Blogcritics Comments on Yes, You Really ARE Encouraging the Terrorists

Comment by STM on Yes, You Really ARE Encouraging the Terrorists

Fri, 4 Apr 2008 03:16:40 EDT

Bliff, The regime in Teheran is very unpopular with the locals right now. Educated Iranians, and there a lot of them, have really had it up to their foreheads with the current administration but it's not likely they'll have a huge opportunity to change it. And the last thing they want to do is have their country meddling in situations that might get it in hot water. It's all cyclical ... just when things seem like they're easing off a bit, you get a silly bugger like Ahma-bin-a-bad come along, whose strings are being pulled by some of the more radical or conservatibve mullahs, which drowns out the voices of those Shia clerics and administrators given to a tad more moderation. Also, the US gets blamed a lot for stuff that it doesn't really have that much of a hand in - beyond what you'd expect of any country trying to protect its own interests. Americans, while not always free of blame, have nevertheless been made the scapegoat too often for situations that are wholly created by those doing the criticising. Old trick: It serves to distract the locals, but in Iran right now, they're awake up to that. Maybe it's time we in the west accepted that notion too - up to a point. Truth is, nothing's that black and white. My experience is that Dave, for all his smoke and mirrors posturing on occasion, is not always wrong as a matter of course either, especially about the middle-east - a subject on which we both have more than a passing interest. He's also right in that the Shah's regime, whilst somewhat heavy-handed with certain sections of the populace determined to have Iran returned to the middle-ages, brought prosperity to the country - and not all of it to be just enjoyed by the ruling elite.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Yes, You Really ARE Encouraging the Terrorists

Fri, 4 Apr 2008 02:29:00 EDT

Bliffle, the Shah's regime made Iranians happy, prosperous and educated. It didn't set them against us, it just gave the fanatics an excuse to make us into the 'great satan' they needed to use as the target for the hate of the outsider that drives most totalitarian movements. Go talk to an educated Iranian who lived under the Shah sometime. They're easy to find, most of them live here in the US now. Dave

Comment by bliffle on Yes, You Really ARE Encouraging the Terrorists

Fri, 4 Apr 2008 02:12:13 EDT

Spin spin spin. Can't stand to let Carter get his little bit of credit. It was Eisenhower who OKed the 1953 coup against Mossadegh. that's what set the Iranians against us. You cite the Time magazine? Is that how low you've sunk for citations, a stupid pop magazine founded by Henry Luce?

Comment by Dave Nalle on Yes, You Really ARE Encouraging the Terrorists

Tue, 1 Apr 2008 14:49:12 EDT

Bliff, at the time of the settlement most of the credit was rightly given to Begin and Arafat who were joint men-of-the-year on the Time cover, not to Carter. Carter gave away the Panama canal and made Iran the theocratic disaster it is today. Those far outweigh being in the white house at the right time to take part of the credit for Sadat and Begin working things out. Dave

Comment by bliffle on Yes, You Really ARE Encouraging the Terrorists

Tue, 1 Apr 2008 05:59:10 EDT

Some nitwit said: "If there were a Nobel anti-peace prize it should go to Jimmy Carter for his naively incompetent foreign policy." This non-fan of Jimmy Carter must point out that Carter negotiated the Israel-Egypt peace, which endures to this day. For all of Condi Rices huffing and puffing she's been unable to accomplish anything similar.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Yes, You Really ARE Encouraging the Terrorists

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 00:30:56 EDT

Bliffle, since it didn't happen that way, what do you expect me to have except 'guesswork'. Never mind that the 'guesswork' is supported by numerous prior examples of similar situations, and every element of logic and statements from people in positions of leadership in Iraq, including among the insurgents. As for Chalabi, this is clearly what folks at the Pentagon and CIA had in mind for him before the invasion and that plan getting overriden by the administration. Sure, Chalabi was a lying scumbag, but how does that disqualify him as a puppet dictator? Dave

Comment by bliffle on Yes, You Really ARE Encouraging the Terrorists

Mon, 24 Mar 2008 14:10:19 EDT

One must laugh at mention of the name "Chalabi". Some people never let go.

