** My take is one I like because I use the Liberal mantra to reason through it all:

1. Liberals tell us that it is OUR fault... it is our actions that cause a terror response.

2. Clinton hit The Sudan and Afghanistan 2 days before Monica's Grand Jury testimony. Then he hit Iraq 2 days before the impeachment vote.

3. Both leaders in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq referenced Bill Clinton's Monica troubles as the reason he hit their countries.

4>>>>>>(big #4) If WE cause the terror response by our actions, then what did his bombing of these three countries cause in retaliation? ( Gee, the terrorists were in flight school, the plan was underway, all while Bill was in office)
**Did the Monica Lewinsky affair actually cause 9-11? Remember how Bill backed up Bush initially so his actions would be insulated from a nexxus to 9-11?

5. I say that this may account for why Sandy Berger stole classified documents and destroyed them just before the 9-11 Commission. There is little chance that at least some threats made prior to 9-11 did in fact reference Monica or 'wag the dog.' Too many Mullahs and folks like Saddam were angry about it--it was a huge insult. So there were likely numerous threats that referenced Monica, and that would have been a horrifying bit of Clinton legacy to have on the record for the hearings. Isn't that a likely targert for Berger? It only makes sense. Why else would a former NSA Director steal and destroy classified documents.

**To me, it seems as if Sandy Berger stole papers that referenced Islamist jihadist threats that chided Clinton about Monica Lewinsky.

It is possible that Bill Clinton caused 9-11 and was involved in covering up the Monica connection through Sandy Berger.

I call it like I see it, and I made my own music CD to back it up--one of a kind music and commentary

To be fair, the planning of the 9/11 attack started well before Clinton did any of his bombing, so trying to make a retaliatory connection there just doesn't work.

And it's not like Clinton's foreign policy was any better or worse than what came before or went after.

Dave

Happy new year from Down Under ... it's just turned midnight. Januray 1, 2008.

Have a good one folks!

STM-Silver Surfer

Make that January ....

And just this once, everything Dave says is Right!!! Actually, we know that ... everything is (lower case) right.

* 'power' - as in the ability to get people to do what one says - is the target of political/religious leaders

* manipulated 'fear of the other' is an effective tool to motivate people

* this is not a partisan issue

...good points - thanks

and happy new year to you surfer dude

You can't seem to bite the bullet and call those who hate you Wahhabi, can you, Dave?

Bottom line is that they are not real Moslems, but having stolen Mecca and Medina, they get to talk like real Moslems.

Why do they hate you? And me? We are not what they are. You have the temerity to be an atheist, and I have the temerity to be a Jew. Their deal? Convert or die. If you keep smudging and fudging the truth, as does your coward of a president, you will miss the truth and mislead your readers.

A Happy and Healthy New Year to you and yours, Mate!!!

Recent and current US and previous European foreign policy is the main reason why we are hated by some in the Middle East. There are a plethora of reasons, and as Dave implies, I don't think me saying this attempts to simplify or come up with one single reason why they hate. I am saying that foreign policy is the MAIN reason. Yes religion, a chance at power, and just plain smart politics has something to do with it but make no mistake US foreign policy fuels the fire and is the main culprit. We support evil people who terrorize their citizens simply because they give us what we want. We don't really give a shit about the majority of the people in the Middle East. We exploit them for that strategic black resource that our whole economic system is built on. We will help them not because it is what we want to do, but because we have a common enemy, such as aiding Saddam against Iran, aiding Al Queda against the Russians, just to name two... and then we turn our backs on them afterwards... I feel used just writing about it... Israel can do no wrong and has the support of the US no matter what they do, not to mention that we supply them with the weapons, the angels of destruction that they use to reak havoc in the Middle East. I cannot accept as Dave tries to imply, that the US is simply the victim here. That's laughable to me. Get a clue. Realize that actions have consequences. Read Newton. The scariest part of the above rant, was the description of dictators and strongmen using the threat of an outside enemy to bring the people together against a common enemy (whether real or perceived)... it scares me because it is a main facet of American foreign since the Cold War. Communism is the enemy, islamofacism is the enemy, the simplification and vagueness of America's enemy since WWII is absolutely asinine. I cannot help but think that we already are, or are becoming what we attempt to use to justify foreign policy decisions, especially with regards to war policy. Why does American always need an enemy? I don't feel threatened or afraid at all within the borders of America. I found it funny and troubling how Dave's description of what dictators use to control the public and unite the public sounds earily similar to current US foreign policy goals. You can fool some of the people sometime, but not all of the people all of the time.

"I don't feel threatened or afraid at all within the borders of America."

You obviously don't live in LA, New York, or D.C.

(happy almost new year nails - is your wife doing ok out of the hospital - ?)

Right back atcha, shoeman!

She's doing great, thanks. Sure is good to have her back home again, even if she is nagging me to get all the things done I put off in her absence

(just kidding, dear--she's reading over my shoulder)

How's the back?

Clavos, I'm in DC right now and the main threat here seems to be extremely bad driving from Ethiopian cab drivers.

And Dee, you're just wrong, for too many reasons for me to go into until I get back home tomorrow.

US foreign policy has benefitted far more people in the Islamic world than it has harmed. I know this because they have moved to the US to get away from their own leaders once the US's influence in their countries was withdrawn.

Dave

"US foreign policy has benefitted far more people in the Islamic world than it has harmed"

That's debatable and vague... All the evidence you offer as to positive US influence is that people want to move to the US? Are you serious? What a weak case. Let's look at the other side of that coin, are you saying that the people who wind up staying in their homeland do not enjoy American influence? I can't beleive that everyone who stays or lives in the middle east hates American influence... Did you ever consider that maybe they just don't want to leave their home?

Dave,

You may be correct about the power thing, but how do you claim to KNOW that to be the case? Aren't you really making assumptions?

I'd say that certainly, yes, there are those within the various radical islamic factions whose main motivation is the acquisition of power and/or wealth. But that's pretty much always true of any such movement.

As regards U.S. culpability in its actions abroad, you seem to be, above all others here, in absolute denial. No, no, no. We're the good guys. We wear the white hats. We're Roy Rogers and Dale Evans and Hopalong Cassidy and Gene Autry and Jack Armstrong and Superman and the rest all wrapped up into one glorious bundle of greatness and altruism.

Yes, our efforts on the international front over the years HAVE had a positive effect for a lot of people. I don't believe we are all bad. Often, our motives at heart have been good. But there is virtually always a certain element of hubris, a tendancy toward condescension, contempt and exploitation that almost always goes with being the five hundred pound gorilla in the room. It was true of the British and the Romans and many others in between. It is no less true of us.

We don't see ourselves through the same lens as those we have aided and exploited, often at the same time. It is, if nothing else, our all too apparent assumption of superiority and lack of humility that wears thin in our dealings with the wider world. We are a powerful nation. We are not exempt from the axiom that power corrupts. We remain blind to that truth to our peril.

B-tone

Dee, I can offer lots of personal evidence, both from muslims living here and from muslims in the middle east. Having lived there and having ongoing family contacts there I'm pretty aware of how pro-American certain groups are, particularly Persians and Lebanese. Sadly a lot of what they feel towards the US is resentment for being abandoned, rather than anger over our interference in their part of the world. Many of them wish that we had remained more engaged and continued to protect them from the forces which have brought them chaos and oppression. Certainly the majority there are not pro-US, but they are certainly as large a faction as those who are actively anti-US. Most people are somewhere in the middle and a lot would like all of the benefits of US involvement with none of the negatives which unavoidably come with it. Go figure.

Dave

The funny thing is, the US is criticized for not understanding mideast culture, and shifting support for strategic gain. But playing one side off the other is the overriding principle in mideast political culture. My brother and I against my cousin; my cousin and I against the stranger. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Does anyone really think that Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are natural allies? Or that Syria and Iran like each other?

It's American to feel guilty over supporting the Shah. The Middle East approach is to forget any past wrongs between governments, but to remember and avenge every slight between peoples. I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that to a good chunk of the Muslim world, the nation-state is merely a convenience.

