Iraq was to blame:


Can I just say very directly, Paul, on the issue of the policies of my government and indeed the policies of the British and American governments on Iraq, that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it's given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.

Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq.

And I remind you that the 11th of September occurred before the operation in Iraq.

Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia's involvement in liberating the people of East Timor. Are people by implication suggesting we shouldn't have done that?

When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan?

When Sergio de Mello was murdered in Iraq -- a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, a person immensely respected for his work in the United Nations -- when al Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that de Mello had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor.

Now I don't know the mind of the terrorists. By definition, you can't put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber. I can only look at objective facts, and the objective facts are as I've cited. The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq. And indeed, all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggests to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of principles of the great world religion that, at its root, preaches peace and cooperation. And I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder.

I couldn't agree more.

Only a small violent percentage of the populations of the middle east countries in which we have a presence are opposed to us being there.

It's the Islamo-fascists, stupid. Unless, of course, you're implying all Muslims hate America.

[ChumpDumper]

Name a country in which we have a military or diplomatic presence where the government doesn't want us there or where there is public pressure for the government to get us to leave.There is plenty of the latter in Japan and South Korea these days, probably most acute in Okinawa.

Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan want our bases gone too, I've read -- but there could be outside influences in those cases.

[MannyIsGod]

If all of that is true (which is debateable) it is still not irrelevent to how much activist American intervention have a corolation to the terrorism against us.

[The Ressurrected One]

If all of that is true (which is debateable) it is still not irrelevent to how much activist American intervention have a corolation to the terrorism against us.
There is no justification for terrorism. That's the point.

We've intervened all over the world...it's only this small violent sect of Islamo-fascist whackoes who are trying to determine our foreign policy by terrorism. And, it's not only OUR foreign policy, it's the foreign policy of those countries in which we are engaged. With the exception of Iraq, we've been invited into every other nation in the middle east. And, now, the legitimate government of Iraq wants us there too.

If you let them terrorize you into changing your foreign policy, they've won and you're Spain.

[The Ressurrected One]

There is plenty of the latter in Japan and South Korea these days, probably most acute in Okinawa.

Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan want our bases gone too, I've read -- but there could be outside influences in those cases.
I don't recall any of the governments of those countries asking the U.S. to leave...and, if they had, we would.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't recall any of the governments of those countries asking the U.S. to leave.That was only half your question, but here's an answer to the other half as well.

Regional Group Calls on US to Pull Out of Bases in Central Asia
By Andre de Nesnera
Washington
20 July 2005

de Nesnera report - Download 653k
Listen to de Nesnera report

For the past several years, the United States has stationed forces in the central Asian countries of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.

Marshall Goldman, a long time-expert on Russia and the former Soviet Union, says the United States planned to send troops there following the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.

"After September 11th and the United States' decision to go after the Taleban and Osama bin Laden, who was then in Afghanistan, the United States was looking for places to establish air bases, so that it could supply what became the invasion force in Afghanistan," said Mr. Goldman. "And it made sense to go to the Central Asian region, where these countries were now independent - they had broken away from the Soviet Union when it broke up - and to establish bases there."

The United States received permission to station troops on two sites: in Uzbekistan at the Karshi-Khanabad military base and in Kyrgyzstan, at the international airport in the country's capital, Bishkek.

Defense Department spokesman Lieutenant Commander Joe Carpenter says the forces there bolster operations in Afghanistan.

"With Kyrgyzstan, we have approximately 1,000 personnel that are there in support of the air operations from the Kyrgyzstan Bishkek airport, and in Uzbekistan, it is approximately 800 people that support our operations there," he said.

But the presence of U.S. forces at these two bases is now in jeopardy. A summit earlier this month of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization - bringing together Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan - called on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawing those troops. Following the summit, the host nations repeated that call in separate statements.

One of the reasons given for the withdrawal of U.S. military forces is that, in the words of the summit participants, "the active military phase in Afghanistan is over." Defense Department spokesman Carpenter disputes that view.

"With respect to Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, those airfields - the airfield and the airport - those air operations have been critical in helping us combat the Taleban and al-Qaida, facilitate delivery of humanitarian assistance into northern Afghanistan and as a result, help spread democracy to Afghanistan," he said. "But I will remind you that Afghanistan remains a very difficult location. Operations are still ongoing with the coalition, with NATO forces and U.S. forces and those two facilities are still critical to our operations. This is going to be a long-term effort to help Afghanistan build that democratic institution and keep al-Qaida and the Taleban at bay."

Experts believe there are other reasons for the call to withdraw U.S. troops from central Asia.

In the case of Uzbekistan, analysts point to strong western criticism of President Islam Karimov following events in the city of Andijan in May, when hundreds of Uzbek civilians were reported killed by security forces. A recent United Nations report citing eyewitness accounts said what happened in Andijan amounted to a "mass killing." The U.N. also repeated its call for an international inquiry.

"The trigger was Uzbek anger at U.S. criticism of the Uzbek government for the Uzbek government's failure to agree to an independent international inquiry into what happened in Andijan," said Martha Brill Olcott, central Asian expert with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "To say that the U.S. leadership and the Uzbek leadership don't see eye to eye with one another today is an understatement. It's probably the tensest point in U.S.-Uzbek relations any time since the existence of an independent Uzbekistan. I don't know that the Uzbek regime would have wanted the base removed if Andijan had not occurred."

As for Kyrgyzstan, Ms. Olcott believes there is another aspect to consider.

"I don't think the Kyrgyz on their own would have pushed for a statement that called for the withdrawal of a U.S. base," she added. "I think they are under very strong pressure from China and Russia to do so. They really are in a very hard position. Their instincts are to have very close ties with the West, but not to antagonize Russia or China."

Analysts also say what happens to U.S. forces in central Asia will have an impact on the military's strategy globally. Philip Saunders with the National Defense University says the Defense Department's evolving plan is much less dependent on large, permanent overseas bases and more dependent on lighter, shorter-term access agreements with host nations.

"So basically, the United States military is trying to learn to operate in a much more skeletal manner, so that it can deploy around the world as necessary and Central Asia is one area where that concept is being worked out," he said.

Many analysts agree the U.S. can't operate from a country's territory, if that country won't allow it. In the meantime, U.S officials say the United States has agreements with Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan concerning the use of those bases, and each side must abide by them.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-07-20-voa37.cfm

[The Ressurrected One]

Regional groups? Are they official or acting on behalf of any government?

This was an interesting statement in the article:

"I don't think the Kyrgyz on their own would have pushed for a statement that called for the withdrawal of a U.S. base," she added. "I think they are under very strong pressure from China and Russia to do so. They really are in a very hard position. Their instincts are to have very close ties with the West, but not to antagonize Russia or China."

al Qaeda is a "regional group" and they want us out of the middle east -- but, they don't represent any government either.

