ISIS

50PoundHead said:
And it probably goes back further than that when the Jews conquered other peoples in a rather inelegant manner. I'm not anti-Semitic, but to me there's a geopolitical nature of this that puts religion in the service of secular purposes that runs deeply on both sides. You're right that Muhammad was more sword than crescent, but I believe the issues in the area go back well before then.
Click to expand...

We can go back to the expansion of the Babylonians, Assyrians or Egyptians if you'd like - but to compare Jewish actions to the grand sweep of Islam makes little sense to me. It obfuscates the issue frankly.

Here's a nice piece: Link
 
50PoundHead said:
If there weren't oil there, I doubt we would care that much at all.
Click to expand...

There's more that's going on than oil - though that is a part of it. I suspect Cold War style geopolitics is at play on our part. But no matter our role, the expansionist dynamo at work in the heart of Islamists will keep us involved. To think we can go to a total isolationist position seems naive at best. Can we be less interventionist? Wiser in our interventions? Absolutely.
 
BJ#1FAN said:
Part of the problem is, for the many that are uneducated on the right and left in this country on foreign affairs, 9/11 was unprovoked and started this.

Those of us who know about US foreign policy meddling in Middle eastern affairs like Iran Contra, etc. Know that 9/11 was many decades in the making of blowback. But for the average joe it's "they started it first".

Thus we'll never make progress on this front since a good majority of the population has no idea of covert ops by the cia in the middle east all those years prior to 9/11.

This goes with sturg and hawk's points. Both acknowledge we have had our hands in the cookie jar for a long time. But both have differing opinions on how to move forward.
Click to expand...

But to then assume a "we started it" viewpoint doesn't work either and is "uneducated."
 
BedellBrave said:
We can go back to the expansion of the Babylonians, Assyrians or Egyptians if you'd like - but to compare Jewish actions to the grand sweep of Islam makes little sense to me. It obfuscates the issue frankly.

Here's a nice piece: Link
Click to expand...

The Fall of Jericho -- Joshua 6:21 -- And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

I suppose one can play that any way they would like, but let's not pretend that the Israelites always played or were always the victims.
 
50PoundHead said:
The Fall of Jericho -- Joshua 6:21 -- And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
Click to expand...

Again if you want to compare the defeat of some of the Canaanites by the Jews to the continental expansion of Islam by sword, then you are obfuscating the issue.

And Muslims aren't bothered by the book of Joshua.

Some Jews did though get under Muhammad's skin.
 
BedellBrave said:
Again if you want to compare the defeat of some of the Canaanites by the Jews to the continental expansion of Islam by sword, then you are obfuscating the issue.
Click to expand...

This particular issue? My only point is that the venom that has been passed around that little corner of the world over the past 5,000 years has been on-going with all sides contributing. And that is at the heart of this entire issue. It didn't start this year with ISIS. It didn't start in 1948 with the establishment of Israel. It didn't start with the Crusades. They've been fighting over there since the wake of the flood with enough blame to go around. No one is innocent here. No one.

What do we do about it now? I have no idea.
 
50PoundHead said:
This particular issue? My only point is that the venom that has been passed around that little corner of the world over the past 5,000 years has been on-going with all sides contributing. And that is at the heart of this entire issue. It didn't start this year with ISIS. It didn't start in 1948 with the establishment of Israel. It didn't start with the Crusades. They've been fighting over there since the wake of the flood with enough blame to go around. No one is innocent here. No one.

What do we do about it now? I have no idea.
Click to expand...

50, a "Fighting over there" response is silly. It applies to plenty of other "over theres" and over heres.

The Joshua reference you provide is off point and isn't helpful. The issue is with Jihadism and what's behind it. And as such we certainly can discuss American Foreign policy bungling. We can talk about any aspect of the Long War be it Barbary Pirates, Lepanto, the Battle of Vienna, Charles Martel, the Crusades, the conquering of North Africa, the Levant, Asia Minor, the Near East, etc. by Muslim forces, and Jews hurting Muhammad's feelings and Polytheist Arabs bothering him. All that's fair game - but it needs to be all of it and not just what we did in Iran with the Shah or the Neocons' adventures.
 
And it absolutely has to include actually understanding something of the political-theology of the Jihadists and taking it seriously, which for whatever reason far too many Western liberals aren't apt to do.
 