We also fail to appreciate the mideast approach to time. Al Queda isn't mad about the "new crusades". They're mad about the old ones. The suffering of the Palestinians means nothing compared to the opportunity to embarrass Israel forever.

I don't agree with Dave's analysis entirely. There are a lot of reasons they hate us. But he's right to talk about one reason that usually gets overlooked.

i sure as hell don't think our "sexuality" has anything to do with the price of potable water in baghdad...if that were the case, europe would be more hated...

I'm not sure who "they" are in the context of the headline. Seems to squirm around a lot. Could be 'muslims', or 'Al queda', or 'OBL's guys', or 'radical muslims', or even 'leftist anti-americans'.

And then there's this statement:

"US foreign policy has benefitted far more people in the Islamic world than it has harmed".

But you know how this works: people resent owing a favor to someone (especially if it's foisted on them), so they react more strongly to the negative. So it never balances out the way you imagine it would, and the way you'd like. So, a million dollars worth of favors is eclipsed by a thousand dollars of tribute.

The lesson one should take from this is that if you really want to help someone then you should do it out of the goodness of your heart, and not because you expect some future recompense.

To expect gratitude is to put your good nature at risk.

And if you don't have it in your heart to do that you should expect to retreat to your Scrooge McDuck fortified and gated security enclave, content to snarl at Bleeding Heart Liberals on TV and in Hollywood. For fun you can go swimming in your pool filled with gold coins and crisp dollar bills. Or shoot stray dogs with a 30 ought 6 should they dare to invade your property line.

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL FROM THIS GODLESS, AMERICA HATING, BABY KILLING, BLEEDING HEART, TREE HUGGING, PINKO COMMIE FAGGOT!!

WOOHOO!!!

If the police had been allowed to keep their jobs, the army not totally disarmed and other bureaucrats who worked for the regime in Baghdad and kept the electricity, sewerage and water systems running not been punted from their jobs after the invasion of Iraq, things would be a bit different to how they are now.

Many of those who joined the insurgency are not muslim extremists at all, they are "disaffected" baathists - read secular nationalists.

Targeting them as friends rather than enemies - as many Baathists were supporters of Saddam simply to stay alive - might well have resulted in a whole different outcome to what is happening today.

Yes, there would have been some dramas ... but not as many.

That's why Rumsfeld and his highly paid planners and advisers rightly should have been the ones to take the chop over the whole debacle.

Invading Iraq wasn't the issue. Most Iraqis greeted the coalition as liberators. Instead, because life for them pretty much ground to a halt for a long period, the US was regarded as an invader more worried about its own concerns than the future of Iraq's ordinary people.

It was what happened afterwards that was a problem.

One classic thing quoted by Iraqis: the Americans could guard the oil ministry, but they couldn't guard Baghdad museum, which was looted of priceless treasures.

It's that failure to plan for an immediate peace that was the problem in Iraq, not the actual fighting itself. Most Iraqi army units, BTW, surrendered en masse, and were happy to do so as they saw it as a way out of three deacdes of Saddam-style stalinism and penury.

And sending a bunch of reservist military police from a small-town America correctional facility to Abu Ghraib on one of history's most sensitive missions didn't help much either.

Whoever dreamed that one up needs a good boot up the bum. The writing was always on the wall with that one. Perhaps they should have been directing traffic while the professional US Military Police were running the jail.

Just as an object lesson, I urge everyone to go see Charlie Wilson's War. First, it's a highly entertaining film, Mike Nichols at his best. Second, it offers a little bit of history.

Or better yet read the late George Crile's book of the same name upon which the film is based. As usual with films, it takes some liberties with the truth, eliminates some events and characters and so on. Crile's book is far more thorough and painstaking if less dramatic or hilarious.

There is so much to be pissed about - the entire story if you think about it for 5 minutes. Charlie Wilson's successful efforts to properly arm the Afghanis were largely what caused the Soviet defeat there. There are those who feel that Wilson single handedly brought down the Soviet Union. While overstated that's probably much closer to the truth than the notion that Reagan had anything to do with it. That Wilson was able to pull it off, largely under the radar, is a rather baffling testament to an overstuffed bureaucracy that doesn't even know where their hands are, or how many they have, let alone having any idea what the fuck they're doing.

I won't go into the entire story here. Watch it or read it or both. But lessons that could have been learned from what Wilson did, how he did it, and the consequences of it all just as with so many other singular opportunities to learn throughout human history have gone largely unheaded by anyone on The Hill or in the White House or anywhere else for that matter, either then or now.

B-tone

If the police had been allowed to keep their jobs, the army not totally disarmed and other bureaucrats who worked for the regime in Baghdad and kept the electricity, sewerage and water systems running not been punted from their jobs after the invasion of Iraq, things would be a bit different to how they are now.

No kidding, Stan. This has been the way we've dealt with every similar situation in the past which we've dealt with successfully. Why on earth Bush decided to depart from that blueprint will be a question for the ages.

I know a lot will be eager to say that it was the ideology of the neocons leading Bush astray, but I don't think that fits the actual chronology. At first, right after the invasion, it looked like the first intent was to just replace Saddam with a more reasonable regime and move on, but when that failed to happen quickly the meddlers begain to move in and sold Bush a bunch of nation-building hogwash and then things began to go south.

Dave

Dave

the extent to which the 'shock and awe' tactic backfired is underestimated...both the military command and control and the 'civilian' infrastructures effectively had been eliminated - there wasn't much of a system left to administer and maintain

I'm not clear on how important debathification really was in the civilian sector and thought that the military 'melted away' for the most part

troll,

I agree.

Our forces had pretty much surrounded Baghdad in anticipation of a final battle - perhaps even one of those destructive block by block, building by building fights that can go on for weeks or months and cost hundreds or thousands of lives. But, of course, none of that happened. Aside from a small skirmish or two, there was no battle. Some of the Iraqi units surrendered en masse, but as you say, many - especially those in the more elite units got out of their uniforms and melted into the city's population. I don't think that was a random or spur of the moment event. I believe that Saddam and his cotorie directed them to do as they did, knowing that they could then wage a more effective guerilla type war against us as we attempted to take control of the city, and country, which is just what they did.

Much of the rampant looting that took place in the wake of the end of the fighting may well have been at least partly by design as well. If you remember, many of the government offices were sacked and records destroyed, except, of course, at the oil ministry. Normal looters looking for valuables, or just furniture, TVs, computers and the like, would not likely take the time or have any interest in destroying file cabinets full of documents, the contents of which would have been unknown to most of them.

The all too obvious lack of planning for the period after the war is in part responsible for how badly things have gone since "mission accomplished."

Again, I harken back to the situation in Afghanistan after the Soviets were routed. We gave the various tribal factions in Afghanistan the weaponry they needed to defeat the Ruskies. But then we just said "Goodbye. Have a nice day." and left them to their future without direction.

Afghanistan was a country without any effective central government. All of the various tribal factions were left to quarrel amongst themselves, but now most were armed to the teeth with the weapons we provided them and/or any captured from the Soviets.

We had got what we wanted - the defeat and embarrassment of the Soviets. To hell with the consequences. The short sightedness of so many in government is owing to the increasing numbers of government officials having come out of the corporate milieu. So many corporations are short sighted - looking at only the bottom line today or at the end of a quarter. There is little in the way of forward thinking.

So, too, with the Federal government. The "do what damage we can today and let the chips fall where they may" mentality went a long way to allowing the Taliban to take control of Afghanistan. It also accounts for the current state of affairs in Iraq.

We love to do the cowboy shit.

"Yeehaw! We blew the shit out of everything! We won, goddamnit!

Now what?

Who the hell cares? We won! We kicked their goddamn Baathist asses, like nobody's bidnes! Mission, fucking, accomplished!

But now we've got to pick up the pieces, get a handle on things.