It's kind of like saying the Democrats want the President to appoint a liberal Justice to the Supreme Court. Well, thanks for the input but, the President is going to appoint whomever he damn well pleases thank you...

And, back on the issue of the whole reason for terrorism. It really has nothing to do with where we are but with who we are and what we represent.

The Co-founder of C.A.I.R. put it best, so I'll let him speak:


"Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam ... Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."
That is the ultimate goal for Islamo-fascism and they will glom onto any pretext by which they can attempt to claim legitimacy for their acts of atrocity and barbarism.

[Clandestino]

actually, most countries and their people want the u.s. government/military there. the ones who do the bitching aren't the majority...

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Wow, just bothered to read the first one.

Look, it doesn't matter WTF we do here in America, or what our military. What it boils down to is Osama and people like him want one religion, one nation, one world.

To them, we are the only thing standing in their way, the lone remaining superpower.

And on the heels of them beating the Russians in Afghanistan, their strategy, predictably, is to bleed us to death like they did in their eyes to the Russians.

Keep in mind Osama and Co. believe they are the ones who collapsed the Soviet Union and ended the Cold War, not America (Osama has said as much).

The rest, all the bullshit grandstanding about infidels on the Arabian Peninsula, Christian invasion of Mesopotamia, the Zionist plot against Islam, etc., it's all rhetoric carefully calculated by intelligent (yet sadistic) folks like Osama as a means to an end (ours).

Spare me the whole "American military might/foreign policy" bullshit. It's nothing but a convenient excuse to try and push on hot buttons of ignorant, bigoted, weak minded individuals that are used by AQ as pawns in their quest to defeat the West.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

I love how no one here can dismiss the report by Cato with anything more than their baseless arguements. The next post that provides something to back them up will be the first.

[The Ressurrected One]

:lmao

I love how no one here can dismiss the report by Cato with anything more than their baseless arguements. The next post that provides something to back them up will be the first.
I think I have dismissed the report...

The isolationist approach they recommend would mean abandoning alliances, treaties, and agreements all over the world...including in the middle east.

Islamo-fascism has been on a expansive, totalitarian crusade since the days of Mohammed. Us getting out of their "holy" lands won't stop that crusade. It will just give them free reign to dominate that part of the world before stepping across the oceans with more forces and more determination.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I love how no one here can dismiss the report by Cato with anything more than their baseless arguements. The next post that provides something to back them up will be the first.

Baseless? I gave my thoughts. Sorry, I didn't say the Bush Doctrine sucks, so that means my points weren't valid.

But just to satisfy your request...

The last time we tried isolationism, the end result was the Great Depression, the rise of the Third Reich, and WWII.

Better?

Isolationism is a recipe for disaster in this day and age. Shut ourselves off to the rest of the world, and China runs roughshod over Asia, while militant Islam takes over Europe, Africa, and South America.

Then we're the monkey in the middle. No thanks.

Look, you want to win this fucking thing? Then tell your liberal friends to stick all the PC bullshit up their ass.

Here's how I go about it...

1. Shut down the border with Mexico. Use the border patrol, use the Minutemen, whatever. Just from San Diego to Brownsville down.

Not enough manpower? I am for a civil service type program where people could serve 2 years for their country protecting the homeland. General watching and monitoring the borders, with quick reaction border patrol forces to respond to any incidents.

2. Infiltrate every Wahhabi mosque and madrassa in the US, Europe, and eventually you have to deal with Africa too.

I'm not talking having someone there to narc on every little thing they say, but when they start talking about death to America, those types of "religious" institutes, then it's time to infiltrate further, gather all they can about the plots, and bust every one of those involved.

3. Europe has to put up some roadblocks to the Muslim invasion (err, immigrants). I'd venture a lot of those involved in things like London travelled continently across Europe.

4. When push comes to shove (and I really do think that one day we could very well see a true world war - radical Islam vs. the globalized West, embrace our former adversary, Russia. We (both political parties) keep trying to play both sides with Russia.. we want them to help us with the war on terror, but we reserve the right to bemoan and criticize their actions against Chechnya.

They want to exterminate their pests, we want to exterminate ours, let's kill some bugs.

5. Tehran and Damascus... make it known that we know they have AQ elements in their country that they are harboring and probably conspiring with. Let them know that the day a WMD hits anywhere in the continental U.S., they are both toast.

6. ** One of the most important **. Quietly (so not to piss off people like Saudi Arabia and OPEC) invest in alternative fuel sources. If we develop alternative fuels, to the point that we develop something efficient and cheap that we can share with the rest of the world, all of a sudden: 1) the global economy is no longer dependant on oil and 2) a large financial source for militant Islam (oil profit in the Middle East) goes away.

There's more, but I really don't feel like sitting here all night talking about it and Manny will probably say I've done nothing to refute the original article anyway.

[The Ressurrected One]

Good post. But, I'd close the border with Canada as well.

[The Ressurrected One]

Oh, and Manny. Let's talk about the CATO Institute for a minute...

Here's a blog on an interview with Jerry Taylor of the CATO Institute:


I asked Jerry Taylor of CATO (who has been quite vocal in taking a non-Gaffney view of the China Unocal deal) his thoughts this morning after reading the Chevron news and he said:

Most of the objections to the proposed deal stem from fear and loathing regarding the Chinese government. The argument seems to be that anything that promotes economic growth in China and, in turn, "feeds the beast." Now, of course it's true that China's government shows little to no respect for human rights and is one of the uglier regimes that populate the U.N.. It's attitude towards those who challenge party power in print or through civic action is savage and reprehensible. But it is on a positive trajectory. What was once a totalitarian state is now an authoritarian regime. Economic liberalization has had a lot to do with that - the emergence of capitalism and free trade has eroded the government's power and is likely to continue to do so in the future. Encouraging wealth creation and engagement in world markets will do more to encourage civil society in China than economic isolation, stagnation, and saber-rattling.

It's also important to keep the military issue in perspective. China's economy is the size of Italy's and, depending upon how you count it, American defense spending is 5-10 times larger than defense spending in China. Since Mao's death, China has not initiated war with anyone and has shown no inclination to initiate hostilities with the United States, Japan, or any of our allies in the region save for ... Taiwan. That's the only source of tension - the possibility that the United States might initiate a war with China over some future confrontation in Taiwan. A Chinese attack on Taiwan is a real worry, but notice that in that particular case, it would be the United States acting as the aggressor in this relationship, not the Chinese. Whether the U.S. has any business risking a nuclear war over Taiwan is an open question.

The argument that a wealthier, more prosperous China equals a more dangerous China is not necessarily true for the reasons I laid out above. Blocking China from access to markets or private economic assets would arguably incline the Chinese to think that only military muscle will allow it to secure access to markets and resources. That's not an idea we ought to encourage.

