George W.

[Dechristo]

 

In a roundabout way I'm saying I get the feeling like the religious war thing has gone on forever. Although we may be the front runner in this confrontation lately (less than two hundred years obviously), we haven't been a big player in the overall history of their conflict.

 

That is garbled, but do you get where I am heading with this?

 

I think so. JayB just explained it pretty well, of course.

 

A peculiarity, to me, is the insistance of many here that Bush and his actions/policies promulgated 9/11, when he'd been in office, what, eight months, instead of what appears (again, to me) that it was a predictable progression from all the previous attacks on the U.S. of the previous twenty years.

[ashw_justin]

This is a religious war that has gone on for thousands of years, and we are the new kids on the block.

How is that an excuse for the United States to engage in a religious war? We should track the son's of b's down and make them answer for their crimes against humanity, but religion should have nothing to do with our side of the conflict, no matter what bullshit 'religious war' they are wishing for. I don't give a shit what their religious excuses are.

 

They didn't "happen" to be muslims. They chose to be. And they didn't "happen" to be flying the planes into the buildings, they chose to. This is not my opinion nor is it a reactionary kneejerk response.

Yes, and the guys who were stuffing the Jews into gas chambers just "happened" to be Nazis....

The point of my use of the word "happen" was to suggest that they didn't necessarily have to be Muslims (gasp) to do what they did. Was Timothy McVeigh a Muslim or a Nazi?

 

Okay, so you argue that this is a widespread anti-U.S. movement. Fine. Let's defend ourselves. But not in the name of religion, and not simply because of symbolisms like "Islamofascist" or "Nazi", but because of actual murder and human rights violations.

[archenemy]

This is a religious war that has gone on for thousands of years, and we are the new kids on the block.

How is that an excuse for the United States to engage in a religious war? We should track the son's of b's down and make them answer for their crimes against humanity, and religion should have nothing to do with our side of the conflict, no matter what bullshit 'religious war' they are wishing for. I don't give a shit what their religious excuses are.

We didn't so much decide to engage in a religious war as to have been "invited" on 9/11.

They didn't "happen" to be muslims. They chose to be. And they didn't "happen" to be flying the planes into the buildings, they chose to. This is not my opinion nor is it a reactionary kneejerk response.

The point of my use of the word "happen" was to suggest that they didn't necessarily have to be Muslims (gasp) to do what they did. Was Timothy McVeigh a Muslim?

Timothy McVeigh was a kook. Correct me if I remember this wrong, but he was a fundamentalist type kook, wasn't he? No matter though--his story is not the same as 9/11 nor is it even connected. I never said that attacks are only caused by Muslims, so please throw that argument in the trash.

[mattp]

Nope, Jay, I cannot answer your question without recourse to Goiogle. So what?

 

But where in my writing did you get this idea

"all of history that predates direct American involvement in the Middle East actually had no effect on the Islamic world, and that all developments that have transpired since that time owe their genesis to American foreign policy initiatives.

 

I believe the 911 report concluded that Bin Laden used the U.S. presence in Saudia Arabia, and other current U.S. policies in the Middle East as a substantial basis for his “message.” The report also states that our enemy is not Islam, but the perversion of Islam, and it contains recommendations of the kind of soft on terrorism policy that you so frequently deride as the naive policies of the left.

[archenemy]

 

In a roundabout way I'm saying I get the feeling like the religious war thing has gone on forever. Although we may be the front runner in this confrontation lately (less than two hundred years obviously), we haven't been a big player in the overall history of their conflict.

 

That is garbled, but do you get where I am heading with this?

 

I think so. JayB just explained it pretty well, of course.

 

A peculiarity, to me, is the insistance of many here that Bush and his actions/policies promulgated 9/11, when he'd been in office, what, eight months, instead of what appears (again, to me) that it was a predictable progression from all the previous attacks on the U.S. of the previous twenty years.