Pick up the pieces? Don't bother me with that bullshit. I'm gonna drink me this here bottle of Saddam's wine and then I'm gonna sleep in that motherfucker's bed, right on his goddamn silk sheets. Hot damn! Don't be tryin' to git me up in the mornin', neither. I'm gonna be a needin' to sleep this one off. Whoo doogies! Hey, anybody got a corkscrew?


B-tone

"{And if you don't have it in your heart to do that you should expect to retreat to your Scrooge McDuck fortified and gated security enclave, content to snarl at Bleeding Heart Liberals on TV and in Hollywood."

A very simplistic leftwing view of capitalists. Actually, hoarding gobs of money is great for society. Money is nothing but a credit that states that one has provided something of value to another. Having gobs of money means you've produced great goods and services but haven't actually consumed (spent) those credits yet.

The zero sum bullshit is simply a fantasy of losers.

One simple example. Say tomorrow I invent a source of free and environmentally friendly energy. I will virtually overnight become the world's first trillionaire. The environment will be saved and the world economy will shoot through the stratosphere raising the standard of living for virtually every human being.

Who is the 'loser'? Who have I 'stole' my wealth from? Who do I 'owe'?

I'd say in that scenario I'd already done my part, charity would not be a neccessity.

The biggest lie we've been sold by the bleeding hearts is that working to provide goods and services for others and recieving the credits (money) is evil. Bull-fucking-shit!

"The biggest lie we've been sold by the bleeding hearts is that working to provide goods and services for others and recieving the credits (money) is evil. Bull-fucking-shit!"
- Doug Hunter

I agree. Those "bleeding hearts" are much phonier than the Chickenhawks.

Doug, REMF:

Thank you for so quickly and beautifully illustrating my point with your aggression and bitterness, which so handily show the ingratitude of the recipients of unearned gifts!

For it is surely true that in this country, at least, the few rich and powerful continue to exist through the tolerance of the many, who forebear taking their power and money from them either through election or rebellion.

And they don't exercise such tolerance solely from hope of winning the lottery and joining the Kennedys, Bushes and Clintons in the Power Elite, but from the mature recognition of the necessity of cooperation, competition and hierarchy in human societies. Thereby, the many reckon in the USA, they hope to improve the security and prosperity for one and all: even the lowest among them.

Isn't that the message of Jesus, which lies at the heart of Christianity?

In more primitive societies it is quite common for violent rebels to overturn the powerful and separate them from their heads.

So, when The Few express contempt and loathing for
The Many, one can imagine some among The Many chuckling and thinking to themselves "how typical! Just like little kids. Never showing a bit of gratitude for my tolerance"

Happy New Year!

And a Merry Christmas to YOU uncle Ebenezer!

Capitalism is good.

How it is manipulated is not.

From John D Rockefeller to J P Morgan right down to Bill Gates, these entrepreneurs, having once achieved reasonable success, turn their attention to monopolizing the market.

They concentrate on what they can do to put their competition out of business.

And when political candidates take their money from monopolies who do you think they will serve?

Blif, nice post let me analyze by paragrpah..

1) Personal attack

2) Veiled threat of blackmail through violence or votes.

3) Some vague misconception that winning the lottery is the way to become wealthy and that lottery winnings alone will make you part of the 'power elite'.

4) Who cares?

5) Another threat.

6) Condescencion.

7&8) I certainly will.

I would still like you to address why being productive and trading valuable goods and services for credits and never cashing those credits in (maintaining wealth) is a bad thing.

There's a simple statement I've come up with to summarize my position:

Money isn't a sign you should do somthing for society, it's a sign that you already have.

Think about it and have a happy new year yourself.

Happy new year from Down Under ...

Happy New Year to you too, Stan.

Although, due to the time difference, it's probably May 16th 2092 down there by now...

"Money isn't a sign you should do somthing for society, it's a sign that you already have."

-- John Pierpont Morgan?

Dave, please don't think me anti-American or pro-British for saying this because you know I don't really give a rat's either way, but I think - just for once - the US could have gone to the Poms and said, "We haven't got much experience doing this stuff ... what do you think, because you have".

I understand the risk in Baghdad is different to that of Basra, but the British did approach the whole thing a lot differently. Certainly, the Iraqis I know have had much kinder things to say about the British military in Iraq than the US. (More on that further down).

Yes, they've had their problems too (especially with all the Iranian meddling in the region), but they have largely been able to keep the peace and the peace they have kept did revolve around keeping the locals as happy as possible and keeping the administrators tec in their jobs.

The reason: they have plenty of experience (and forget for a moment whether you think that's good or bad). I have said it before, but they have developed a very good COIN strategy over the years, and as they say, at the risk of repeating myself, armed social work is a much better option than plain armed. Things were so quiet there for a while, I saw the Royal Irish on TV actively patrolling in their tams (berets).

I think things like Abu Ghraib really could have been avoided with a bit more foresight and better planning by the US military. Sending those small-town reservists on a mission of such historical sensitivity was just an act of insanity. Bad way for the US to learn a lesson though.

Americans misunderstand the impact Abu Ghraib had on the insurgency and on the attitudes of ordinary Iraqis.


That was about the time things started going pear-shaped for the US. Until then, Iraqis were prepared to give them a go.

As far as historical blunders go, it will be remembered for centuries as the spark that helped light the fuse of an insurgency campaign that moved from muslim extremists to Iraqi and pan-Arab nationalists. Luckily, some of those have dumoped al-Qaeda and their mates now, but in the interim, there has been too much blood spilled for the US to backtrack to the good intent of its starting position.

Who cares why they hate us as long as they fear us? The right answer, war on them until they are afraid to raise their heads.

"Let them hate us, as long as they fear us."

-- Caligula, Roman emperor 40 A.D.

"The real reason for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan wasn't enough. Washington could have picked any Arab country. Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could..."

Thomas Friedman
The New York Times
June, 2003

Caligula and Friedman have a lot in common.

Cappy: It matters a lot if they don't like you. They might fear you too, but as long as they're prepared to get over their fear - and it appears they are from every indication - they'll still go at you, no matter what.

They're a lot less likely to attack you if they like AND fear you. At least it's a chance they'll be more likely to sit at a negotiating table.

Even better if they like you and know they have nothing to fear.

The problem with the current crop of muslim extremists is that they don't like you, never will, and aren't interested in talking unless the whole world switches over to their brand of islam. That's their stated aim ... therein lies the problem. This stuff has been going on for 100 years, it's just that globalism now makes it all that much easier - for them.

But Caligula, as Jake points out (at least I think that's what Jake's pointing out), was wrong.

His policies and his decadence and Rome's in general was part of the flag for the start of the decline of Rome.

Yeah, Caligula wasn't exactly a role model, even for Roman emperors.

Would any of us really want to live in a world in which everyone else feared us?

B-tone

"But Caligula, as Jake points out (at least I think that's what Jake's pointing out), was wrong"

LOL.

You're right. Ole Cali is not on my list of "good statesmen."

I hope it isn't considered slanderous -- but the best I can say is Caligula was a dirty no-good scoundrel *$#% rat of the first order.

"the best I can say is Caligula was a dirty no-good scoundrel *$#% rat of the first order."

But, at least he made the trains run on time.

Oh, no wait, that was Muhammad...

I thought it was Mussolini.

Oh, wow, you're right!

No, Mohammed had no trains, but, if he had. . .

B-tone

If he had ....Some people would be worshipping them each time one went past

Forghet Mussolini BTW. Hitler's the one ... he provided a lot of new building projects and tons of work for the German people.

Both before and after the war.

Hitler believed more in the autobahn and the Volkswagen - the people's car.

Being hated by people who are hateful ought to be a badge of honor.

Foreign policy just feeds their designs. Modernism threatens the traditionalism that their power base hinges upon. It's not about what we do per se but it is about how they use it to propel their agenda.

Work with me, Guffman.

Strictly blaming foreign policy is truly simplistic.

Something tells me Hollywood and Hanks cleaned up ole Wilson to romanticize his image. B-Tone don't you be asking historians to watch a H-Wood movie for pointers on history. It's unbecoming.

Insert smiley face with gap tooth here.