And I'm getting sick of hearing how China is a communist country. It is communist in name only. China is laboring to enter international markets and commerce and has substantially freed its economy from state control. It is arguably more capitalist than France. Moreover, China's lack of concern for human rights or the rule of law abroad is not substantially different from France's attitude towards the same.

Finally, the "level playing field" argument is a red herring. U.S. based companies have $105 billion of assets in China and employ 391,000 people there. Chinese firms own only $8 billion of U.S. assets and employ only 15,000 people here. Access to the Chinese economy is regulated and more difficult than it should be, but the suggestion that U.S. firms are "kept out" while we let Chinese firms into the U.S. is not founded upon fact.
This is why you don't ever let Cato guys anywhere near foreign policy. He's got so many straw-man arguments here that he's going to have to resurrect Ray Bolger to fill them out.

Our hostility to China's takeover of Unocal isn't based on hostility to a prosperous China. I don't know anyone who thinks this...except, well...

It's based on China's hostility to us. I don't care if this makes China more prosperous. I do care if it's China using frankly imperialist measures to lock up half the world's natural resources, making it pre-emptively harder for us to get them, especially in a crisis.

China hasn't gone to war with anyone because they have lacked the means and the motive. They're certainly not shy about threatening to incinerate half of the western US if we try to defend Taiwan. And, um, China attacks Taiwan, but we're the aggressor? How does he get there from here?

If Taylor's sick of hearing about China's attitude towards human rights, he should take it up with the Chinese. French instincts on human rights aren't mine, but I'm pretty sure French correspondents for the Washington Post haven't been tossed incommunicado into the Bastille anytime recently. Major operations, like, oh, the oil industry, are substantially government-controlled. And by my count, the number of major political parties in China is "one." Perhaps he'd like to go over there and try to form another.

Finally, US investment in China is one of the great con-games of all time. Foreigners can't outright own Chinese companies. They own assets at a minority share, and if Taylor doesn't think every vote counts, he should ask Al Gore. The government routinely demands technology transfer, and the currency isn't convertible. China knows it needs foreign direct investment, and it gets it by pointing to 1 billion Chinese and the promise of tomorrow's profits. So far, nobody's making any money over there.

I want free trade with China. I'm well aware of, and support the idea that a growing middle class is going to demand control over their lives. That's what scared the Junkers into starting WWI, too.

[scott]

I do care if it's China using frankly imperialist measures to lock up half the world's natural resources, making it pre-emptively harder for us to get them, especially in a crisis.

Would you lay out the actions China has talken to "lock up half of the world's natural resources"? Are they buying Saudi Arabia?

Do you really think a move to acquire Unocal, not even a major and in fact a relatively small company for an integrated, is a move by China to make it hard for us to get oil? Maybe it's a move to... oh, I don't know... secure oil for their growing economy?


So far, nobody's making any money over there.

You may want to check your facts.


I want free trade with China.

So long as China doesn't act in their own best interests?

[ChumpDumper]

Regional groups? Are they official or acting on behalf of any government? Moscow, July 18 (IANS) Kyrgyzstan's newly elected President Kurmanbek Bakiyev says the US should dismantle its base in his country because the situation in neighbouring Afghanistan was slowly returning to normal.

"The situation in Afghanistan is really different (from 2001). A president has been elected, parliamentary elections have taken place, and as the situation has changed, why not envisage this question?" Xinhua quoted Bakiyev as telling the Russian television.

http://www.eians.com/stories/2005/07/18/18bf.shtml

I don't know how much more plain that could be -- of course if the translation is to be trusted.

And the "regional group" was a meetings of officials from the governments in the area including the two aforementioned countries and Russia and China, the countries that would likely move in (in the form of troops or merely influence) if we move out.

[ChumpDumper]

And another:

Uzbekistan mulls future of U.S air base
TASHKENT, Uzbekistan (AP) — Uzbekistan indicated on Thursday that it was reconsidering the future of a U.S. airbase it hosts, threatening a key support base for the U.S.-led efforts in neighboring Afghanistan.

The move, which throws into doubt the American military presence in the Central Asian nation, follows an increasing chill in relations between Washington and the authoritarian Uzbek leader Islam Karimov.

The Foreign Ministry said the air base at Karshi-Khanabad, which U.S forces use to support operations and supply humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, was only intended for combat operations in Afghanistan during the overthrow of the Taliban regime after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"Any other prospects for a U.S. military presence in Uzbekistan were not considered by the Uzbek side," the ministry said in a statement.

Uzbekistan also claimed that the United States hadn't paid takeoff and landing fees for all flights to and from the base, and had offered virtually no compensation for additional costs incurred by the Uzbek authorities for guarding the base, new infrastructure, ecological damage and inconvenience to the local population.

"In the view of the Foreign Ministry of Uzbekistan, these considerations should be central to examining the prospects of the future presence of the U.S. military force at the Khanabad air base," the statement concluded.

On Tuesday, a regional alliance led by China and Russia and including Uzbekistan called for the U.S. and its coalition allies in Afghanistan to set a date for withdrawing from several states in Central Asia, reflecting growing unease at America's military presence in the region.

U.S-led military forces have been deployed at air bases in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to back up the anti-terrorist campaign in neighboring Afghanistan.

According to the U.S military, Uzbekistan hosts at least 800 U.S. troops, while 1,200 U.S.-led troops are in Kyrgyzstan. Some 200 French air force personnel are based in Tajikistan.

In Washington, several U.S. officials rejected the calls for a deadline.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Ambassador to Kazakhstan John Ordway said coalition operations in Afghanistan "are ongoing and will be for some time to come."

"Unfortunately, there are a number of challenges remaining in Afghanistan and the military contingents there remain essential in the struggle to provide that security and stability," Ordway told reporters in the Kazakh commercial capital Almaty.

Uzbekistan's ties with the United States and other Western nations have sharply deteriorated since it came under international condemnation for the harsh suppression of a May uprising in the eastern city of Andijan.

Uzbek authorities say 176 people died and deny that government troops fired on unarmed civilians but rights activists say as many as 750 may have been killed.

Karimov put restrictions on the U.S air base — located in southern Uzbekistan about 112 miles from the Afghan border after Washington joined calls by other Western nations for an international probe into the Andijan massacre.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-07-07-uzbek_x.htm

Two very different situations, but the point remains, it's not all sunshine and happiness wherever our troops hang their hats.

[ChumpDumper]

Meanwhile, in Okinawa:

10,000 protest against U.S. Army exercises in Okinawa

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 at 07:09 JST
NAHA — Some 10,000 people staged a protest Tuesday against U.S. Army exercises using live ammunition in the town of Kin, Okinawa Prefecture.