Yes, the foreplay made it pretty obvious that we were about to get fucked. Bush is just the asshole who said yes.

[ashw_justin]

Timothy McVeigh was a kook. Correct me if I remember this wrong, but he was a fundamentalist type kook, wasn't he?

Oh, and the 9/11 kamikaze murderers were perfectly sane and normal followers of a peaceful religion? That is complete bs.

 

No matter though--his story is not the same as 9/11 nor is it even connected.

Oh, are we ignoring the part of story where they blew up buildings?

 

That detail is in fact the most important part of either story!!

[archenemy]

I don't understand where you are going with this. You are arguing points I am not making nor do I agree with.

[ashw_justin]

But you said the stories were not related.

 

*edited to remove the word 'bullshit'

Edited May 23, 2007 by ashw_justin

[archenemy]

But I would argue that blowing up buildings is not the most important detail. I'd say the fact that people have been killed is. But again, you and I seem to be arguing different points.

[archenemy]

I said they were not connected.

i.e. McVeigh is not a part of a larger religious war (which, it should be clear by now, is how I view 9/11)

[ashw_justin]

But I would argue that blowing up buildings is not the most important detail. I'd say the fact that people have been killed is. But again, you and I seem to be arguing different points.

But people were killed in both terrorist acts?

[ashw_justin]

McVeigh is not a part of a larger religious war (which, it should be clear by now, is how I view 9/11)

If you want to have a religious war, perhaps you might find the idea more acceptable in a country where religion and government are one and the same... Iran maybe?

 

*edit* yeah this was misguided, sorry archenemy

Edited May 23, 2007 by ashw_justin

[archenemy]

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

 

You are slippery.

You post that I "want" to have a religious war? This is how you view your fellow countrymen who discuss this topic? How you view me? This is how you conduct a discussion on what might be the most important topic/threat of our time?

 

And you think a belief in God has nothing to do with our political, legal, social system? Get real.

Edited May 23, 2007 by archenemy

[mattp]

A peculiarity, to me, is the insistance of many here that Bush and his actions/policies promulgated 9/11, when he'd been in office, what, eight months,...

 

 

I don’t know who has made that argument, but certainly plenty of people from both the left and the right were highly critical of his administration for various failings related to possible blundering of opportunities to stop the attack, and for sitting on their thumbs and doing nothing about terrorism in the first 9 months of their reign. Many if not most Americans feel their response to 911 has been sorely lacking as well.

[ashw_justin]

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

You are slippery. You post that I "want" to have a religious war?

I'm talking about your willingness to buy into the idea that our country should participate in a religious war. And mind you, I did not cast the first stone between you and I in this thread.

[archenemy]

A peculiarity, to me, is the insistance of many here that Bush and his actions/policies promulgated 9/11, when he'd been in office, what, eight months,...

 

 

I don’t know who has made that argument, but certainly plenty of people from both the left and the right were highly critical of his administration for various failings related to possible blundering of opportunities to stop the attack, and for sitting on their thumbs and doing nothing about terrorism in the first 9 months of their reign.

I think their critisms are valid.

[archenemy]

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

You are slippery. You post that I "want" to have a religious war?

I'm talking about your willingness to buy into the idea of a religious war. And mind you, I did not cast the first stone between you and I in this thread.

So we're throwing stones rather than debating? No wonder I am having a hard time understanding you.

 

While talking about my willingness to "buy into" a religious war, I am sure you are examining your own reasons for your refusal to see it as a religious war.

[ashw_justin]

I'm sorry archenemy for sounding unfair and questioning your patriotism, right to religious beliefs, or anything else that I may have implicitly offended. That's not what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to point out what I see as the potential theocratization of our government and society. Perhaps I mistook you comment about viewing 9/11 as a religious war. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that you included our response to 9/11 in that characterization.

 

So we're throwing stones rather than debating? No wonder I am having a hard time understanding you.