"B-Tone don't you be asking historians to watch a H-Wood movie for pointers on history. It's unbecoming."

Quoted for Truth.

What Jacob seems not to get here or on another thread where this was an issue, is the fact that fear generates respect, and tribal cultures react to weakness the same way that wolves do. They take it as a license to attack.

Dave

...since we are now into gross generalizations I'll add a couple:

fear generates violence and warrior tribal cultures measure their greatness based on the strength of their enemies

Hey Dave,

My apologies for making this a comment, I can't find your e-mail address at the moment...

Are you still in DC today (Jan. 2)? I'm right here in your old 'hood if you wanna grab lunch. :-)

Clav,

Normally I'd agree with you about Hollywood and history. And as I indicated, the film does take some liberties.

However, having read Crile's book and also a variety of other sources, the basic story related in the film appears to be true. Nevertheless, the results can't be disputed.

The Soviets were routed, but only after the infusion of adequate weaponry, obtained covertly from the CIA in much the way the film describes. We did largely leave the Afghanis to their fate after the war ended. Tribal factions did battle each other with the Taliban ultimately and brutally gaining control. They provided safe harbour to Al Qaida and bin Laden. And, well, we pretty much know the rest of the tale, don't we?

This is much less tainted by warmongering than Dave's other pieces on the subject. And I think he's more or less right, to a point.

But an important distinction to make is just who "They" are. As the "Awakening" of Sunni tribal leaders in Iraq demonstrates, terrorists and extremists do not automatically command the loyalty and respect of other Muslims. Many of the Iraqi Sunnis have decided that for now at least they are better off opposing the terrorists and accepting the protection of the US.

But what the Bush administration has done overall is to alienate moderate Islam [the vast majority] through sins of both omission and commission. If we made a genuine effort to win the hearts and minds of the Islamic world, instead of living up to the worst caricatures of our behavior and policies, there might actually be hope for this.

Think of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, the Iraq invasion itself, the USA Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, wireless wiretapping, our continued, uncritical 'friendships' with Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and yes, certainly, our one-sided attitude in the Palestinian situation. When moderates in Iran sent an olive branch [pre-Ahmadinejad], Bush ignored it.

If we don't seriously attempt to refute and prove wrong the propaganda of the Islamists, their propaganda will of course win. That may sound obvious, but will someone please tell Bush and Cheney this?

In Lawrence Wright's brilliant book The Looming Tower, a must-read for anyone trying to understand this complex subject, he tells of the period in 1991-92 when Al-Qaeda was basically an agricultural organization based in Sudan. Bin Laden was actually enjoying the life of a farming tycoon in an actual Islamist state so much that he considered renouncing warfare [now that, in his deluded mind, he had defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan]. But in the end he decided his group needed an enemy, and the continued presence of American troops on the holy soil of Saudi Arabia became the motivation for his next moves.

Dave on the post-invasion Iraq debacle:

I know a lot will be eager to say that it was the ideology of the neocons leading Bush astray, but I don't think that fits the actual chronology. At first, right after the invasion, it looked like the first intent was to just replace Saddam with a more reasonable regime and move on, but when that failed to happen quickly the meddlers begain to move in and sold Bush a bunch of nation-building hogwash and then things began to go south.

That last sentence is utterly at odds with the facts. Please rent and watch the superb [and more or less non-partisan] documentary, No End in Sight, to help prevent your repeating wrongheaded nonsense like this. These "meddlers" are a figment of your imagination.

That last sentence is utterly at odds with the facts. Please rent and watch the superb [and more or less non-partisan] documentary, No End in Sight, to help prevent your repeating wrongheaded nonsense like this. These "meddlers" are a figment of your imagination.

So, Handy, you're declaring the entire body of Neocons to be a figment of my imagination? All of those bright young men they sent over to Iraq to redesign the country never really went there? Paul Bremer is some sort of hallucination? Does the book you cite REALLY say that?

Dave

My apologies for making this a comment, I can't find your e-mail address at the moment...

For future reference, there's a nice spamless email response button on my blog at Republic of Dave.

Are you still in DC today (Jan. 2)? I'm right here in your old 'hood if you wanna grab lunch. :-)

Sadly I'm already gone. I'd hoped to meet up with Mark Schannon too, but I ran out of time and had to do family things, and I headed back to Austin on the 31st. Maybe next time.

Dave

You can't seem to bite the bullet and call those who hate you Wahhabi, can you, Dave?

Bottom line is that they are not real Moslems, but having stolen Mecca and Medina, they get to talk like real Moslems.

Why do they hate you? And me? We are not what they are. You have the temerity to be an atheist, and I have the temerity to be a Jew. Their deal? Convert or die. If you keep smudging and fudging the truth, as does your coward of a president, you will miss the truth and mislead your readers.

Your readers seem to enjoy burying their heads in the sand with you, Dave. Don't worry. Reality is going to soon give you such a zetz in the ass that you'll all be be flying into the middle of next week, wondering what the hell happened.

Till then, make sure you keep your tukhes high up in the air, so that Reality, and the G-d that created Reality can find you...

This is much less tainted by warmongering than Dave's other pieces on the subject. And I think he's more or less right, to a point.

I think that if you go back and read my other pieces on the subject with a clear head you'll find that they are not tainted by warmongering, but are motivated by something entirely different. I leave it to you to identify it.

But an important distinction to make is just who "They" are. As the "Awakening" of Sunni tribal leaders in Iraq demonstrates, terrorists and extremists do not automatically command the loyalty and respect of other Muslims. Many of the Iraqi Sunnis have decided that for now at least they are better off opposing the terrorists and accepting the protection of the US.

IMO it's just a matter of upclose and personal experience with terrorists which makes you not like them. In the end I'll bet that Iraq becomes about the most virulently anti-terrorist nation in the region. It's easy to like terrorists and religious extremists when you're sitting in your luxury condo in Riyadh writing a check. It's a lot harder when they're blowing up your uncle or neighbor or threatening your grocer or decapitating your local arak merchant.

But what the Bush administration has done overall is to alienate moderate Islam [the vast majority] through sins of both omission and commission. If we made a genuine effort to win the hearts and minds of the Islamic world, instead of living up to the worst caricatures of our behavior and policies, there might actually be hope for this.

I think you're writing off the entire world of moderate islam as simple and unsophisticated and imperceptive. If we can see Bush's errors as errors rather than ill intent, then they certainly can as well. And if we can differentiate between Bush's actions and the beliefs of the nation as a whole, so can they. They aren't intellectual primitives - in that area they're quite sophisticated. They're just culturally different. In fact, when it comes to politics they're probably more sophisticated and more cynical than we are in many ways.

But in the end he decided his group needed an enemy, and the continued presence of American troops on the holy soil of Saudi Arabia became the motivation for his next moves.

Which would be exactly my point in this article. It's not so much that America offended bin Laden as that he needed to BE offended so that he could motivate his movement and America made itself a convenient target of opportunity.

Dave

No End in Sight is a movie, not a book, and a very good one indeed. [It came out on DVD on Oct 30 and should be seen by everyone who cares about this issue. So should Taxi to the Dark Side, being released later this month in theaters, and which I have reviewed on this site.]

In the film, Paul Bremer and the neocons come in for their [large] share of criticism and blame. But Bush had to be either frighteningly disengaged or generally approving of what was being done in his name.

"Meddlers" is the misnomer I was objecting to, implying they were somehow invaders from outside the administration. Bush appointed Bremer. Cheney and Rumsfeld have as far as I know never claimed their original plans and intentions were subverted by "meddlers." They of course are the real meddlers, ruining our reputation in the world in ways it will take decades to overcome.

It's easy to like terrorists and religious extremists when you're sitting in your luxury condo in Riyadh writing a check. It's a lot harder when they're blowing up your uncle or neighbor or threatening your grocer or decapitating your local arak merchant.

Substitute "New York" for "Riyadh", "flight attendant" for "grocer" and "airplane pilot" for "arak merchant" and you get a pretty good idea of why the IRA suddenly became much more amenable to the Northern Ireland peace process after 9/11.

