I realize that Doug was reponding to Travis; but, I could not resist. :-) Doug wrote:
> Well, at least I managed to stir up some activity on this list. Bingo! > What Ron Paul refuses to understand - and many other libertarians too - is > that the reasons for the attacks on us have little to do with specific U.S. > policies and everything to do with what is a fundamental clash of > civilizations. There is the fundamentalist Islamic view - one which ftr I > believe is most consistent with the Koran as written - that the world is > divided into the World of Islam and the World of War. Those countries that > do not accept Islam are to be attacked until they do. I think Ron Paul fully understands the nature of Islam. The problem is that if there really is "a fundamental clash of civilizations," why are we backing with blood and treasure a Shiite Muslim government? For, 98% of Arabs in Iraq are Muslim, as are 85% of Kurds. The current Iraqi regime has the full backing and support from the only other Shiite Muslim nation on earth, Iran. Are you implying that Shiite Muslims (i.e., Iran) are less devoutly Muslim that the Baathist socialists and Sunni Muslims? Ron Paul realizes that all Muslims are about equally irrational and he wonders why America is picking sides. If we were capable, and we're not, of defeating the Sunni Muslims, the Shiite would turn on us in a New York second. :-) To all Muslims infidels are infidels and must either be converted or slaughtered. The Shiite regime we're dieing for hates us (or they would not be good Shiite). Their triumph over the Sunni will guarantee that Iran will be the super-power of the region. Why would any rational person support such a policy (think: all GOP candidates except Ron Paul)? > The U.S. involvement that al Qaeda objects to is our support for anyone they > oppose. Well why the hell should we allow them to dictate to us what we do? > The never interfere fantasy of the LP - based evidently on Starfleet's Prime > Directive - is a fantasy precisely because we are involved even if only by > trading. If we sell arms to the government of Sudan or refuse to, we are > involving ourselves in their civil war. If we buy oil from Saudi Arabia or > Nigeria, we are helping maintain the government. So the idea of > non-intervention simply does not happen in the real world. Plus, the other > side is always intervening, so if we stay out, we let the bad guys win. (A > Star Trek episode comes to mind here.) For example, in the 1980s, the people > who demanded "non-intervention" in Nicaragua or El Salvador deliberately > overlooked the fact that the Soviets were backing the Marxist guerrillas, > who actually took power in Nicaragua (the Sandinistas). Without US help to > the Salvadoran govt. and the Contras, it seems likely that both countries > would have Marxist govts. Now granted, Daniel Ortega recently won an > election in Nicaragua, but he does not have anything like the power he did > back in the 1980s, and there is the real possibility that he can be removed > in a future election. Al Qaeda is to the world-wide Islamic movement about like what the 14th SS Panzer Brigade was to the Nazis war effort in World War II. Again, if Islam itself is the problem, why are we backing one group of Muslims over another. In the late 1930's this would have been like America militarily supporting the S.A. Nazis, over the SS Nazis, and us doing all the S.A. Nazis fighting for them (our lives and money). That is the absolute madness that Bush apologists like Guiliani believes. That insanity will empower the Shiite Jihadists (in Iran and Hezbollah, etc.) to even greater power. > As for al-Qaeda, btw, U.S. aid for Israel was not an issue until after we > retaliated, when OBL decided he'd forgotten about the Palestinians and used > them as a means of rallying Arab support. It was the U.S. presence in Saudi > Arabia to protect the Saudis from Saddam that OBL objected to. I agree that that Israel was originally a secondary issue with al-Qaeda. However, the Arabs doing most of the real fighting against Israel today are Hezbollah Shiite Arabs in Lebanon. The same Shiite Muslims we're supporting in Iraq, and ideological soul brothers to Iran (the Shiite who fund them). > However, the idea that the U.S. presence in the Mideast is the issue is > questionable, to say the least. How does that explain al Qaeda attacks in > Indonesia? India? Why didn't Muslims hit Japan, China, Brazil, or any of a number of other infidel nations (Switzerland)? All have a higher percent of infidels that America. Most Muslim slaughters in India, Bali, and Nigeria are done by devout Muslims that are usually not directly connected to al-Qaeda. All those nations (save Switzerland) have large Muslim populations, and infidels are handier to kill. > Oh, and yes, al Qaeda does care about what we do in our country. US > prosperity poses a tremendous challenge to their world view that Islam is > the best way for everybody. Why are they giving Japan and Canada a free pass? They will eventually get them; but, America's meddling in Muslim nations made us a prime target of the first order in 2001. > Given a choice between religious piety and prosperity, a majority will > usually > choose the latter, and if that is accompanied by full civil rights for women, > tolerance for homosexuals, and what the Islamic fundamentalists view as > libertinism, then the Islamofascists fear that many Muslims would choose our > open society and prosperity over Islamic purity. I cannot think of a single instance in the 1400-year history of Islam, where that has happen. There is no fundamentalist Islam in the Christian based use of that term. There are Musilms that are either Shiite sect, or Sunni sect, and Muslims that are either devout or jack-Muslims. There isn't a modern theological school of Islam, anywhere. Because no Muslim theologian can refute what Osama or any other devout Muslim say, the jack-Muslims almost always turn to real Muslims (think Osama and the clerics), before they become infidels (non- Muslims). > As for presidential candidates, the topic I started with, since I moved out > of New York a few months after Giuliani took over, perhaps that is why I > don't have the negative opinion of him that Travis and Robert do. Anyone who really believes in 1st, 2nd, 9th, or 10th Amendments should not vote for Giuliani. His views on gun-control alone, demonstrate that he hasn't a clue about Islam or the Constitution. America has between 3 & 5 million Muslims, and the percentage and the raw number of Muslims are increasing daily in America. Ask yourself how safe would Jews in Israel be if they had Guiliani's concepts of firearms in the hands of citizens? I for one, don't want to be disarmed when the Jihad starts for real in America and in the larger world. > I have a wide range of problems with Giuliani, but I still think he is the > least bad of the current candidates. Thus, in the face of the reality of Islamic Jihad, you support the most anti-2nd Amendment candidate the GOP has had in my lifetime, and I am old? Amazing! ~ Ben
_______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