Comment by bliffle on Yes, You Really ARE Encouraging the Terrorists

Mon, 24 Mar 2008 14:07:06 EDT

All guesswork. : "If he had preserved the army and replaced Saddam with Chalabi or Allawi as a new 'president' backed by the existing Iraqi army we'd have peace in Iraq now, minimal US military presence and they'd probably have been able to hold some sort of semi-legit election in the time that's passed."

Comment by Dave Nalle on Yes, You Really ARE Encouraging the Terrorists

Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:24:02 EDT

It's surprising to me that among 1400 Iraqis one could find a statistically significant number whose willingness to kill Americans is based on what they read in American papers. I think you're misreading the paper a bit if that's what you're coming up with. First off, the media they are exposed to is primarily in video form or on the internet. They have satellite dishes and internet access is widespread. Even with all the chaos it is one of the most active telecommunications markets in the middle east. Second, they didn't get responses where people said they would go out and commit acts of terrorism, they got responses where people said that some terrorist acts were justified. Not at all the same thing. If there are so many so disposed, then the inherent opposition to the US Invasion must be much greater than is usually admitted by the administration. I've written on this before, and if you want sources for this, go find my prior articles on Iraqi public opinion. To summarize public opinion in Iraq, it goes like this. Most people agree that the invasion was a good thing when asked that question. About an equal number agree that the ongoing presence of US troops is a bad thing. But at the same time a similar majority believe that the ongoing presence of US troops is necessary until their government is stable and can stand on its own. A significant minority also believe that terrorism against foreigners is justifiable so long as they are in the country. So paradoxically there must be a signficiant portion of the population who both want the US troops there and support them, but also expect them to get hit by terrorists and think that's a good thing. One would think, then, that a prudent US President contemplating invasion of a foreign country would take that into account when weighing his decision. Especially after reflecting on past wars. If you read the polls at the time of the invasion, a large majority of Iraqis supported the invasion. Bush was not wrong on that score. If he had preserved the army and replaced Saddam with Chalabi or Allawi as a new 'president' backed by the existing Iraqi army we'd have peace in Iraq now, minimal US military presence and they'd probably have been able to hold some sort of semi-legit election in the time that's passed. The rush to democratize the country and dismantle the old army was idealistic idiocy. Dave

Comment by bliffle on Yes, You Really ARE Encouraging the Terrorists

Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:36:15 EDT

"The paper is a brief but thorough statistical analysis based on data from neutral sources and on direct interviews with about 1,400 Iraqis in major urban areas." It's surprising to me that among 1400 Iraqis one could find a statistically significant number whose willingness to kill Americans is based on what they read in American papers. If there are so many so disposed, then the inherent opposition to the US Invasion must be much greater than is usually admitted by the administration. One would think, then, that a prudent US President contemplating invasion of a foreign country would take that into account when weighing his decision. Especially after reflecting on past wars. But we know that Bush is neither prudent or aware of past wars, except for the vaguest notions, perhaps gleaned from watching History Channel reruns of WW2 glories.

Comment by REMF on Yes, You Really ARE Encouraging the Terrorists

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:23:29 EDT

^ From CBS News: "The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has increased the number of terrorist groups worldwide and "made the overall terrorism problem worse," a U.S. intelligence official said in a secret study. The assessment of the war's impact on terrorism came in a National Intelligence Estimate that represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government, CBS News learned Sunday. CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante reports that the intelligence report contained some broad conclusions: **The U.S. presence in Iraq is providing new recruits for militant Islam. **The movement has spread and is now "self-generating." **While inspired by al Qaeda, the radical movement is no longer directly tied to Osama bin Laden. **Because of the Internet, the radical Islamist movement is more connected and no longer isolated. The details of the Intelligence Estimate were first published in Sunday's New York Times and Washington Post." (Sept. 26, 2006, cbsnews.com)