"What Jacob seems not to get here or on another thread where this was an issue, is the fact that fear generates respect, and tribal cultures react to weakness the same way that wolves do. They take it as a license to attack."

-- Dave Nalle

"Let them hate us, as long as they fear us."

"Them" has nothing to do with wolves. As an aside, I do know that although a Black Bear can be intimidated, a Grizzly Bear or a Polar Bear don't respect anything.

The 'tribal culture' of the Lakota tribe didn't keep it from attacking Custer. Whatever fear the Lakota had resulted in resolve.

Why?

Custer was on their land.

"B-Tone don't you be asking historians to watch a H-Wood movie for pointers on history. It's unbecoming."

Baritone seems to lose perspective when the topic is Reagan. His administration made the right moves for the right reasons, and were successful. Sure, other people were involved, but that doesn't give legitimacy to his attempts to de-Reaganize the 1980's.

---

"You can't seem to bite the bullet and call those who hate you Wahhabi, can you, Dave?"

You're right, Ruvy, that Wahhabism is one of the forces behind the current Muslim extremism. But so what? Recognition of that fact doesn't take courage, and it doesn't particularly change the analysis. I'm no expert on Wahhabism, but I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with the Islamic extremism in Iran, Turkey, or Sudan.

And the Wahhabists have been running Saudi Arabia for decades without showing much interest in confronting other countries, certainly not the US.

It's a renegade group of Sulafists [better word] who align themselves with Zawahiri and bin Laden and who welcome direct confrontation with the West. Whether they are actually capable of planning and executing large plots together on Western soil is another matter. I tend to think they're mostly nutty and incompetent.

"Meddlers" is the misnomer I was objecting to, implying they were somehow invaders from outside the administration.

I was using 'meddlers' in the sense of wanting to meddle in the internal affairs and structure of other nations and engage in nation building. Not the same thing.

As for Ruvy's suggestion that I have trouble calling the Wahabbi what they are, I don't see where he gets that from. So I call them 'muslim', it's still accurate. I think identifying their specific sect is useful, but extremism comes from many quarters.

Dave

So 9/11 was what, an aberration? Dumb luck? A leftist plot?

I find it ridiculous that people believe that Reagan had anything substantive to do with the fall of the Soviet Union. The seeds of its fall were sown years earlier and it finally succumbed of its own weight - the repetitive failures of their farming and industry, the overwhelming costs incurred in trying to maintain their satellite nations and corruption and incompetence within all levels of government. That Reagan happened to be in the White House when the end came, was incidental and his dumb luck.

Despite what a lot of conservatives apparently believe, Ronald Reagan was NOT god incarnate. Beyond having improbable hair, a taste for jelly beans and a wife who kept rewinding him to keep him awake to the end of his administration. His greatest accomplishment was co-starring with Bonzo and latching onto a lifetime supply of Twenty Mule Team Borax.

B-tone

Dave is right, Jake. I went to school in Baghdad as a boy and still remain in contact with some people. Arab culture is quite a bit different to ours.

Losing face is a disaster in Arab culture, and weakness is seen as a reason to have another go ... ie, if the US leaves Iraq now, it has lost face, and is therefore weak and an even greater target of opportunity.

Why? ... because some people in the ME, judging on past performance, think you might not do anything about it because at this point, you've lost your will.

That's why Saddam always claimed to his people that he'd won the first gulf war, in which the US-led coalition virtually demolished his military.

The reason: it never went beyond southern Iraq; didn't go to Baghdad to remove him, and therefore in his eyes that meant the US and its allies were too frightened to do so. It's bizarre logic, but it is how it was presented.

Doubtless, many Iraqis believed him, especially the younger ones. The rest of the world knew the truth - and probably the rest of the Arab world - but things are looked at differently over there. A lot of militant arabs wouldn't understand why you'd start military action with a force like that that wasn't purely aimed at the destruction and the removal of your enemies. That Bush senr and his allies let him live and go on ruling Iraq was a victory of sorts.

The problem with trying to look at these things through our eyes is that you can't.

It's imperative to try looking at it through the eyes of another culture, otherwise, we are just doomed to keep making the same mistakes.

I can also tell you that many Arabs' hatred of the US stems not from the fact its is capitalist and decadent and non-muslim or whatever - it's because it's a supporter of Israel.

And therein lies much of the problem. What do you do about that, when many arabs will say that Israel has no right exist.

Essentially then, the arab world, muslims, are Klingons, but with smaller brows.

B-tone

Do Klingons herd camels and wear towels on their heads?

"That's why Saddam always claimed to his people that he'd won the first gulf war, in which the US-led coalition virtually demolished his military."

-- STM

I believe that Hitler also claimed to his people that he was winning WWII right up to the time he put a bullet in his head.

It's called propaganda by a megalomaniac.

Doesn't matter whether it's the Gulf War or WWII or any other war.

"What do you do about that, when many arabs will say that Israel has no right exist."

-- STM

Just tell the Arabs that Ruvy says G-d gave him the land.

That should solve the problem.

B-tone: "Essentially then, the arab world are Klingons, but with smaller brows".

Generally, no. Don't know about the brows. I've seen a few hairy ones. Then again, I've seen a few Aussies who look like Klingons (mainly out in the bush).

Jake: Arab culture IS different. Lying, for instance, is totally acceptable if it achieves your end, even if you're not a politician.

That's why the US had a lot of problems negotiating with Arafat.

Clav,

Not having visited Qo'noS, I don't know. Could be, though. Them Klingons are more clever than most of us give them credit.

I'm just in a pissin' people off mode.

B-tone

"I'm just in a pissin' people off mode."

Me too, B-tone. Hence my #72.

So 9/11 was what, an aberration? Dumb luck?

Not provable or disprovable. But it's beginning to look more and more like that's a possibility, yes. Most of the plots since then have been smaller in scale, only tenuously connected to each other if at all, often incompetent [e.g. Glasgow airport], or in fact mostly imaginary [this includes most of the guys arrested inside the US, like that pitiful crew in Miami].

There is not one convincing case of another US-based plot, one that would ever have succeeded at any rate. If you believe this is because Bush's team are brilliant at law enforcement...well, I have a nice bridge for sale in Brooklyn you'll want to come look at.

Anyhow, the point regarding the good ole Klingons is that the apparent view that some muslims "kling" to is that anyone who shows mercy to an enemy is weak. That is very much an old world, even biblical (or koranic) view. That their culture is stuck in the Dark Ages should be their problem, not ours. Radical muslims' or (for Ruvy's benefit) wahhabi's rejection of modernism (except when it comes to weaponry, of course,) is the load of crap they choose to carry on their shoulders. It is that mind-set that renders the situation intractable in that there is little or no common ground upon which to base any negotiations. They do see us as weak and sub-human because we are infidels unworthy of life on Allah's world.

B-tone

Jacob... #74... Priceless.

"like that pitiful crew in Miami"

That pitiful crew in Miami (which is an excellent description of them, BTW), investigations revealed, had no connection whatever with any radical groups, Islamic or otherwise.

They were just a covey of wannabes with no money, no brains, not even weapons, who were amusing themselves.

They were not by any stretch of the imagination even radicals, let alone terrorists.

Just a bunch of slackers whiling away the hours until their next welfare check.

This did not stop the government from wasting taxpayer money in prosecuting them, or from patting itself on the back for thus "keeping us safe." Pretty nauseating, really.

Wahhabism is one of the forces behind the current Muslim extremism. But so what? Recognition of that fact doesn't take courage, and it doesn't particularly change the analysis.

So what? It gives you a target, and a root to trace the poison of extremism.

1. As for giving you a target, targeting Riyadh would concentrate the minds there very fast. Nothing works like the threat of death - especially on a bunch of decadent pricks like the Wahhabi aristocracy - which very much wants to live and let the stupid idealists die fighting in a glorious jihad - a lot like Beltway types....

2. Carefully tracing the influence of the people sent out by ibn Saud or his religious honchos from the 1920's onwards to various places in the Missile East like Iran, Turkey, or Sudan....