The Iran comment was part 'stone' because I could guess that it would piss you off, but that does not make it meaningless. Iran is a country where the notion of engaging in a holy war may be perfectly acceptable. Here, I would argue, it is not, or at least shouldn't be.

 

While talking about my willingness to "buy into" a religious war, I am sure you are examining your own reasons for your refusal to see it as a religious war.

I know that they see it as a holy war that is centuries, even millenia old. But that doesn't mean that our government should, or that it is at all in our interests to buy into the religious aspect of these crimes.

[mattp]

I don't think it is so much a matter of "does she or doesn't she" and only the big hairdresser in the sky knows anyway.

 

Sure, the growth of radical terrorism carried out in the name of Islamism (or whatever) has religious overtones. It is also true as we have been discussing in this thread that the religious orientation of our President and anybody else in the world is part of what drives them to do what they do. However, i believe that using religion as a tool for propaganda just makes all players that much more intractable and causes them to do truly stupid things.

 

We're capable of being tyrants and bullies and crooks without the cloak of god; it is worse when we avail ourselves of that "cover" for what really constitute crimes against humanity.

[ashw_justin]

I don't think it is so much a matter of "does she or doesn't she" and only the big hairdresser in the sky knows anyway.

Not sure I get the genderified reference.

[kevbone]

Wow....did this thread take a turn!

[archenemy]

I'm sorry archenemy for sounding unfair and questioning your patriotism, right to religious beliefs, or anything else that I may have implicitly offended. That's not what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to point out what I see as the potential theocratization of our government and society. Perhaps I mistook you comment about viewing 9/11 as a religious war. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that you included our response to 9/11 in that characterization.

 

So we're throwing stones rather than debating? No wonder I am having a hard time understanding you.

The Iran comment was part 'stone' because I could guess that it would piss you off, but that does not make it meaningless. Iran is a country where the notion of engaging in a holy war may be perfectly acceptable. Here, I would argue, it is not, or at least shouldn't be.

 

While talking about my willingness to "buy into" a religious war, I am sure you are examining your own reasons for your refusal to see it as a religious war.

I know that they see it as a holy war that is centuries, even millenia old. But that doesn't mean that our government should, or that it is at all in our interests to buy into the religious aspect of these crimes.

I am just being touchy--I get that way about the whole patriotism issue. It's my bad for reacting that way--seems like its something I should examine within myself.

 

I don't find engaging in war acceptable. Necessary under extreme circumstances, but never, never, never my first choice.

 

And although I do see this war as being characterized by religious/social disagreement, I also see man other things that impact this conflict: oil, money, territory, soveignty, dick size, retribution, etc etc. But when I look at the whole picture, I can't help but think that the fundamental difference in our basic belief systems fuel this conflict more than anything else. I can't stand up and say that is how it is, but I certainly can say that is the explaination that makes the most sense to me and carries more weight than the other contributing factors.

[mattp]

"Does she or doesn't she" is an old add slogan for haircolor - from the 1970's.

[Dechristo]

Clairol

[ashw_justin]

I am just being touchy--I get that way about the whole patriotism issue. It's my bad for reacting that way--seems like its something I should examine within myself.

Well, I totally deserved that nevertheless... Sorry for going there, heat of the moment and all

 

And although I do see this war as being characterized by religious/social disagreement, I also see man other things that impact this conflict: oil, money, territory, sovereignty, dick size, retribution, etc etc. But when I look at the whole picture, I can't help but think that the fundamental difference in our basic belief systems fuel this conflict more than anything else. I can't stand up and say that is how it is, but I certainly can say that is the explanation that makes the most sense to me and carries more weight than the other contributing factors.

Yeah I agree that it would be ridiculous for anyone to ignore the 'elephant in the room.' I'm not saying that we should pretend that we don't know anything about Islam. However, we have so many other reasons to go after terrorists and condemned states like Iraq was, that it baffles me that people in government would settle on religion as a strong reason (unless it was to rally the U.S. public, but that raises other issues).