Comment by RJ Elliott on Yes, You Really ARE Encouraging the Terrorists

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 01:51:03 EDT

"all of which have multiplied twenty-fold since our invasion of Iraq." Cite for that "twenty-fold" figure? Or just your usual bullshit? [edited]

Comment by Pablo on Yes, You Really ARE Encouraging the Terrorists

Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:45:20 EDT

HOW CUTE DAVEY BOY

Comment by Pablo on Yes, You Really ARE Encouraging the Terrorists

Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:08:09 EDT

Dave, I am still waiting for you to renounce terrorism and those of YOU that are encouraging it.

Comment by bliffle on Yes, You Really ARE Encouraging the Terrorists

Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:00:59 EDT

If, after 9/11, we had chased down the perpetrators, presumably OBL, swiftly and purposely, the extant terrorist threat would have been diminished or arrested. But using 9/11 as an excuse to bully Saddam was seen as cynical and deceitful around the world. THAT, coupled with Gitmo and Abu Graib, is what draws recruits to terrorism. The biggest encouragers of terrorism are Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc., and their apologists like the war team at BC.

Comment by Pablo on Yes, You Really ARE Encouraging the Terrorists

Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:26:37 EDT

Um Dave, you said: "I'll leave you to revel in your dark love for David Rockefeller. I think he WAS a strange and twisted individuall, but he certainly WASN'T a socialist." I have some startling news for ya Davey boy. Mr. David Rockefeller IS still very much alive and kickin. I just thought you might want to know that if your going to write an article on Globalism as he is arguably the biggest and richest proponent of it. Heres another quote for ya, you might want to even incorporate it into your article! "Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." - From Rockefeller's "Memoirs", (p.405). Kind of hard to take that particular quote out of context there Davey boy, don't ya think? Also from a recent book entitled "Trading Truth for a "Social Gospel" by Berit Kjos "In 1907, Rauschenbusch met with the leaders of Fabian socialism in England, Sidney Webb and Beatrice Potter Webb. Unlike impatient Marxist revolutionaries, the methodical Fabians emphasized peaceful transformation through propaganda and infiltration of universities, seminaries and churches. Through the years, this socialist movement grew to include Bertrand Russell, H. G. Wells (who wrote Open Conspiracy), playwright George Bernard Shaw, Sinclair Lewis, Theosophical leader Annie Besant, and the Communist leader Harry Dexter White who worked with Alger Hiss to establish the United Nations.[10] It spread through Western nations -- thanks, in part, to liberal churches that preached its message as if backed by the authority of God. As you saw in Part 1, the Rockefellers and other powerful "change agents" fueled this movement. Their funding would sway universities, seminaries, and churches from coast to coast. It supported psycho-social research through Hitler's eugenics program, through London's Tavistock Institute, and through various American Universities and institutions. This new "science" would raise propaganda, persuasion, and mind control to ever more sophisticated levels." Sure hes not a socialist Dave, and theres an Easter Bunny too Bucko. I suggest if your going to do an article on Globalism and its proponents you at least do your homework, or I will have a field day with you. I can't wait!

Comment by Dave Nalle on Yes, You Really ARE Encouraging the Terrorists

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:59:06 EDT

I'll leave you to revel in your dark love for David Rockefeller. I think he was a strange and twisted individuall, but he certainly wasn't a socialist. He just saw it as a way to organize labor to the benefit of international capitalism. But then you're not much of a fan of capitalism on that scale, right? You remind me that I need to finish up my article outlining the two kinds of globalism and the differences between them. Dave

Comment by Pablo on Yes, You Really ARE Encouraging the Terrorists

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:42:02 EDT

Oh and Dave? On the subject of Socialism, of the more virulent variety, Communism. I would like to remind you of what David Rockyfeller said in 1973. You know David, Dave, that socialist. Founder of the Trilateral Commission, biggest wig at the CFR, attendee of most Bilderberg meeting of the last 50 years, and the USA's chief resident Globalist. He said: "Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose.... The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history." -David Rockefeller, 1973 Cute huh? Gotta love that Rocky!!