As for Ruvy's suggestion that I have trouble calling the Wahabbi what they are, I don't see where he gets that from. So I call them 'muslim', it's still accurate. I think identifying their specific sect is useful....

You really do surprise me, Dave. There are plenty of Sunni authorities who say very bluntly that the Wahhabi, whatever else they are or aren't ARE NOT MOSLEMS!!! This has to do with the standard Moslem conception of Allah, as opposed to what the Wahhabi preach.

So, for you to blithely accept the Wahhabi bullshit line that they are Moslems gives them a legitimacy they do not deserve - kind of like calling Mormons the universal Christian church if they were to steal the Vatican out from under the Catholics.

In addition, you take away a very important weapon from those Moslem clerics who do have the guts to stand up to the Wahhabi.

If you can't distinguish between a fake Moslem and a real Moslem out of ignorance, that is one thing. Bu if you refuse to do so out of political convenience or intellectual laziness, you deserve all the shit these people deal out to you....

Ruvy, are the Druze Muslim? Are the Sufis? Are the Ismailis? All three of those sects deviate MUCH more from the basic tenets of Islam than the Wahhabis do. For that matter the division between Shiism and Sunnism is much larger than between Wahhabism and Sunnism.

Wahhabism is just muslim fundamentalism, a back-to-basics movement similar to Christian, protestant, back to the bible fundamentalism. They're exclusionary, reactionary religious purists with delusions of grandeur. They're like Islam distilled to its mose unappealing essence.

And it's not for you or me to decide if they are muslims. They believe that they are. They follow the teachings of Mohammed and the Haditha fanatically. I can see them rejecting the legitimacy of more secularized muslims, but about the only thing about them you can't find fault with is their devotion to Islam.

Dave

"This did not stop the government from wasting taxpayer money in prosecuting them, or from patting itself on the back for thus "keeping us safe.""

Of course not, wasting taxpayer money is what the government DOES; when do they ever NOT waste it? The government's prime mission is to spend our money, the more uselessly, the better.

You make a mistake, however, when you depersonalize the problem with such phrases as "patting itself on the back;" the government is not a "thing;" it's people, many of whom (if not the majority) are slackers and thieves.

That's why the money gets wasted so much; the thieves steal it, and the slackers aren't paying attention.

And it doesn't matter who's in Congress or the WH, they do it year in and year out, and always will, unless we dismantle it.

Dave, just cause a guy wears a towel and talks Arabic, doesn't make him a Moslem.

At the outset, Druze might have been Moslems, but they have wandered away from the faith enough (the Moslems believe in a Mahdi - the Druze have a full house of messiahs) to be a clearly different faith. I do not know about the Ismailis. The Sufis go back to before Islam and hitched their wagon to it.

And it's not for you or me to decide if they are muslims. That's right. It's for other Moslems to decide.

So, go here and see why Wahhabi theology is not Islam.

And it is dangerous and disingenuous to try to overlay Christian religious concepts like fundamentalism or protestantism on Moslems or Jews or Hindus. You do not get a better understanding. You only get a greater misunderstanding, and that is evident from your words above.

Dave, just cause a guy wears a towel and talks Arabic, doesn't make him a Moslem.

That would explain the Marionites I bought our new nativity figures from two weeks ago.

At the outset, Druze might have been Moslems, but they have wandered away from the faith enough (the Moslems believe in a Mahdi - the Druze have a full house of messiahs) to be a clearly different faith. I do not know about the Ismailis. The Sufis go back to before Islam and hitched their wagon to it.

I rasied them as examples of sects generally considered 'muslim', but much more divergent fromt he mainstream than the Wahabbis to make the point that much more bizarre sects are tolerated within Islam. I didn't mention the Yezidis or Zoroastrians because they actually ARE different religions.

And it's not for you or me to decide if they are muslims. That's right. It's for other Moslems to decide.

And plenty of other, moderate muslims accept the idea that Wahabbis and other sects are basically muslim.

So, go here and see why Wahhabi theology is not Islam.

I'm quite familiar with Wahhabi theology, and it absolutely is Islam. Your anti Wahhabist site reads like pure propaganda, though I do find the description of Ibn Abd al'Wahhab's behavior amusing in its remarkable similarity to some of the excesses perpetrated by Mohammed.

Putting aside what your site says, which of the Five Pillars of Islam do contemporary Wahhabis not observe? They certainly observe the Shi'ite 'Sixth Pillar' and bigtime.

If they believe in the Qu'ran, pray to Mecca, practice the Hajj and Zakah and observe Ramadan, they're muslims.

They'd probably like to define various groups out of the religion and others would like to define them out of the religion, but as someone who has no stake in it whatsoever I can objectively state that they're still muslims.

And it is dangerous and disingenuous to try to overlay Christian religious concepts like fundamentalism or protestantism on Moslems or Jews or Hindus. You do not get a better understanding. You only get a greater misunderstanding, and that is evident from your words above.

What Christian religious concepts? Do you think the word 'fundamentalist' somehow applies only to Christians? The Wahabbists believe in returning a fundamental version of Islam and stripping away all of the intellectual developments and elaborations. That makes them fundamentalists - not fundamentalist Christians, but fundamentalist muslims. The term is what it is and can certainly be applied to more than one subject.

Dave

Ruvy,

Who is (was?) Jamil Effendi Zahawi Zadah, and why do you take his writing (from 1904) so seriously?

And why in particular, from an Italian Islamic site?

Just curious.

...I took handyperson's advice and viewed 'No End in Sight' - if what is presented is true and organized units of the Iraqi army and police forces which had not 'melted away' offered their services to restore order and were rebuffed and disbanded...then I'm clearly wrong to play down the importance of debathification etc

(...that's not to say that I think throwing support to a Sunni military would have avoided the ethnic cleansing)

Ruvy, this is back to "my cousin and I against the stranger". If you declare war on Wahhabism, Muslims will consider it a war against Islam. This is just human nature. You want to unify a religion, criticize a member of it. Or a sect.

Me, I don't consider Romney a Christian, but it raises my Christian hackles when people suggest a religious test for office. All of a sudden he and I are brothers against the evil secularists. Tricking me is easy.

Muslims hate US because US invades their countries and kills their peoples. Its that simple.

Not 'simple', Brian - 'simpleminded'. Even you ought to be able to do better.

Dave

But, but, but Dave!

HOW can you say that???

He knows it's so because OBL said it was.

Remember? The CIA even made up a cool-sounding name for it? "Blowback?"

Who will be the first presidential candidate to propose replacing CIA analyses with the 'intelligence' provided by Dave Nalle and Clavos?

Their analysis:

"They hate us because we're free."

And their analysis is not simple-minded?

I forgot Rudy already did it.

War on the Wahhabi can be easy, Baronius. Just turn Riyadh to nuclear glass. America has the missiles to do the job. It can be clean, easy and swift - just like slicing off a thief's arm.... ;o))

"America has the missiles to do the job."

So does Israel.

But Jacob, America has an elite that is vicious, heartless and bloodthirsty enough to enjoy doing the job - that is the job of turning their employers to nuclear smoke.

Israel would, too. But they don't have me for a leader. ;o))

Israel is a paper tiger that just got its ass kicked in Lebanon.

All it could do was kill civilians.

"They hate us because we're free."

Show me where I said that, Jake...

What I DO believe is that, more than anything, they (the radicals) hate us because their clerics teach them to hate us, and much of it has to do with our lifestyles and belief systems, in particular as regards such areas as sex and the treatment (read equality) of women, which are anathema to their fundamentalist, repressive religious beliefs. Even our own american fundamentalists are appalled at the licentiousness and "lack of morals" (their phrase) in contemporary american society.

Practically everything we believe in and practice in our society is sacreligious and/or profane to the islamic radicals.

"All it could do was kill civilians."

Killing their civilians (in large numbers) is the quickest way to demoralize an enemy government and win a war.

Hiroshima, Nagasaki.

