Tech, simple question. Who would you rather see come out on top in this "fight", A: Hezbollah or B: Israel? AFTER answering the simple A or B question, THEN feel free to dance all around and make fun of the simple question.

Exactly.

I have a question for anyone on the right: Quickly, w/o googling for 15 minutes, which type of muslims are the Hezbollah? And which type are the overwhelming majority of muslims in the world? Which group does not even consider the other to be "real muslims"?

This would be a start to having a basic, 6th grade level understanding of the situation in terms of who is whose ally and why.

But don't you agree that the radical Muslims are not a majority in any country?

Radical Muslim leaders had failed everywhere except Afghanistan until 9/11/01, when they suddenly looked like the winning team to the disaffected Muslim youth. That permanent 'chip on the shoulder' of young Muslim men suddenly was removed by radical Islam.

Yes, radical Islam is strong -- much stronger now than before the US helped give it power by using it as a tool to fight the Soviets. And stonger still since 9/11.

But radical Islam is not powerful enough to threaten the US in any meaningful way. Its threat to the US is way overblown for political reasons. For the most part, its followers are incapable of operating outside their own villages or sects because of a near-total lack of education.

There is a BBC documentary never shown in the US -- and probably never to be broadcast here -- but it can be seen on Google video. It's called "The Power of Nightmares" and it is an eye-opening story of, among other things, the birth of radical Islam. I recommend watching part 1 for background.

Well, I'm not on the right, but anyone should be able to tell you that Hez is mainly Shia. Sunni is the majority sect and they consider the Shia to be heretics.

...but you don't need to be a majority to cause a problem.

Not accurate in the least.

Long before there was Afghanistan, there was Iran. And the radicals have managed to be quite successful there for some time. The current Iranian Pres was part of that original radical movement.

Hez is completely their tool, in part to breed more radicalism.

That is all.

Are you forgetting Iran? Maybe not at the grassroots level, but in the religious and political arenas there the radicals have total control.


Thanks for the The Power of Nightmares heads up. I will try to watch it ASAP and see how it compares to Ghost Wars history.

Don't agree. Before Afghanistan, Iran was not sufficiently "radical" for the folks we're talking about. Radical Muslims are happy only with a government like that of the Taliban -- enforcing Shia law at the point of the sword on the streets. Iran is still not to that point, today. It's considered 'secularized' by the Jihadists we are concerned about.

While Iran seems "radical" to us, there is a whole other mindsel among true radical Muslims.

And, BTW, the Israeli attacks are helping forge alliances between Sunni and Shia that will spell even more trouble for the region.

Actaully, Iran has Sharia law (SHARIA not Shia...thats a religion) and has had it since the revolution (and even before) and it is much more severe than most gulf states.

It was not enforced at sword point. They used guns.

Bottomline: They are quite radical and are known to fund even more radical organizations such as Hez. Making excuses for them doesn't cut it.

Now really, that is all I have time for.

What is the moral to this story? It sounds like some think we should appease all who wish us harm and cave into any of their demands (wouldn't want to upset these peace loving folk anymore right?).

Palestinians want Irael... The US should should assist those poor Hamas folks with another holocaust.

Iraq wants to conquer Kuwait..... The US should have assisted the Iraqies instead of stopping them.

Iraq wants to continue non compliance with the UN's resolutions..... The US should have turned the other cheek.

Iran wants to build nukes so they can turn Israel and maybe someday some US cities into rubble..... The US should provide them with the materials to do so.

A bunch of nutjobs training in Afganistan want to blow up some more buildings in the US...... The US should build some twin towers for them so that they can do it again.

After all what is a few thousand US deaths here and there in the grand scheme of things.

If we do all of the above, maybe we will not run the risk of "offending" these b@stards and then if we beg real nice like and keep allowing them to go to school in our country, marry our women and even live here, they will be content (as long as we as Americans do not set foot on THEIR soil).

:rolleyes:

Aww...
You're just and old, crankey bastard now...

D-oh, yes, I meant Sharia law.