The protesters, including Okinawa Gov Keiichi Inamine, highlighted the danger posed by the exercises at a new combat facility at the Marine Corps' Camp Hansen, which is only 300 meters away from residential areas. (Kyodo News)

http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&id=343918

[ChumpDumper]

In South Korea:

Crowds in South Korea protest U.S. base
BY: Associated Press, San Diego Union Tribune*
07/12/2005

PYONGTAEK, South Korea – Thousands of people protesting at the site of the planned new headquarters for the U.S. military in South Korea clashed yesterday with police.

Some 7,000 demonstrators threw steel pipes and stones at about 10,000 police guarding Camp Humphreys in Pyongtaek, about 50 miles south of Seoul.

"The government made an agreement with the United States without consensus from the residents," said one protester, Oh Jeong-sun, 56.

The U.S. military in South Korea is now headquartered at Yongsan Garrison in Seoul, but is set to move its entire command to Pyongtaek by 2008 as part of plans to consolidate bases and reduce the number of U.S. troops. About 32,500 American troops are now deployed in South Korea.

http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=4995

I just want to point out I'm not advocating pulling out of these places -- just pointing out that our troops do not enjoy unanimous support in these areas.

[theinstitute]

First of all, the word is CORRELATION, not COROLATION.

Empirically validating the connection between an interventionist foreign policy and such attacks is more critical than ever now that terrorists can more readily obtain weapons of mass destruction and seem to be more willing to use them. The extensive number of incidents of terrorism linked to U.S. foreign policy implies that the United States could substantially reduce the chance of catastrophic terrorist attacks if it lowered its military profile overseas.

Secondly, Empirically validating, by definition, requires data (numbers). It is mathematically impossible to empirically validate anything by implying something, which is exactly what the authors are doing. The first sentence of the article indicates that data were used to validate their assumption. However, they showed no data and only stated an implication. This should be an immediate red flag. The authors of the article are persuasive in their argument, but everything they say is rendered as worthless because of this. I would be willing to bet, however, that it was intentional.

Finally, CORRELATION does not mean causation. For example, eating too much causes you to gain weight. The size of your pants is a byproduct of that, but the size of your pants (although CORRELATED to your body weight) did not cause you to gain weight.

[scott]

Secondly, Empirically validating, by definition, requires data (numbers). It is mathematically impossible to empirically validate anything by implying something, which is exactly what the authors are doing. The first sentence of the article indicates that data were used to validate their assumption. However, they showed no data and only stated an implication. This should be an immediate red flag. The authors of the article are persuasive in their argument, but everything they say is rendered as worthless because of this. I would be willing to bet, however, that it was intentional.

From the passage you chose to quote (I admit to not reading the original post), I don't see where they are stating that they have empirical evidence. Just that an empirical validation is important. If limit data implies something, you would then employ empirical tests to confirm or refute the validity of the implication. Maybe there is some context I am missing by not reading the full article.

You are right that correlation does not equate to causalty, but that can be tested for as well. You can't just dismiss causalty because you have a correlation, you have to run the test (which of course requires impirical evidence). In any event, I hope we never get to the point where we have a large enough sample by which to estimate a statistically significant relationship.

[scott]

6. ** One of the most important **. Quietly (so not to piss off people like Saudi Arabia and OPEC) invest in alternative fuel sources. If we develop alternative fuels, to the point that we develop something efficient and cheap that we can share with the rest of the world, all of a sudden: 1) the global economy is no longer dependant on oil and 2) a large financial source for militant Islam (oil profit in the Middle East) goes away.

And how do you suggest someone goes about doing that? That is about as feasible idea as some wack job tree hugger saying we should all just sit around the camp fire and talk it out.

I take it back... it isn't that bad... but it's easier said than done. $50+ crude oil will be more effective at developing an alternative then some government mandated plan. Right now we have congress sitting around thinking how great Ethanol is, when studies show that the production and use of it creates just as much if not more pollution, and the energy spent to create ethanol is just as much, if not more, than the energy extracted from the product.

[MannyIsGod]

Baseless? I gave my thoughts. Sorry, I didn't say the Bush Doctrine sucks, so that means my points weren't valid.

But just to satisfy your request...

The last time we tried isolationism, the end result was the Great Depression, the rise of the Third Reich, and WWII.

Better?

Isolationism is a recipe for disaster in this day and age. Shut ourselves off to the rest of the world, and China runs roughshod over Asia, while militant Islam takes over Europe, Africa, and South America.

Then we're the monkey in the middle. No thanks.

Look, you want to win this fucking thing? Then tell your liberal friends to stick all the PC bullshit up their ass.

Here's how I go about it...

1. Shut down the border with Mexico. Use the border patrol, use the Minutemen, whatever. Just from San Diego to Brownsville down.

Not enough manpower? I am for a civil service type program where people could serve 2 years for their country protecting the homeland. General watching and monitoring the borders, with quick reaction border patrol forces to respond to any incidents.

2. Infiltrate every Wahhabi mosque and madrassa in the US, Europe, and eventually you have to deal with Africa too.

I'm not talking having someone there to narc on every little thing they say, but when they start talking about death to America, those types of "religious" institutes, then it's time to infiltrate further, gather all they can about the plots, and bust every one of those involved.

3. Europe has to put up some roadblocks to the Muslim invasion (err, immigrants). I'd venture a lot of those involved in things like London travelled continently across Europe.

4. When push comes to shove (and I really do think that one day we could very well see a true world war - radical Islam vs. the globalized West, embrace our former adversary, Russia. We (both political parties) keep trying to play both sides with Russia.. we want them to help us with the war on terror, but we reserve the right to bemoan and criticize their actions against Chechnya.

They want to exterminate their pests, we want to exterminate ours, let's kill some bugs.

5. Tehran and Damascus... make it known that we know they have AQ elements in their country that they are harboring and probably conspiring with. Let them know that the day a WMD hits anywhere in the continental U.S., they are both toast.

6. ** One of the most important **. Quietly (so not to piss off people like Saudi Arabia and OPEC) invest in alternative fuel sources. If we develop alternative fuels, to the point that we develop something efficient and cheap that we can share with the rest of the world, all of a sudden: 1) the global economy is no longer dependant on oil and 2) a large financial source for militant Islam (oil profit in the Middle East) goes away.

There's more, but I really don't feel like sitting here all night talking about it and Manny will probably say I've done nothing to refute the original article anyway.
Did you read the paper?

No, you didn't. How do I know? The things you bring up are SPECIFICALLY addressed by it.

[MannyIsGod]

First of all, the word is CORRELATION, not COROLATION.
I'm a horrible speller, you got me there. You 1, Me 0?



