"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
news
I agree completely, but we certainly should judge the tiny minority of
wackos and do whatever we can to stop them.

Stephen

And I agree with that as well. The question is, what can we do to stop them?
If they perceive themselves as being attacked by outside forces, they will
also perceive themselves as being righteous in resisting and fighting those
outside forces. But Islam demands that when they are no longer being
attacked, they MUST stop fighting. This doesn't necessarily mean that the
extremists *would* stop fighting, but it does mean that those who continued
in the face of no active enemies would lose virtually all of their support
within the Muslim world. This, then, would put the problem of Islamic
extremists where it belongs -- in the hands of the Faithful.

KLC Lewis wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
news
I agree completely, but we certainly should judge the tiny minority of
wackos and do whatever we can to stop them.

Stephen

And I agree with that as well. The question is, what can we do to stop them?

Wipe them off the face of the earth? Make being one of them so
unattractive that no one else wants to be them?

If they perceive themselves as being attacked by outside forces, they will
also perceive themselves as being righteous in resisting and fighting those
outside forces. But Islam demands that when they are no longer being
attacked, they MUST stop fighting. This doesn't necessarily mean that the
extremists *would* stop fighting, but it does mean that those who continued
in the face of no active enemies would lose virtually all of their support
within the Muslim world. This, then, would put the problem of Islamic
extremists where it belongs -- in the hands of the Faithful.

This would work if only they didn't believe they are being attacked just
by the fact of the US and Israels existence. They have said so many
times. Our only out, according to them is for us to convert to Islam.

Stephen

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
This would work if only they didn't believe they are being attacked just
by the fact of the US and Israels existence. They have said so many times.
Our only out, according to them is for us to convert to Islam.

Stephen


That is the position of the merest fraction of the militant extremists. Even
amongst the militant extremists, the majority simply want the West out of
their lands.

The West invaded the Middle East for oil. Prior to the early 20th century,
the West had little interest in the Middle East, other than for mutual,
consentual trade. And even in the first half of the 20th century, the money
which oil brought into the Middle East was considered fair compensation for
our presence there. Until Western influence and ideals began to seriously
conflict with core Muslim beliefs.

The militant extremists will always consider Western presence in Muslim
lands to be an occupation of those lands. When we put military might into
those lands, we only further this belief. "We will stop raping you when you
stop resisting." In what sane world does the one being raped not have the
right to resist?

KLC Lewis wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
This would work if only they didn't believe they are being attacked just
by the fact of the US and Israels existence. They have said so many times.
Our only out, according to them is for us to convert to Islam.

Stephen


That is the position of the merest fraction of the militant extremists. Even
amongst the militant extremists, the majority simply want the West out of
their lands.

I don't know what fraction it is, but the ones who demand we convert to
Islam are the ones we are fighting. Bin Laden said exactly that in one
of his last messages. As far as getting out of their lands, its not just
us they want out, it's free government. Tyrannical philosophies like
theirs require tyrannical governments in order to survive and they know
it. Opposing arguments (free speech) can't be allowed because they will
result in people realizing the truth of their oppression, so almost all
freedom must be stamped out.

The West invaded the Middle East for oil. Prior to the early 20th century,
the West had little interest in the Middle East, other than for mutual,
consentual trade. And even in the first half of the 20th century, the money
which oil brought into the Middle East was considered fair compensation for
our presence there. Until Western influence and ideals began to seriously
conflict with core Muslim beliefs.

Well I already anticipated this argument and addressed it before you
said it. Why did we invade Afghanistan then? And when you realize you
can't answer that, tag on the follow up question: Why are we still there
sacrificing American lives for the sake of establishing a democracy?

The militant extremists will always consider Western presence in Muslim
lands to be an occupation of those lands. When we put military might into
those lands, we only further this belief. "We will stop raping you when you
stop resisting." In what sane world does the one being raped not have the
right to resist?

Of course, most of the Afghanies hate the Taliban. They know the
brutality that comes with them. Most Afghanies want a democracy and want
the US to succeed in helping them establish that. The Taliban strategy
is the same one all Muslim extremists are using nowadays. Bomb, kill and
terrorize so many innocent citizens that they wish for the relative
safety of the brutal Taliban government instead of terrorism. And you
think the US should go ahead and let that happen? Weren't you just
saying that you agreed the US should stop them?