So it's been suggested that Iran is run on a day-to-day basis the same way Afghanistan was under the Taliban... that's not the information I have.

I would like to see some independent source for this.

BTW, Sharia law is understood to be the basis for the Iraqi constitution. But I don't believe they plan to stone women for walking unescorted on the street as happened in Afhanistan... at least I hope not.

Well, that took about 2 seconds:

Woman sentenced to Stoning:

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7843

But apparently they have seen the light and decided not to stone for the moment...they will hang instead.

Stoning repeal:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2609597.stm

Hanging instituted:

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=893

or maybe they will be whipped:

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=634

Numerous other articles about oppression of women in Iran:

http://www.wfafi.org/e-zan.htm

Even the Brits have figured out that sooner or later, you've gotta talk with folks.

We must rethink the War on Terror - Blair
By Rosemary Bennett in Los Angeles and David Charter

FIVE years into the War on Terror, Tony Blair called yesterday for a “complete renaissance of our strategy” to defeat militant Islam.

Speaking in Los Angeles, the Prime Minister admitted that the use of force alone had alienated Muslim opinion, and said that there was now an “arc of extremism” stretching across the Middle East and beyond. He called for an “alliance of moderation” that would combat terrorism using values as much as military might.

On a day when four British soldiers were killed by insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Prime Minister’s words were an apparent admission that the use of military force alone had failed.

----------full article----------
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2295604,00.html#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=World

Thanks for these links. It appears as if Iran is currently run just about the way the Taliban ran Afghanistan.

So I have to amend my statment: no ME country other than Iran is run by radical Muslims.

As for my contention that Iran is more fundamentalist now than before 9/11, I'm happy to see any links that prove or disprove that.

In one word, yes.

That was what the "progressives" of the late 19th and early 20th century were all about. Bringing various "progressive" ideologies to "backward" countries for their own good, either with their cooperation or with killing them until they cooperated, i.e. the Philipines in the case of the US government. It killed over 200,000 filipinos with a loss of about 5000 US servicemen, wiping out entire villages Liddice style, only more of them.

Interventionism was funded by the alleged change in the taxing power of the US government fostered by the 16th Amendment, and with voting for these "improvements" in government authority and power eased by the 17th Amendment.

Until we erase at least those two Amendments Americans will have a hard time bringing the federal government back under control.

I'm armed to protect myself from guys that think like you do. Loyal to a government, but disloyal to principle and to America.

Well, well, that's as clear a posting of anti-Semitic* trash as I've seen on this forum.

Thanks for posting your true feelings.


*Yes, arabs are Semites like the Sephardic Jews.

Simple minded is more like it, your idea is extremely complex in execution.

Practicality is what you want? Why didn't you say so. A total pragmatist would give nukes to Hezbollah and have them wipe out Israel, thus ending the conflict with the least number of casualties, and ending mideast conflict based solely on religion. Then the Shi'ia and the Sunni could fight it out without US involvement, and we could buy oil from the winner of that.

There's your practicality.

Pretty impractical in execution, just like Snowman's ideas.

Yeah, just like 9/11/2001 had a higher psychological effects on America "locals".

Bombing doesn't produce the results you apparently think it does, and never has.

Techweenie,

Ok, I just finished watching Parts I and II. Here are some quick “hip shots” before I watch Part III later tonight.

1.) This seems more like a veiled attack on the American Right than an explaination of how we got to today with respect to radical Islam.
2.) Kuta came to loath America for its lack of moral values, as he defined them.
3.) A few choice quotes from various Muslims:
a.) “Freedom will drag our county to the bottom.”
b,) “We are the correct Muslims.”
c.) “Kill our way to perfection.”
4.) These radicals see democracy as corrupt.


The one thing this helped me understand is why Muslims are killing Muslims in Iraq: Because they have not risen up and over thorough the government therefore they are corrupt and are to be killed.

The documentary does not go into, at all, the empowering effect Afghanistan had on OBL.

The documentary completely ignored that America’s involvement in Afghanistan was completely William Cassey’s private war.

So, what is this series makes you think we can have an Oprah chat session with these people and come away alive?