Empirically validating the connection between an interventionist foreign policy and such attacks is more critical than ever now that terrorists can more readily obtain weapons of mass destruction and seem to be more willing to use them. The extensive number of incidents of terrorism linked to U.S. foreign policy implies that the United States could substantially reduce the chance of catastrophic terrorist attacks if it lowered its military profile overseas.

Secondly, Empirically validating, by definition, requires data (numbers). It is mathematically impossible to empirically validate anything by implying something, which is exactly what the authors are doing. The first sentence of the article indicates that data were used to validate their assumption. However, they showed no data and only stated an implication. This should be an immediate red flag. The authors of the article are persuasive in their argument, but everything they say is rendered as worthless because of this. I would be willing to bet, however, that it was intentional.
I suggest you read the entire thing and not merely the conclusion which I posted. There was a reason I posted a link. The entire brief is of a decent length and would have been impossible to fit in a single post (not to mention that most people aren't even reading the post I put up, much less the entire paper).



Finally, CORRELATION does not mean causation. For example, eating too much causes you to gain weight. The size of your pants is a byproduct of that, but the size of your pants (although CORRELATED to your body weight) did not cause you to gain weight. No doubt, but it is safe to say that the issue that comes first is the cause of what comes next. While a larger pant size may not be the cause of gaining weight, gaining weight can be the cause of a larger pant size.

Therefore the question becomes what came first? Extremeist Islamic terrorism or United States interventionist policy?

But once again, follow the link and read the entire brief. I guess I'm impressed by your ability to spell, but I'd be more impressed if you express an ability to read. Feel free to follow the link.

[MannyIsGod]

I'll post the entire portion of the paper devoted to exactly what you stated above, TheInstitute.


Logic and Empirical Data Support the Link

The logic behind the claim that there are other primary
causes for terrorism against the United States needs to be
examined. Many other Western nations are wealthy; have an
extensive industrial and commercial presence overseas;
export their culture along with their products and services;
and believe in religious freedom, economic opportunity, and
respect for the rights of the individual. Yet those nations--
Switzerland and Australia, for example--seem to have
much less of a problem with worldwide terrorism than does
the United States.

According to the U.S. State Department's Patterns of
Global Terrorism: 1997, one-third of all terrorist attacks
worldwide were perpetrated against U.S. targets.11 The
percentage of terrorism targeted at the United States is
very high considering that the United States--unlike nations
such as Algeria, Turkey, and the United Kingdom--has no
internal civil war or quarrels with its neighbors that spawn
terrorism. The major difference between the United States
and other wealthy democratic nations is that it is an inter-
ventionist superpower. As Betts notes, the United States is
the only nation in the world that intervenes regularly
outside its own region.

The motives for some terrorist attacks are not easy to
discern. They may be protests against U.S. culture or
overseas business presence. Two incidents in 1995--the
deadly attack by two gunmen on a van from the U.S. consulate
in Karachi, Pakistan, and the bombing of a "Dunkin Donuts"
in Bogotá, Colombia--could fit into those categories. But
with no statement of motives by the terrorists, such attacks
could just as easily have been responses to the perceived
foreign policies of a global superpower.

Even if some terrorist attacks against the United
States are a reaction to "what it is" rather than "what it
does," the list of incidents later in this paper shows how
many terrorist attacks can be traced back to an interventionist
American foreign policy. A conservative approach
was taken in cataloging those incidents. To be added to the
list, a planned or actual attack first had to be targeted
against U.S. citizens, property, or facilities--either at
home or abroad. Then there had to be either an indication
from the terrorist group that the attack was a response to
U.S. foreign policy or strong circumstantial evidence that
the location, timing, or target of the attack coincided with
a specific U.S. intervention overseas.

Although the Defense Science Board noted a historical
correlation between U.S. involvement in international situations
and an increase in terrorist attacks against the
United States, the board apparently believed the conclusion
to be so obvious that it did not publish detailed data to
support it. Some analysts apparently remain unconvinced of
the relationship. The data in this paper provide the empirical
evidence.[/U]

[MannyIsGod]

These are for Chump (or Yoni, rather).



May 13, 1990: New People's Army assassins fatally shot two
U.S. airmen near Clark Air Base in the Philippines. The
killings came on the eve of the U.S.-Philippine exploratory
talks on the future of U.S. military bases in the Philippines.
Most likely, the attack was perpetrated to protest
the U.S. presence in the Philippines.

June 13, 1990: An American Peace Corps worker was kidnapped
from his home in the Philippines. The New People's
Army was responsible. The American was released unharmed on
August 2 even though no ransom was paid. Coming around the
time of U.S.-Philippine exploratory talks on the future of
military bases in the Philippines and exactly a month after
the killing of two U.S. airmen at Clark Air Base, the attack
was most likely a protest against the U.S. presence in the
Philippines.

January 2, 1991: A U.S. military helicopter was shot down
by the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front militants
(Marxist guerrillas) in San Miguel, El Salvador. The two
crewmen were then killed. The crewmen were most likely
targets because the United States provided military aid and
advisers to the government of El Salvador.

June 10, 1992: A U.S. Army vehicle traveling between
Panama City and Colón, Panama, was raked with gunfire. The
driver was killed and a passenger and a nearby civilian
bystander were wounded. The incident was most likely related
to the U.S. military presence in Panama and U.S. control
of the Panama Canal Zone.

July 1, 1993: Terrorists fired two rockets at the U.S. Air
Force base at Yokota, Japan. The incident happened a few
days before President Clinton arrived at the base. The
incident most likely resulted from opposition to the U.S.
military presence in Japan.

· July 7, 1993: Six days later, terrorists fired four projectiles
at the headquarters of the U.S. Air Force in Japan
at Camp Zama, Japan. Again, the incident was most likely
related to opposition to the U.S. military presence in
Japan.

Shortly before Easter 1995: Authorities were tipped off by
Japanese police that members of the Aum Shinrikyo (Supreme
Truth) religious cult planned a nerve gas attack at Disneyland
in Anaheim, California. The group planned to attack
during a fireworks celebration when attendance at the park
would reach maximum capacity. U.S. authorities apprehended
members of the group at the Los Angeles airport before they
could launch the attack. The plan also included an attack
on petrochemical facilities in Los Angeles. Aum Shinrikyo
had earlier used sarin nerve gas to attack the Tokyo subway
(March 20, 1995). According to the group's belief system,
the last years of the millennium will give rise to an Armageddon
between Japan and the United States. Aum Shinrikyo
believed that attacking the Tokyo subway would hasten the
Armageddon. The group was hoping to kill tens of thousands
of people.
The cult chose the United States--a friendly nation--as
Japan's adversary rather than other regional nations that
are much more likely to be future rivals of Japan in East
Asia-—China, Russia, and North and South Korea. That indicates
how easily an interventionist superpower can be vilified
by conspiratorially minded groups, even in a friendly
nation.
The Aum Shinrikyo cult had assets of $1.2 billion and
the capability to produce sarin and VX gas, the agents that
cause anthrax and botulism, and radiological weapons. The
group is still active.

