Hardline Sunni cleric willing to meet

maineman said:
that is insulting (which really is the only type of discourse you do well)

A successful peaceful Iraq would mean that no more Americans would have t die there.

I am sorely tempted to put you on ignore, you annoying twit.
Click to expand...

Maineman,

If I am wrong, then explain why you're always such a fatalist. I made those remarks after observing your CONSTANT negativity towards the occupation in Iraq. I've not once seen you offer words of support towards our troops; instead you say to them, "you're failing." Am I supposed to interpret this as being supportive of a victory in Iraq?
 
I NEVER say to our troops that THEY are failing. They are given missions by the civilian military command structure and they carry them out...and they nearly ALWAYS do so with courage and honor (abu ghraib and haditha and similar incidents are clearly the exception to the rule).

I am VERY hopeful for a victory in Iraq. However, I have some experience in the middle east. I am familiar with the ethnic groups involved. I have ALWAYS been skeptical of this war in Iraq. I have, since back on politics.com and on to fullpolitics.com, continued to be, at first, a lonely voice crying in the wilderness warning of impending disaster. Others now have joined me and our numbers grow.

I have, since the very beginning, warned that taking out Saddam and removing the secular arab sunni baathist counter balance to Iranian persian shiite theocratic hegemony would be a bad thing.. and the conflict in Lebanon is a direct result of that and exactly what I predicted.

I have always said that by invading an oil rich arab country just like OBL predicted would give HIM enormous street cred.... it has. We now have ZERO credibility in the Islamic world.... and we have radicalized the arab street.

That has NOTHING to do with our troops. I am certain that they will fight bravely and effectively in whatever mission Bush and Rummy & Co. send them into.... However, I remain dubious as to the wisdom of those missions.

I am HOPEFUL we prevail in Iraq... I think the best thing would be to bring our boys home now and let Iraq solve its own civil war...we only add fuel to the fire....but my HOPES are tempered with realism and with my own INFORMED perspective which others on here - like you - do not have.

Similarly, I am HOPEFUL that the Red Sox can come back from 5.5 games back to defeat the Yankees for the American League East.... but I am doubtful they can do it. Just because I express those doubts does not make me any less of an ardent Red Sox fan.

So.... here's the deal...if you wanna continue to engage me in conversation....you will immediately cease denigrating my patriotism. The very next time you do I will put you on my ignore list because I really don't have time for immature inarticulate, obnoxious assholes in my life.

Are we clear?
 
Last edited:
It is in Syria's interest to have a weak and ineffective national government in Lebanon... Hezbollah helps accomplish that.... Syria's focus is westerly... and the mediterranean littoral... they are not a gulf state...they do not play with the oil boys....
 
baathism and shiite theocracies are different...to be sure.... but remember Syria's goal: a destabilized and ineffective government in Lebanon so that Syria can continue to exert influence. They miscalculated with the assassination of Hariri and it cost them.... the move tended to unite lebanese against them... they are perfectly willing to assist Hezbollah in returning instability to the country.
 
maineman said:
baathism and shiite theocracies are different...to be sure.... but remember Syria's goal: a destabilized and ineffective government in Lebanon so that Syria can continue to exert influence. They miscalculated with the assassination of Hariri and it cost them.... the move tended to unite lebanese against them... they are perfectly willing to assist Hezbollah in returning instability to the country.
Click to expand...

Ok, thanks for that tidbit!

However did you not think the sadaam regime tried to flex some influence?
I'm just suggesting so to say that if it is iraq, it's syria, and if not them then iran. Are these not the true problems in the middle east?
 
maineman said:
baathism and shiite theocracies are different...to be sure.... but remember Syria's goal: a destabilized and ineffective government in Lebanon so that Syria can continue to exert influence. They miscalculated with the assassination of Hariri and it cost them.... the move tended to unite lebanese against them... they are perfectly willing to assist Hezbollah in returning instability to the country.
Click to expand...

Common knowledge to the well-informed.

Sunni Syrian socialist Bathiism, has little in common with theocratic lebanese shia: other than an alliance of convenience for regional goals and influence.

A smart, well-informed, clever american president would know this, and understand the nuance - using that knowledge to manipulate and exploit the divisions between sunni secularits and shia theocrats.

We have George Bush, of course.
 
Cypress said:
Common knowledge to the well-informed.

Sunni Syrian socialist Bathiism, has little in common with theocratic lebanese shia: other than an alliance of convenience for regional goals and influence.

A smart, well-informed, clever american president would know this, and understand the nuance - using that knowledge to manipulate and exploit the divisions between sunni secularits and shia theocrats.

We have George Bush, of course.
Click to expand...

Shut up mudflap! :321:
 
secular middle eastern regimes flexing their muscles are regional issues.... Islamic extremism transcends the boundaries of nation-states...

If you look at the goal of wahabbism, bringing America to our knees is not a strategic goal of theirs.

OBL was furious with us for a number of reasons, and wanted to punish us for them. Our support for Israel, our support and tacit approval of the repressive gulf state royal families and our stationing infidel christian troops in the holy lands of saudi arabia..... all pissed him off.

His overarching goal is the overthrow of secular regimes and repressive monarchies throughout the region and replace them all with an fundamentalist Islamic theocracy. Al Qaeda does not seek to establish Islam in the western world, but they definitely want to get the western world OUT of their territories.
 
maineman said:
His overarching goal is the overthrow of secular regimes and repressive monarchies throughout the region and replace them all with an fundamentalist Islamic theocracy. Al Qaeda does not seek to establish Islam in the western world, but they definitely want to get the western world OUT of their territories.
Click to expand...

Well you went around my question of regimes who are the potential and obvious problems in the middle east. I fully understand your thoughts of regional influences and such but I am looking at this from our standpoint, not from theirs.

Also, if we out of their terroritories speaking of al queda, you truly believe this puts a stop to terrorism, or am I reading you wrong.
 
I believe that if we were indeed "out of the middle east" and did not send foreign aid to Israel, that muslim terrorists would leave us alone.

But we are not going to get out of the middle east and we are not going to stop aiding Israel, so the issue is rhetorical only.
 
maineman said:
not a lot of islamic extremists attacking Finnish interests worldwide, are there?

why do you think that is?
Click to expand...

What is finnish interest worldwide anyway?

The US is primarily the bigshot, we know this much, so we are to stop aiding isreal cause' them terrorists don't like it none too much?

comparing what the finns do to what America does is not a very accurate comparison at all.
 
I SAID that we would never stop aiding Israel.. you asked a rhetorical question and I answered it...and pointed out that islamic extremists aren't running around the world attacking any and all governments that do not embrace fundamental islam and sharia.

For the neocons to suggest that their goal is worldwide domination and the elimination of all infidels is idiotic fearmongering. They are scary enough as it is... no need to make them into something that they aren't.
 
maineman said:
I SAID that we would never stop aiding Israel.. you asked a rhetorical question and I answered it...and pointed out that islamic extremists aren't running around the world attacking any and all governments that do not embrace fundamental islam and sharia.

For the neocons to suggest that their goal is worldwide domination and the elimination of all infidels is idiotic fearmongering. They are scary enough as it is... no need to make them into something that they aren't.
Click to expand...

Don't you be taking that tone with me maine!!

And I was not suggesting that they are seeking world dominace, it's impossible!
I am not making them into nothing more than the dirtbags they are, period!

Now it's obvious that they will attack just about anyone if they are not getting their way, so what to do about that?

Do we not give and or offer aid to muslim nations? should we stop giving and or offering anyone else aid?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top