*Killing their civilians (in large numbers) is the quickest way to demoralize an enemy government and win a war.*

and lacking bonafide religious governance to remind the people that the wartime killing of innocents is against the Law the Israelis relied on their ersatz religious leaders to declare after deliberation of course that there were no innocents in that conflict

religion is bankrupt

...and lacking bonafide religious governance to remind the people that the wartime killing of innocents is against the Law the Israelis relied on their ersatz religious leaders to declare after deliberation of course that there were no innocents in that conflict...

First of all, troll, whose Law do you cite? Do you cite the Torah? Do you cite the Ramba"m's Commentaries? Do you even know what the IDF Code of Engagement is at all, or do you just think you know what you are talking about, like so many lox and gefilte fish Jews?

The Jewish religious leadership in Israel may seem ersatz to you and if I want to have contempt for them, that it is my right - they are MY leaders. But who are they to you, and how do you know if they are real or fake? From a shoehorn's reflection?

The voice of a Jewish religious scholar who knows these laws would be welcome at this point - perhaps an IDF Chaplain who has seen battle, and who could tell us about Lebanon....

Ruvy - I started here and have been working on the ideas (sadly only in translation)...and yes I am familiar with the IDF Code of Engagement

...also - I am free to insult anyone; you are free to get pissed at me

ain't life grand

Quoting me"America has the missiles to do the job."

So does Israel.
-------
Israel is a paper tiger that just got its ass kicked in Lebanon.

All it could do was kill civilians.

I told you, [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor], that Israelis don't have the bloodthirsty backstabbing bastards they need to nuke Riyadh - they don't have me for a leader.

But we do know how to kill our enemies when they attack us and don't really give a damn if terrorosts hide themselves among children So we kill the bastards who kill us and are proud to bloody our hands doing so. It's more than most Americans would do.

And we Jews know that you damned "righteous Christians" would rather see us dead by anyone's hand than ruling over Jerusalem, OUR Eternal Capital, in peace. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] You have nothing to bitch about Israel, we at least try to defend our country. Show some balls and get behind nuking Riyadh; bringing the price of oil down and bringing your boys. Show some balls and get behind us in trying to stand up to the damned Arabs and your tripled damned fatassed bastards like Condoleezza Rice and Dick Cheney.

[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

troll,

I went to the site you displayed at comment #105, and at least you are looking at a good redaction of the Jewish Laws of War. That means you are not talking like some lox and gefilte fish Jew who thinks he knows what he is talking about and really doesn't.

So show me where you come to the conclusion, based on what you saw in the redaction you cite, that our religious leaders and lacked bonafide religious governance to remind the people that the wartime killing of innocents is against the Law, and where you got that the "ersatz" religious leaders, who were often wounded on the field themselves "declared, after deliberation of course ,that there were no innocents in that conflict"...

Please be very specific. Cite battles, cite assaults, and cite chapter and verse the redaction at hand. We are both intelligent people, and can both read clearly.

Ruvy, you're not going to make me spend a whole Saturday night deleting your offensive and insulting remarks towards other commenters are you?

Chris,

Insulting? Offensive? Me?

Come, come, my good man. I toned down that comment you erased and didn't even complain that you erased it, [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]. So if I can keep my tongue still while you erased a well deserved and artfully phrased response, why don't you keep you tongue still after having done so? [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor].

Ruvy, having been around Blogcritics for a long time now, you knew full well that your comment was out of line and chose to post it anyway. I can only assume your shameless arrogance in doing so can only be explained by the rampant egomania that the more bloodthirsty of your personalities regularly displays.

You also know that I can and do comment as I see fit, so am a tad baffled as to why you would object to that. Unless it's the egomania, paranoia and other delusions swamping your psyche of course!

So, Troll,

I'm wondering If you'd gotten any examples you'd like to discuss per comment #107? I'd really rather not have someone else muscling in his ego issues to distract us....

"I'd really rather not have someone else muscling in his ego issues to distract us...."

Giant pot meets enormous kettle and calls it black!

Dave can say it because he hates muslims.

"Dave can say it because he hates muslims."

Care to cite examples in Dave's words that prove your asinine and preposterous allegation?

Ruvy - here's the context of my comment

Israel is a secular state and not a religious kingdom governed by a Sanhedrin - you have pointed this out repeatedly - and might well be covered by the Laws of war governing secular states

in any case

from Broyde's work:

"the touchstone rules of self-defense according to Jewish law are fourfold: Even when self defense is mandatory or permissible and one may kill a person or group of people who are seeking to kill one who is innocent, one may not:

1] Kill an innocent³² third party to save a life;

2] Compel a person to risk his life to save the life of another;

3] Kill the pursuer after his evil act is over as a form of punishment.

4] Use more force than minimally needed.³³ "

Israel is a paper tiger that just got its ass kicked in Lebanon.

Israel is only a paper tiger because it lacks the will to operate at its potential. They have the resources, manpower and ability to be devastatingly militarily effective, they just have weak leadership without the spine to use that potential.

Dave

troll,

This is your context

Yesha Rabbinical Council: During time of war, enemy has no innocents

Published: 07.30.06, 17:37 / Israel News

The Yesha Rabbinical Council announced in response to an IDF attack in Kfar Qanna that "according to Jewish law, during a time of battle and war, there is no such term as 'innocents' of the enemy."

All of the discussions on Christian morality are weakening the spirit of the army and the nation and are costing us in the blood of our soldiers and civilians," the statement said. (Efrat Weiss)

Against this one attack you posit your claim that an "ersatz" erroneously stated that there are no innocents among the enemy using


"the touchstone rules of self-defense according to Jewish law are fourfold: Even when self defense is mandatory or permissible and one may kill a person or group of people who are seeking to kill one who is innocent, one may not:

1] Kill an innocent32 third party to save a life;

2] Compel a person to risk his life to save the life of another;

3] Kill the pursuer after his evil act is over as a form of punishment.

4] Use more force than minimally needed.33 "

troll,

There was more than just one attack gong on, more than the Israeli attack against al-Qana: there were rocket bombardments daily of villages and towns in the north, and in all of these cases, the enemy targeted innocents.

Our forces targeted military targets wherever possible and wherever it did not harm the interests of the United States, whose leaders dictated the crippling strategy chosen by our "prime minister."

So, for example, the very real military and strategic targets in Syria that would have crippled the enemy were not touched. The Israeli chattering class is too ignorant to know the Jewish rules of engagement and war, even these few that you quoted, so they quoted and brought into play Christian rules of war, and "turn the other cheek" stratagems that sound good on paper but are fatal with shrapnel.

There are more to those rules of war than you quoted, troll, and the ones you quoted are not as broad as you would have one believe. I also read them, and the lines are fuzzier than they look. Like any set of laws, they provided a lot of room to wiggle and maneuver. When the enemy hides his soldiers amongst his civilians, it is not unfair or even wrong to state, "according to Jewish law, during a time of battle and war, there is no such term as 'innocents' of the enemy."

And given that Jews from Judea and Samaria contributed more heavily to the casualty rate in Lebanon than any other part of the country, I'd say that our rabbis knew what they were talking about - there was nothing "ersatz" about that council.

Ruvy - thanks for filling out the context

now explain the Council's movement from the particulars to the general pronouncement...

seems to me that this was not novel under the Law and I wonder why other ruling situations weren't applied...for example in a siege (and therefore in hostage situations) non-combatants and innocents who are prevented from leaving can be killed...rather than coming up with what seems to me anyway to be a whole new rule

...and a new rule that can be used to justify all sorts of terrorism at that

if you will give me a bit of existing Law to hold onto and reason from it might help me understand the rabbis' action

as for my use of 'ersatz': my prejudice is that so long as Israel is a secular state religious councils will never be 'the real thing'

troll,

I grew up in a culture where a judge cites the law and the legal reasoning behind his decision. This is basic English jurisprudence.

This is not basic Jewish jurisprudence.

Rabbis will expect students (i.e. advocates) to be familiar enough with the law or with the situation to understand where there rulings originate. Those familiar with neither the law nor the situation, do not generally have standing to speak. This is very different from English jurisprudence.