August 18, 1995: The Manuel Rodriguez Patriotic Front
claimed responsibility for a bomb explosion at an office
building that housed the American company Fluor Daniel in
Santiago, Chile. The group stated that the incident was
carried out in solidarity with Cuba and in opposition to the
American economic blockade of that island.

November 15, 1995: An explosive device was discovered on a
power line to a U.S. military complex in Sagmihara, Japan.
No group claimed responsibility. The incident was most
likely related to opposition to the U.S. military presence
in Japan.

February 15, 1996: Unidentified assailants fired a rocket
at the U.S. embassy compound in Athens, Greece, causing
minor damage to three diplomatic vehicles and surrounding
buildings. The State Department noted that the circumstances
of the attack suggested it was an attack by the group
November 17. November 17 attacks U.S. targets because of
"American imperialism-nationalism."

May 31, 1996: In Nicaragua a gang of disgruntled former
Contra guerrillas kidnapped an employee of the U.S. Agency
for International Development who was assisting in preparations
for the Nicaraguan elections. She was later released
unharmed.

April 3, 1998: The Greek November 17 movement claimed responsibility
for a recent rash of attacks against U.S.
targets. November 17's victims since 1975 include a CIA
station chief and three other Americans. The group issued a
statement saying the campaign was "aimed against American
imperialism-nationalism."

[The Ressurrected One]

This is for Manny:

I checked out those dates and, guess what? The sun rose too.

You're list wasn't comprehensive. In fact, unless you list all American "interventionist" activities with a corresponding terrorist act OR list all terrorist acts with a corresponding American "interventionist" activity, your list is just as coincidental as the sun rising on days when terrorist acts or American "interventionist" activities occur.

I put scare quotes around "interventionist" because, depending on the country involved, they may or may not have been in favor of our foreign policy initiative there.

So, you have to ask yourself, why are terrorists opposed to an American presence in certain countries? I keep coming back to the already expressed reason that they do not want our western cultural ideologies -- such as individual rights for all (women and minorities included) and freedom -- to blossom in their nice, neat, little totalitarian regimes they've worked so hard to usurp.

We screwed up Afghanistan for them big time. They had their Utopia in the Taliban regime. Iran is no different.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

Dude, you so fit everything to fit your picture of the world. I bet in your mind the Chinese and Iranians all have red eyes and talk in really scary voices, don't they?

[The Ressurrected One]

:lol

Dude, you so fit everything to fit your picture of the world. I bet in your mind the Chinese and Iranians all have red eyes and talk in really scary voices, don't they?
Uh, no.

I particularly listed China and Iran because of recent statements by leaders in their governments or military.

I similarly recognize there is a vast movement among both the Chinese and Iranian people to force their governments to adopt more Western cultural ideals such as freedom and individual rights. So far, the totalitarian/authoritarian regimes of both nations have successfully quashed any such efforts to gain popular momentum.

[The Ressurrected One]

China ready to use nuclear weapons against US over Taiwan (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050716/wl_asia_afp/chinaustaiwannuclear_050716025125)

Ganji Is Near Death in Iranian Prison, a Dissident Reports (http://www.nysun.com/article/17131)

Like I said, it would be stupid NOT to prepare for a military conflict with either of these two nations.

Manny, I think it's you that has the limited world view.

[MannyIsGod]

Why would the US get in a war over Taiwan? Oh thats right. Interventionist foriegn policy!

You're so locked into your mode of thinking that you can't see outside of Americentric box.

[MannyIsGod]

Man, I still get the giggles when I think about you refering you yourself as a libertarian. RIGHT!

[The Ressurrected One]

Why would the US get in a war over Taiwan? Oh thats right. Interventionist foriegn policy!
It is consistent with our foreign policy to oppose the spread of communism and we've allied ourselves with the Taiwanese? It's called obligation.

You're so locked into your mode of thinking that you can't see outside of Americentric box.
D'okie dokie, whatever that means. Maybe you should move to Europe until the American Government attains status outside the "Americentric box;" which, by the way, I hope never occurs.

Name one purely egalitarian nation on the face of the planet, Manny.

[The Ressurrected One]

Man, I still get the giggles when I think about you refering you yourself as a libertarian. RIGHT!
I still get the giggles when I think about how you still think I'm Yonivore.

[xrayzebra]

:lmao

I KNEW you wouldn't address the issues brought about in the paper. I knew it. But you're alreayd acknowledged as the biggest bigot in here.

Besides, that Muslim group is just trying to keep pace with Pat Robertson. No biggie.

What is the problem Manny? Cant you just face the fact that WE are
facing a bunch of people who want any Christian person or Country gone?
Opinion of the CATO institute is just that: an opinion. You just keep
forgetting these same people killed almost 3000 people in this country in
one operation alone, they killed many in Saudi Arabia and blew up five
of our Embassies, they killed people in Germany and other countries. Quit
living in Media Land and use your head, just once in awhile. I have told
you before, but I will repeat it. I have lived amongest the Muslims and
they do not, repeat, do not think as we do in any way, shape or fashion.
They do not observe any of our customs. They are mostly formally
uneducated and those that are tend to leave for a better life or stay in the country as
so called leaders and consider most of their fellow citizens as beneith them. They have no excuse for what they have done and
are doing. We, The United States of America, has no reason to apologize
for what we have done in the past or in the future. We too have special
interest, ourselves as a nation, and we would be absolutely stupid to
ignore or forget those special interst.

[MannyIsGod]

It is consistent with our foreign policy to oppose the spread of communism and we've allied ourselves with the Taiwanese? It's called obligation.

D'okie dokie, whatever that means. Maybe you should move to Europe until the American Government attains status outside the "Americentric box;" which, by the way, I hope never occurs.

Name one purely egalitarian nation on the face of the planet, Manny.
Fuck, I hope we win that cold war soon. I'm really trying to put off building my fallout shelter.

But I guess lucky for me, Taiwan isn't recognized as a country but as a part of a country. And we're not going to intervene in a civil war which won't be occouring anytime either way.

Tell me again, when did the US make it policy to protect Taiwan?

[MannyIsGod]

What is the problem Manny? Cant you just face the fact that WE are
facing a bunch of people who want any Christian person or Country gone?
Opinion of the CATO institute is just that: an opinion. You just keep
forgetting these same people killed almost 3000 people in this country in
one operation alone, they killed many in Saudi Arabia and blew up five
of our Embassies, they killed people in Germany and other countries. Quit
living in Media Land and use your head, just once in awhile. I have told
you before, but I will repeat it. I have lived amongest the Muslims and
they do not, repeat, do not think as we do in any way, shape or fashion.
They do not observe any of our customs. They are mostly formally
uneducated and those that are tend to leave for a better life or stay in the country as
so called leaders and consider most of their fellow citizens as beneith them. They have no excuse for what they have done and
are doing. We, The United States of America, has no reason to apologize
for what we have done in the past or in the future. We too have special
interest, ourselves as a nation, and we would be absolutely stupid to
ignore or forget those special interst.