Comment by Pablo on Yes, You Really ARE Encouraging the Terrorists

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:20:12 EDT

Dave, you said: "Pablo, you really do exist in a realm largely divorced" from THE reality which the rest of us occupy." Thank you sir, I could not have expressed it more elequently than you have, without seeming egostistical. I wholeheartedly agree with your appraisal of me in this particular post.

Comment by Pablo on Yes, You Really ARE Encouraging the Terrorists

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:13:09 EDT

If you say so Dave, keep on encouraging the terrorists, great!

Comment by Dave Nalle on Yes, You Really ARE Encouraging the Terrorists

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:27:02 EDT

Pablo, you really do exist in a realm largely divorced from the reality which the rest of us occupy. You're so obsessed with made-up conspiracies that you don't see the real conspiracy of the transnational socialist elite whose agenda you promote every day as a willing dupe. Dave

Comment by Pablo on Yes, You Really ARE Encouraging the Terrorists

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:37:24 EDT

I still hope very much that Dave will stop encouraging terrorism by aplologizing to the Iraqi people for the acts of our government, in killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, and setting up torture chambers in that country. This in my opinion is what has led to the increase in terrorists in that country, some would call them freedom fighters, or people protecting their homeland (homeland security), however you want to label them it is caused mostly by people that supported entering an illegal pre-emptive war that has caused nothing but mayhem, death, injury and a loss of our honor worldwide. Please Dave denounce this atrocity for what it is, and do not encourage terrorism anymore!!

Comment by REMF on Yes, You Really ARE Encouraging the Terrorists

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:11:48 EDT

"I mean, there are thousands of them, who trained in terrorist camps in Afghanistan, Sudan, and elsewhere (mostly during the Clinton years). And they have literally millions of sympathizers across the Islamic world, many of whom donate to "charities" that are really just front groups than funnel money to al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist cells." Uh-huh, and all of which have multiplied twenty-fold since our invasion of Iraq. -------------------------- "Killing Osama would be nice, of course. But it won't "win" the war. Anyone who makes such a claim simply does not understand the radical Islamic movement." Staying at home won't "win" the "war" either, it's going to take getting up from the computer and heading down to the recruiter's office. And anyone who claims this is an actual "war" simply doesn't understand global urban terrorism.

Comment by handyguy on Yes, You Really ARE Encouraging the Terrorists

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:42:02 EDT

Bin Laden is mostly a symbol. His death would carry mostly symbolic weight. Some would see him as a martyr and it might give his ideas even more appeal. But I don't believe most of the right-wingers on here "understand" radical Islam any better than anyone else. Quite the opposite in several cases. Several of the lefties too. As a whole, we Americans are all rather pitifully ignorant and tend to bloviate at the drop of a hat. We should read a lot more before asserting too much. I am glad to see Dave at least give some lip service to the value of propaganda and diplomacy in battling the jihadists. The militarist approach of the Bushies was almost entirely wrongheaded from the start, based on emotion rather than a long-term view of consequences. And all of this is mostly tangential to Iraq anyway, and vice versa.

Comment by RJ Elliott on Yes, You Really ARE Encouraging the Terrorists

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:10:16 EDT

"Had we pursued OBL and settled that issue in 2001-2002 we would probably have finished off the terrorist threat ..." Does anyone seriously believe that killing Osama would mean that all the Islamic extremist terrorists disappear? I mean, there are thousands of them, who trained in terrorist camps in Afghanistan, Sudan, and elsewhere (mostly during the Clinton years). And they have literally millions of sympathizers across the Islamic world, many of whom donate to "charities" that are really just front groups than funnel money to al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist cells. Killing Osama would be nice, of course. But it won't "win" the war. Anyone who makes such a claim simply does not understand the radical Islamic movement.