Given that Jewish law has not dealt with issues of sovereignty (i.e. laws of war) for a very very long time, it is no surprise that rabbis carry forth in the culture that they are familiar with, which is that of solving disputes between families and individuals. You've heard me say often that rabbis cannot rise to the stature of national leaders here. You are seeing a concrete example of why.

...lol I wouldn't dream of taking my concerns and ignorance to a rabbi when I can lay them at your feet

I went through Dr. Broyde's survey of war. One of the points that stuck out to me immediately was this: Under II. Grounds for Starting War
A. Jewish Law's View of Secular Nations at War

"The king must first wage only obligatory wars. What is an obligatory war? It is a war against the seven nations, the war against Amalek, and a war to deliver Israel from an enemy who has attacked them. Then he may wage authorized wars, which is a war against others in order to enlarge the borders of Israel and to increase his greatness and prestige." n.20

Without worrying about 'Amaleq here, it is obvious, and more than obvious, that the IDF was engaged in 2006 in "a war to deliver Israel from an enemy that had attacked them". Thus the "king" the government, was fighting an obligatory war. Dr. Broyde's article does not really deal with that issue at all. He tends to concentrate on "authorized war", but it is an issue dealt with by the Ramba"m, who wrote extensively on the issue.

As to battlefield ethics in these situations, my gut tells me to go to this footnote in Dr. Broyde's article, and follow on

32. The question of who is "innocent" in this context is difficult to quantify precisely. One can be a pursuer in situations where the law does not label one a "murderer" in Jewish law; thus a minor (Sanhedren 74b), and according to most authorities, an unintentional murderer both may be killed to prevent the loss of life of another. So too, it would appear reasonable to derive from Maimonides' rule that one who directs the murder even though he does not directly participate in it is a murderer, may be killed. So too, it appears that one who assists in the murder, even if they are not actually participating in it directly is not "innocent"; see comments of Maharal M'Prague on Genesis 32. From this Maharal one could derive that any who encourage this activity fall within the rubric of one who is a combatant. Thus, typically all soldiers would be defined as "combatants." It would appear difficult, however, to define "combatant" as opposed to "innocent" in all combat situations with a general rule; each military activity requires its own assessment of what is needed to wage this war and what is not. (For example, sometimes the role of medical personal is to repair injured troops so that they can return to the front as soon as possible and sometimes medical personal's role is to heal soldiers who are returning home, so as to allow these soldiers a normal civilian life.)

Does it really matter "why they really hate us"?

Given, that "they really hate us", then what? What do we do? Do we try to appease them? Seems not to work. Do we threaten them? Maybe they already hate us because we threaten them. Do we invade them? Doesn't seem to work - they flee someplace else.

Pre-emptive invasion doesn't seem to work, as we see right now in Iraq. Also, there's just no end to pre-emptive war. Having subdued one foe you find one elsewhere. Pretty soon you're overextended and collapse internally.

Or do we bottle up the bad guys so they can do little. Treat them like common criminals, not brave soldiers. Isolate them. Prosecute. Bar them from entering the society of non-criminals.

Or would that take too much money and perhaps restrict our luxurious lifestyles?

Maybe those America-haters are like some kinds of skin cancer: leave it alone and it's benign, but scratch it and it spreads non-benignly throughout the body.

Of course it matters why.

It also matters who "They" are.

The way the next president chooses to address this "why" and "who" will determine US foreign policy, the rest of the world's view of us, and the future of all humans.

Why does it matter why? If we knew why, would we be any better able to deal with it? OBL said he wanted the USA out of Saudi Arabian holy land, and it looked about right when we pulled out of SA and his attacks on the USA stopped, even when GWB failed to pursue OBL and kill or capture him.

But our politicians lied and said he was put up to it by Saddam Hussein, and the gullible among us fell for the lie. So now we're embroiled in the Iraq revolution, with no side favorable to us to ally with.

It appears to be no value to us to know why. We use acts as justification for crazy moves on our part.

OBL may not have checked his Q'ran lately, because Riyadh and Ramadi are not the Saudi Arabian Holy Land by any stretch of the imagination. Not all of Saudi Arabia is holy, only Mecca and Medina. And as I understand it he'd also like to get the Saudis out of there.

Dave

I suspect Dave is at least half kidding, but in the Pulitzer-Prize winning book [and must read] The Looming Tower, there is an excellent account of OBL's changing perspective on the US-troops-in-Arabia matter, before, during and after the first Gulf War. He and others believed that the Prophet's words on his deathbed, "Let there be no two religions in Arabia," meant all non-Muslims should be expelled from the entire peninsula.

And they believed that once admitted, the US soldiers would never leave, that it would be a permanent occupation. "...Saudis were mortified by the need to turn to Christians and Jews to defend the holy land of Islam. That many of these foregn soldiers were women only added to their embarrassment. The weakness of the Saudi state and its abject dependence on the West for protection were paraded before the world..."

Of course, he was overruled by the royal family and eventually moved to Sudan. It was a while before his bitterness got focused into the possibility of military strikes against the US as a course of action. It's well worth your time to check all this out.

And as for Bliffle's "why does it matter why?" I can only throw up my hands. We all know so little about this subject. We need to keep learning as much as we can. The ignorance of even well-informed Americans is appalling. And when we don't know something, we guess at the answers and make bad decisions based on the guessing. This is the story of the Bush debacle.

Dave,

I think you missed it as well.

They don't hate us. They fear us.

"...military strikes"? Isn't that an egregious overstatement?

Looked like simple piracy and murder, to me. Why glamorize such criminality as "military strikes", except to cover one's embarrassment. In any case, why not run the criminals down and prosecute them? Couldn't have been more than a couple dozen of them. Shouldn't take a trillion dollars.

You don't suppose that GWB had to lay off OBL to get Pakistans support to invade Saddam Hussein?

What a mess! We can only hope that the idiots in DC sober up from their Kool-aid induced drunkenness and come to their senses.

Zedd, it is possible to hate and fear someone at the same time.

They don't hate us. They fear us.

I'd be pretty comfortable did I actually think that were the case.

dave

`as for Bliffle's "why does it matter why?" I can only throw up my hands. We all know so little about this subject. We need to keep learning as much as we can. The ignorance of even well-informed Americans is appalling. And when we don't know something, we guess at the answers and make bad decisions based on the guessing.

We've all been given Time to learn "why" - and some of us have even picked up an intelligent notion or two. But as is usual with many human endeavors, we have not figured out Who gave us the Time to learn, or the Lesson to be learned, and therefore, have not got a clue as to what is going on. We are as ignorant now as we were in 1989 when the Wall in Berlin began to fall, and the reality of seventy years collapsed in front of our faces.

I have the distinct feeling that the Teacher will soon be rapping the Class into order - and we shall have the Lesson shoved down our throats, whether we would desire it or not.

That low rapping I hear - kind of like a bird flapping and landing - sounds like the Teacher's Hickory being Rapped against the Table....

Listen closely....

Dave, Doc,

If we are trying to understand the matter, its useless to start at "it's because THEY HATE US".

"They hate me" or "they are just jealous of me" is never a good place to start when trying to resolve a relational issue.

Fear can cause responses that are really odd in human beings. Being a Black person I have first hand knowledge of that. We are and have been feared by Whites for several decades. The result has been devastating. Their fear and paranoia caused unwarranted retaliation and an avalanche of a mess including the self fulfilling prophesy that is at play currently.

The fear of our encroachment has propelled these groups to counterstrike. Yes the momentum is spurred on by propaganda and propaganda invokes emotion. In most cases it propagates fear of the opponent. That fear leads to hatred of the opponent. But the starting point is fear.

What you confuse for a desire for power, I see as a desire for respect. Our brash and well documented arrogance has caused alarm. Much as if we thought that our world and way of life was going to end, they are scared. They don't welcome a demise of their way. We are calling for it. We are overlooking the fact that there are millions and millions of them and they like themselves and their way. We disrespect their humanity and talk about them as if they are not "in the room".