Yes yes, I know Yonivore. The reason we're being attacked is because of our "christian" status and because they hate our freedoms. Don't let the evidence (namely other countries not named the United States with those same characteristics being attacked) get in the way of your opinions.

Like I said, you want to twist the facts of the world situation to paint your image of the American knight running off to save the day.

[xrayzebra]

Yes yes, I know Yonivore. The reason we're being attacked is because of our "christian" status and because they hate our freedoms. Don't let the evidence (namely other countries not named the United States with those same characteristics being attacked) get in the way of your opinions.

Like I said, you want to twist the facts of the world situation to paint your image of the American knight running off to save the day.

No they don't hate our freedoms, because most cant even recognize what
freedoms we do have. You see Manny, you have never lived in countries
where they don't have our freedoms. In most you would not, on a short
visit, notice they don't have our freedoms. They do not like the fact we
have the strip joints (girlie shows). Although it is quite alright that they
have their "red light" districts where women are sent for many reasons to
take care of the clients that visit the district. And I might add they women
are not allowed to leave the "compound" as it is refered to. Do you ever
wonder why most of Christians left Iraq after Hussein took over? Did you
know that his party was/is Communist. Did you know that the Talaban
was supported by Russia? Funny part about our (Muslim and Christian) is
that our two books on religion are much the same in their teachings and
writings. But the hard line Musims, rest assured, do hate Christians no
end and have for many hundreds of years. Much of what is happening now
is a carry-over from the crusades when the Muslims were trying to conquer
Europe, much of Spain shows this influence and they are still fighting
factions of this part of History.

One thing I didn't understand is your statement: "namely other countries
not named the United States.....being attacked."

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

Yes Yes, I know strippers are their main motivations and how much they hate red light districts. I expect the Dutch must really be full of fear at this very moment, being at the least a country with equal freedoms yet much more sexuality. Amsterdam: Future site of nuclear terrorism.

[MannyIsGod]

Food for thought that is probably just going to piss you guys off. But thats ok. I'm resigned myself to the posting of intelligent analysis and actual facts as opposed to engaging in much "debate" in here.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/icar/sept11/Identity&Apocolypic_Terrorism.pdf


A question arising at this point is: what determines whether a person -- willing to
commit acts of violence to achieve his or her goals -- becomes an apocalyptic terrorist
willing to destroy him or herself in the execution of acts of catastrophic violence?
One answer is suggested by one interpretation of the great Abrahamic religion,
Islam. It is clear that for many Arabs and Muslims worldwide, Islam is under siege by U.S.-
directed globalization undergirded by a neo-“Crusader” mentality. This and the U.S. policy
in the Middle East have encouraged some Arabs and Muslims to define Americans,
Israelis, Jews, and Christians as the “Enemy” and, therefore, as targets of rage-based acts
of violent defense of Islamic values.
A case in point is revealed by the 19 young men who committed the catastrophic
acts of 11 September 2001, giving up their lives in the process. They were male, Arab, and
Wahhabist (i.e., Salafi) Muslims. Wahhabism -- a more traditional, and for some, "purer"
form of Islam -- is the brand of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia since the establishment in
the 18th century of an alliance between the House of Saud and religious reformer
Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. It is an indelible part of the Saudi state and
consciousness. (Fifteen of the 19 terrorists were Saudi citizens.) More significantly,
Wahhabism is also exported worldwide by the oil-rich state, with the Taliban in Afghanistan
and Pakistan being the most Wahhabist of all.
The main architect or inspiration for the 11 September attacks, Osama bin Laden, is
not only a very wealthy Saudi and founder of the global terrorist group, al Qaeda, but also a
Wahhabist. Since the 1990s, Bin Laden has issued fatwa -- religiously based edicts in
effect declaring war -- against the U.S. and Americans for committing blasphemy against
Islam by stationing in excess of 5,000 U.S. military personnel in Saudi Arabia since the
1990-1991 Gulf War. Saudi Arabia is the site of two of the holiest shrines in Islam: Mecca,
where The Prophet was born, and Medina, where The Prophet established the first Islamic
state.
Osama bin Laden and others like him have additional grievances against the West:
allowing Serbs to slaughter Bosnian Muslims with impunity during the genocidal implosion
of former Yugoslavia during the 1990s; carte blanche U.S. support for nearly everything
that Israel does to the Palestinians; U.S. support for corrupt regimes in the Arab world (e.g.,
in Egypt and Saudi Arabia); and the U.S.-led wars and military occupations in Afghanistan
and Iraq

[The Ressurrected One]

If Western culture dominates in the Muslim part of the world, the Wizard (Mohammed) behind the smoke and curtain that is Islam will be demonstrated to be the religion of oppression instead of the religion of peace.

That's what the Islamo-fascists are trying to prevent. Period.

They don't hate our freedoms...they fear what freedom will do to their religion. It's all about power.

[xrayzebra]

:lol

Yes Yes, I know strippers are their main motivations and how much they hate red light districts. I expect the Dutch must really be full of fear at this very moment, being at the least a country with equal freedoms yet much more sexuality. Amsterdam: Future site of nuclear terrorism.

Okay Manny, never mind, live your life. Obviously you have no knowledge
other than the crap you read and what has been/is being taught in your
educational process (which is questionable, considering some of your
postings). The point I was trying to make was that they too speak out
of both sides of their mouths. They have their red light districts but
condem our country for some of the things that go on in our society. No
you need to watch some of the other news sources in our world. Even
Rush has his points. Most of what he says is what others have written,
and Fox news also gives a pretty good picture of things. Most think
tanks are just that "think tanks". Most news is like a loaf of bread, it is
a commodity, without something to get people to watch your news, you
have no news to "sell". And they wonder why they have no readers, listeners, or readers. Look at the Express-News. They, the libs, bought
a paper that put them out of business and now the winner, they bought,
is losing readership. Son, you and your bunch, are on the losing side.
That is a fact, like it or not. And cursing, putting down and throwing
mud just don't hack it anymore, we too have our sources. Come join
us or just stay on the losing side. Course you have some company in
Carlos Guerra and Ms. Molly Ivins...... :lol

[The Ressurrected One]

If you want to really oversimplify this, Manny; what we have is a minority sect of Islamo-extremists that are bound and determined to make Islam the sole religion of the planet and about a billion other people who say, WTF, we're already Muslim so what's the big deal?