Stephen

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
KLC Lewis wrote:
The West invaded the Middle East for oil. Prior to the early 20th
century, the West had little interest in the Middle East, other than for
mutual, consentual trade. And even in the first half of the 20th century,
the money which oil brought into the Middle East was considered fair
compensation for our presence there. Until Western influence and ideals
began to seriously conflict with core Muslim beliefs.

Well I already anticipated this argument and addressed it before you said
it. Why did we invade Afghanistan then? And when you realize you can't
answer that, tag on the follow up question: Why are we still there
sacrificing American lives for the sake of establishing a democracy?

First, you reduce the equation too far when you assume that Afghanistan has
nothing to do with oil (or more precisely, power). The Trans-Afghanistan
Pipeline project has a great deal to do with America's interest in that
particular country. But the fact is that our original foray into Afghanistan
was viewed by virtually the entire world, including most of the Muslim
world, as being righteous. And as a matter of fact, I supported it until
that idiot Bush declared victory after three months and pulled out all but a
relative handful of troops and invaded Iraq.

That said, it is impossible for any occupying force to hold Afghanistan. The
more enemies we make there, the greater the insurgency will grow, to the
point that no amount of force will be able to hold it.


The militant extremists will always consider Western presence in Muslim
lands to be an occupation of those lands. When we put military might into
those lands, we only further this belief. "We will stop raping you when
you stop resisting." In what sane world does the one being raped not have
the right to resist?

Of course, most of the Afghanies hate the Taliban. They know the brutality
that comes with them. Most Afghanies want a democracy and want the US to
succeed in helping them establish that. The Taliban strategy is the same
one all Muslim extremists are using nowadays. Bomb, kill and terrorize so
many innocent citizens that they wish for the relative safety of the
brutal Taliban government instead of terrorism. And you think the US
should go ahead and let that happen? Weren't you just saying that you
agreed the US should stop them?

Stephen

We disagree on what should be done to "stop them." You view it as a military
problem -- kill them, and keep killing them until they stop fighting. I view
it as a cultural problem. When we stop meddling with affairs that the vast
majority of Americans cannot grasp, as they cannot empathize with any
world-view other than their own, things will improve on their own.

As for the Taliban, this would be the exact same group that the United
States nurtured and supported when Afghanistani mujahideen were fighting
against the evil Soviets. They were led by an individual called Osama bin
Laden. Of course, at that time we were also best buddies with Saddam
Hussein. And Saddam, bless his heart, was gassing kurds and killing Iraqi
revolutionaries at that time.

But who does the Taliban kill? Those who are supporting their enemies. Gee,
sort of like every other government on the planet. How are they any
different than the US, or Israel?

KLC Lewis wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
KLC Lewis wrote:
The West invaded the Middle East for oil. Prior to the early 20th
century, the West had little interest in the Middle East, other than for
mutual, consentual trade. And even in the first half of the 20th century,
the money which oil brought into the Middle East was considered fair
compensation for our presence there. Until Western influence and ideals
began to seriously conflict with core Muslim beliefs.
Well I already anticipated this argument and addressed it before you said
it. Why did we invade Afghanistan then? And when you realize you can't
answer that, tag on the follow up question: Why are we still there
sacrificing American lives for the sake of establishing a democracy?

First, you reduce the equation too far when you assume that Afghanistan has
nothing to do with oil (or more precisely, power). The Trans-Afghanistan
Pipeline project has a great deal to do with America's interest in that
particular country.

Hilarious. If you can make a case for anyone wanting to take over
Afghanistan for oil, then you can do it for taking over any country on
earth. Nevermind that the US of course doesn't take over countries and
just like they did with Japan and Italy and Iraq and every other country
they've ever defeated in war, they will give them their country back
with an intact democracy established, so we don't have to fight tyrants
from their again.

But the fact is that our original foray into Afghanistan
was viewed by virtually the entire world, including most of the Muslim
world, as being righteous. And as a matter of fact, I supported it until
that idiot Bush declared victory after three months and pulled out all but a
relative handful of troops and invaded Iraq.