BedellBrave said:
But to then assume a "we started it" viewpoint doesn't work either and is "uneducated."
Click to expand...

Way to grasp for straws.

We could go back and forth all day about who started it, or when it started. But the facts in recent history, tell us that our meddling in middle eastern affairs the last several decades has been a contributor to islamic extremism on a global scale.

Our arrogance as a country on this issue is also not doing us any favors. I understand the need to be powerful and show power/strength, but we've been blundering this for the last 2-3 decades.
 
BedellBrave said:
There's more that's going on than oil - though that is a part of it. I suspect Cold War style geopolitics is at play on our part. But no matter our role, the expansionist dynamo at work in the heart of Islamists will keep us involved. To think we can go to a total isolationist position seems naive at best. Can we be less interventionist? Wiser in our interventions? Absolutely.
Click to expand...

Don't think any liberal here would disagree with this. That's actually the foreign policy I'd prefer.

We all know sturg and Paulites would want isolation.

You have the hawks on the right who want us to intervene in almost everything to show the world how big our stick is, and they are the ones driving the debate, attracting to the lowest denominator of a voter.
 
BJ#1FAN said:
Way to grasp for straws.

We could go back and forth all day about who started it, or when it started. But the facts in recent history, tell us that our meddling in middle eastern affairs the last several decades has been a contributor to islamic extremism on a global scale.

Our arrogance as a country on this issue is also not doing us any favors. I understand the need to be powerful and show power/strength, but we've been blundering this for the last 2-3 decades.
Click to expand...

Not grasping for a single straw. Just not burying my head in the sand. I suggest you not as well. I'd suggest you not respond with a wave of your hand and a dismissive "we could go back and forth..." response and actually consider the fuller picture. I despise this modern-liberal refusal to take the ideology of Jihadists and the history of this issue seriously. It's arrogant and naive.

Let's just take the Yazidi for example. Did they "meddle in middle eastern affairs" or did they just have the audacity not to believe in Islam? To assume this is just about our "meddling in middle eastern affairs" is just as dumb as thinking our meddling hasn't contributed. And to assume that puts you right there with the "lowest denominator voters" you despise.
 
BJ#1FAN said:
Don't think any liberal here would disagree with this. That's actually the foreign policy I'd prefer.

We all know sturg and Paulites would want isolation.

You have the hawks on the right who want us to intervene in almost everything to show the world how big our stick is, and they are the ones driving the debate, attracting to the lowest denominator of a voter.
Click to expand...

There have to be other options to Libertarian isolationism and full-bore, Neocon interventionism. So, let those of us who don't hold either of those extremes not make common ground with them and actually begin articulating wiser foreign policy. The kind that Bush Jr. and Obama actually articulated before being elected.
 
Bush's problem once in office was falling in line with the Neocons and thinking that if we threw out Middle Eastern strongmen and replaced them with "democracies" we would be better off. That didn't take the Jihadists seriously enough. Obama came along and made the same mistake with Libya and Egypt. He made a good decision, albeit far too long into the conflict, with regard to Syria.
 
BJ#1FAN said:
Don't think any liberal here would disagree with this. That's actually the foreign policy I'd prefer.

We all know sturg and Paulites would want isolation.

You have the hawks on the right who want us to intervene in almost everything to show the world how big our stick is, and they are the ones driving the debate, attracting to the lowest denominator of a voter.
Click to expand...

Democrats?

Since 90 percent of the blacks and probably half of them have a GED equivalent education, I can see this. We are prideful of our size if you know what I mean. My family had no problem going along with this that is for sure. I didn't, it smelled of corruption at the beginning. Dad said "the oil will bring profits over here". Color me (no pun intended) floored. He basically said you can tax the profits then help those who have nothing. I really don't blame him thinking that way but one day we need to wake up and quit being dumb and make our own black centered party. Let the religious nutcakes and neocons fight it out.
 
50PoundHead said:
One of the big differences between ISIL and previous editions of the same stripe is that these guys are using social media to a much greater degree and spreading their National Lampoon-style crap all over the place. The problem, of course, is that The National Lampoon was total satire (and very good satire). These guys just lie.
Click to expand...

OK, so how damn bored does a person have to be to become a "Hungarian Porn Aficionado "?
 
This would be a terrible time to launch my new music blog - ISIS (I Sing in Solitude)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top