Then on the other side, you have the rest of us who realize that there is no placating or compromising with this ideology so what we have to do is defeat it and continue killing them until the billion sideliners in Islam come to their senses and say, whoa! we'll reign 'em in if you'll stop killing 'em and then -- do it.

[bigzak25]

Manny, hypothetically, let say the United States pulls the military presence out from everywhere...Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi, support for Isreal. All gone.

Now, do you think the terrorist threat is over at that point.

Or has the damage been done no matter what that US course of action.

Cuz if the damage has been done, then it's too late to play nice guy.
Elimination of the threat is the only option.

People can argue chicken or egg for all eternity, but the bottom line is today and tomorrow, not yesterday.

[smackdaddy11]

If you want to really oversimplify this, Manny; what we have is a minority sect of Islamo-extremists that are bound and determined to make Islam the sole religion of the planet and about a billion other people who say, WTF, we're already Muslim so what's the big deal?

Agreed. Except for the minority part. Any fence sitter willing to do nothing is the enemy. It isn't just a religion, it's a form of governing ones lives. It's a freakin' cult.

Now, the islamakazis, have moved into the political realm. The are offering a way for the bombings in Britain to stop. In the civilized world, it is called blackmail. Whatever happened to peaceful march protests? That's right these jackasses don't believe in that. It isn't in their field manuel.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/22/AR2005072200709_pf.html

Attacks on UK will continue, radical cleric says

By Gideon Long
Reuters
Friday, July 22, 2005; 10:57 AM



LONDON (Reuters) - Militant Islamists will continue to attack Britain until the government pulls its troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, one of the country's most outspoken Islamic clerics said on Friday.

Speaking 15 days after bombers killed over 50 people in London and a day after a series of failed attacks on the city's transport network, Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed said the British capital should expect more violence.

"What happened yesterday confirmed that as long as the cause and the root problem is still there ... we will see the same effect we saw on July 7," Bakri said.

"If the cause is still there the effect will happen again and again," he said, adding he had no information about future attacks or contacts with people planning to carry out attacks.

Remeber, these attacks were carried out by british citizens, some of them born there. Alliances are with the Muslims worldwide. Sounds like nothing but a giant gang to me.

Bakri, a Syrian-born cleric who has been vilified in Britain since 2001 when he praised the September 11 hijackers, said he did not believe the bombings and attempted attacks on London were carried out by British Muslims.

He condemned the killing of all innocent civilians but described attacks on British and U.S. troops in Muslim countries as "pro-life" and justified.

In an interview with Reuters, Bakri described Osama bin Laden, leader of the radical Islamist network al Qaeda, as "a sincere man who fights against evil forces."

This tool leads a congregation. If these are his beliefs, don;t ya think the followers believe the same thing? If I didn't like what my pastor was saying, ID MOVE TO A DIFFERENT CHURCH!!!!!

Bakri said he would like Britain to become an Islamic state but feared he would be deported before his dream was realized.

"I would like to see the Islamic flag fly, not only over number 10 Downing Street, but over the whole world," he said.

Over my dead body, fucktard!

MESSAGE OF PEACE ... MESSAGE OF WAR

A hate figure for the British tabloid press, the bearded and bespectacled Bakri said Islam contained "a message of peace for those who want to live with the Muslims in peace."

I've heard of that. It's called a dhimmi. Here is the definition:

http://www.secularislam.org/jihad/subjects.htm Most scholars are agreed that, in his dealings with captives, various policies are open to the Imam [head of the Islamic state, caliph]. He may pardon them, enslave them, kill them, or release them either on ransom or as dhimmi [non-Moslem subject of the Islamic state], in which latter case the released captive is obliged to pay poll-tax (jizya).

Cool. Get to pay (or die) to be anything other than Islamic.

Here is a verse: Ibn Khaldun [13]: In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody either by persuasion or by force.Find me a quote in the bible that says this and I'll concede the point. If you can't, STFU.

"But Islam is a message of war for those who declare war against Muslims," he said.

"I condemn any killing and any bombing against any innocent people in Britain or abroad, but I expect the British people to condemn the killing of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan."

However, asked about Islamist attacks on British and U.S. troops and on Israelis, he said: "If violence is pro-life I don't condemn it."

Britain has around 1,100 troops in Afghanistan and 8,500 in Iraq. Prime Minister Tony Blair supported the United States in its respective invasions of both countries in 2001 and 2003.

Bakri, a 46-year-old father of six, was born in Syria and lived in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. When the Saudi government expelled him in 1985 he came to London.

Nicknamed "The Tottenham Ayatollah" after the area of north London in which he lives, he has infuriated many Britons with his firebrand speeches and refusal to condemn suicide bombings.

He founded the British branch of Hizb ut-Tahrir, which describes itself as a non-violent political party dedicated to creating an Islamic caliphate centered on the Middle East.

But he split from the group in 1996 and set up al Muhajiroun, which won notoriety in 2001 for celebrating the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon which killed nearly 3,000 people.

Bakri has Syrian and Lebanese citizenship and says he thinks the British government might deport him to one of those two countries in the wake of this month's bombings.

"But I think that would be political suicide for the British government if they started to deport and imprison all extremists and radicals," he said.

Don't inprison them. You want tools like this in with the general population creating more walking time bombs?

"Because if, God forbid, something happened again, they would have nobody left to blame."



Here is another. I'll take out the bullets:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/PA_NEWA1320651122037874A00?source=PA%20Feed


Senior Muslims have warned the Government that it needed to revise British foreign policy if it wants to put an end to the violence.

Dr Azzam Tamimi, from the Muslim Association of Britain, said the country was in real danger and that this would continue so long as British forces remained in Iraq.


More blackmail

"Tony Blair has to come out of his state of denial and listen to what the experts have been saying, that our involvement in Iraq is stupid." His comments were echoed by the marketing manager for The Muslim Weekly newspaper.

Even the newspaper head feels this. Is it me or why is NOONE saying this is wrong and it must stop? Why is noone saying "This is not the way to handle the anger?" Because they agree with it.

"We have got to get out of Iraq, it is the crux of the matter. I believe if Tony Blair and George Bush left Iraq and stopped propping up dictatorial regimes in the Muslim world, the threat rate to Britain would come down to nearly zero."

Until they want something else.

Massoud Shadjareh, chair of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, also called on the Government to take responsibility for creating the "political environment" in which these attacks have happened.

He said: "Now we know this wasn't a one-off, we need to look at ways of addressing the underlying factors that created it. I feel it's urgent to start addressing these before there is further loss of life."

No saying to stop it. Just that the British gov't must change poilcy to get it done.


Spare me the B.S. moderate Muslim crap. The Muslim Association of Britain is supposed to be moderate.