That said, it is impossible for any occupying force to hold Afghanistan. The
more enemies we make there, the greater the insurgency will grow, to the
point that no amount of force will be able to hold it.

Well, good, you agree the US had and still has good reason to restore a
democracy to Afghanistan. We have the same reason for being there now as
we had going in the first place, to make sure there is no extremist
Islamic safe haven for terrorists there. The only moral way to do that
is to establish a strong democracy there. Democracies have never warred
against each other. Of course we aren't trying to hold it by force. We
are trying to give the country to the good people of Afghanistan, who
want freedom just like all humans do.

The militant extremists will always consider Western presence in Muslim
lands to be an occupation of those lands. When we put military might into
those lands, we only further this belief. "We will stop raping you when
you stop resisting." In what sane world does the one being raped not have
the right to resist?
Of course, most of the Afghanies hate the Taliban. They know the brutality
that comes with them. Most Afghanies want a democracy and want the US to
succeed in helping them establish that. The Taliban strategy is the same
one all Muslim extremists are using nowadays. Bomb, kill and terrorize so
many innocent citizens that they wish for the relative safety of the
brutal Taliban government instead of terrorism. And you think the US
should go ahead and let that happen? Weren't you just saying that you
agreed the US should stop them?

Stephen

We disagree on what should be done to "stop them." You view it as a military
problem -- kill them, and keep killing them until they stop fighting. I view
it as a cultural problem. When we stop meddling with affairs that the vast
majority of Americans cannot grasp, as they cannot empathize with any
world-view other than their own, things will improve on their own.

You can't grasp brutal tyrannical theocracies reviled by their own
citizens? Well, most Americans, not to mention most humans can. These
people aren't some foreign subhuman species that like to be abused and
oppressed. They're human beings just like us!

As for the Taliban, this would be the exact same group that the United
States nurtured and supported when Afghanistani mujahideen were fighting
against the evil Soviets. They were led by an individual called Osama bin
Laden. Of course, at that time we were also best buddies with Saddam
Hussein. And Saddam, bless his heart, was gassing kurds and killing Iraqi
revolutionaries at that time.

Sometimes politics involves supporting the lesser of evils.

But who does the Taliban kill? Those who are supporting their enemies. Gee,
sort of like every other government on the planet. How are they any
different than the US, or Israel?

I advise you read _Kite Runner_ written by an Afghanie. Or find some
other source about how the Taliban ran Afghanistan. My goodness.

Stephen

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Democracies have never warred against each other. Stephen

Hogwash.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm

Dave wrote:
On 20 Jan 2009 16:42:01 -0600, Dave said:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:59:53 -0800, Stephen Trapani
said:

most of the Afghanies hate the Taliban.
What support do you have for that proposition?

Still waiting for an answer to that one, Steve.


This is an interesting subject. Charlie Wilson and the CIA introduced
the growing of opium to supplement the war effort against Russia. Then
the Taliban took over and abolished the growing of opium. This didn't
sit well with our politicians so we went after the Taliban and now opium
growing is back to where it was.
Gordon

Dave wrote:
On 20 Jan 2009 16:42:01 -0600, Dave said:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:59:53 -0800, Stephen Trapani
said:

most of the Afghanies hate the Taliban.
What support do you have for that proposition?

Still waiting for an answer to that one, Steve.

You must have missed my reply. Read _Kite Runner_. Plus there are many
other sources of information about how the Taliban treated the citizens
and how hated they were. Or you can just scroll through this:

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

The rest should be obvious.

Stephen

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On 20 Jan 2009 16:42:01 -0600, Dave said:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:59:53 -0800, Stephen Trapani
said:

most of the Afghanies hate the Taliban.
What support do you have for that proposition?

Still waiting for an answer to that one, Steve.

You must have missed my reply. Read _Kite Runner_. Plus there are many
other sources of information about how the Taliban treated the citizens
and how hated they were. Or you can just scroll through this:

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

The rest should be obvious.

Stephen

You are aware, of course, that "The Kite Runner" is a work of fiction?
Similarly, one could read "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" and come to the
conclusion that most Indians hate the Federal Government.