Support NeoGAF

[APF]

The only reason your point stands is because you're picking domestic terrorist actions from groups who disagree with domestic policies that American society to varying degrees has decided to adopt (white supremaists etc) in which case the greviance is judged to be incompatible with the kind of society that Americans want no matter how much study is put into the terrorist motives.

Abortion is still very much a hot-button issue in this country. Your example of Black Nationalists supports to an extent what I'm saying--they delegitimized the cause they were supposedly fighting for, in the minds of many. Morover, to the best of my knowledge (little) they were a militant and criminal group; most of their conflicts were with the authorities: police, FBI, etc.

However if we are to take your position we'd need to assert that the cause of terrorists is ultimately more inline with the goals and ideals of the United States than is reflected by our current society, which is an extremely hard argument to defend IMO. Of course, it wouldn't be so difficult if, like Martin Luther King, there were nonviolent defenders of their cause who were able to show for example, the moral necessity of an Islamist Caliphate, the elimination of Western influence from the middle-east, the genocide of Jews/Israelis, the regression of modernization and reform movements in those countries, etc. Not to mention that person would have to be pretty convincing to make the US want to support Islamist conflicts around the world.

[EDIT: I should not that I'm not advocating not understanding where your enemies are coming from, as should be obvious from my own attempts to understand where they're coming from. I'm arguing another point entirely--about keeping perspective and not acting as apologists for terrorist actions because you may agree with one of their stated propaganda points--that few people here seem to understand the importance of.]

 

[DCharlie]

"Lehrer: "What about the additional element here that...increasingly, terrorist experts and Muslim experts are saying that the combination of Iraq and other foreign policy decisions by the United States are actually creating more terrorists everyday than they are eliminating?"

Rice: "When are we going to stop making excuses for the terrorists? The terrorists on September 11th, attacked the United States. We weren't in Iraq. ..."

Lehrer : answer the fucking question for FUCKSAKE. ARE THE ACTIONS OF THE US (INCLUDING PRE-9/11) RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING MORE TERRORIST? JUST FUCKING ANSWER THE QUESTION! *Draws out gun* I'M FUCKING SERIOUS HERE, DONT FUCK ME ABOUT. ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION OR I'LL BE DECORATING THE SET WITH AN INTERESTING NEW SHADE OF RED CALLED "HINT OF BRAIN"....

 

[fart]

out of 101 posts i think you're the first person to point out (quite rightly) that she didn't actually answer the question.

100 posts and we've moved foward about a micrometer.

 

[APF]

out of 101 posts i think you're the first person to point out (quite rightly) that she didn't actually answer the question.

100 posts and we've moved foward about a micrometer.

Hello? Her answer was no. Here's the quote: "No, these are simply evil people who want to kill. And they want to kill in the name of a perverted ideology that really is not Islam, but they somehow want to claim that mantle to say that this is about some kind of grievance. This isn't about some kind of grievance. This is an effort to destroy, rather than to build."

[EDIT: You even used this in your initial post! WTF are you talking about?]

 

[Azih]

Your example of Black Nationalists supports to an extent what I'm saying--they delegitimized the cause they were supposedly fighting for, in the minds of many. Morover, to the best of my knowledge (little) they were a militant and criminal group; most of their conflicts were with the authorities: police, FBI, etc.

You are missing the point, which was nothing more than the refutation of your contention that the causes of domestic terrorism are never studied to the point of analysing and assessing their grievances.

And you're also missing the crux of my argument with the black panthers which was that nobody 'gave in' to the Black Panthers, but the legitmate grievances of Black America that caused the Panthers to flourish were to a large degree adressed (especially vis a vis segregation). Black Americans were the important people here, and with thier victories won the extreme fringe that the Panthers represented disappeared. Lunatic psycopaths on the far edge of any spectrum are never going to be appeased, but the *legitimate* complaints of the society that they are the most violent members of can be, and should be.

However if we are to take your position we'd need to assert that the cause of terrorists is ultimately more inline with the goals and ideals of the United States than is reflected by our current society

What are you talking about? My position is that Ms Rice's assertion that 'they are evil. The End.' is dumb dumb dumb and the reasoning behind terror has to be studied.

Of course, it wouldn't be so difficult if, like Martin Luther King, there were nonviolent defenders of their cause who were able to show for example, the moral necessity of an Islamist Caliphate, the elimination of Western influence from the middle-east, the genocide of Jews/Israelis, the regression of modernization and reform movements in those countries, etc. Not to mention that person would have to be pretty convincing to make the US want to support Islamist conflicts around the world.

Oh dear lord. I have no idea if this is extreme xenophobia/paranoia or just malicous slander, but what they hey I've got half an hour to kill.

First off nobody has ever said that *Al-Qaeda* types are to be appeased, what I said (and what you twisted out of recognition) was that the legitimate grievances of the Arab and Muslim world should be addressed. Not the same thing. Note the similarity to what I said about the Black Panthers/Black America. Black America complaints about how America was treating them were addressed, the Black Panther demands weren't given in to. The same exact thing applies here.

And holy hell where the hell did you miss the point of my stating *legitmate* grievances? The things you're spouting are an extreme version of the lunatic fringe of AL QAEDA and you're stating them like that's goal one.

The furthest an extremist rant from the Muslim/Arab world gets is wanting Jews completey out of the Middle East (and that is getting to an extremely small number of extremists, most everbody would be completely overjoyed by a return to the 1967 border). Where the hell are you getting genocide?

as for

'the elimination of Western influence from the middle-east, the regression of modernization and reform movements in those countries, etc'

when did you forget that American foreign policy was the question that started off this thread? These things cause Islamists to blow up and kill their countrymen and tourists in their own countries. They don't have anything to do with attacking targets in the West.

And who the hell ever said that Islamists wanted U.S support? Were the hell are you pulling these arguments from?

 

[APF]

You are missing the point, which was nothing more than the refutation of your contention that the causes of domestic terrorism are never studied to the point of analysing and assessing their grievances.

You missed my point, which was, I don't know if Black Nationalists were really terrorists as opposed to militant groups; that if they were appropriately labeled as terrorist organizations, their terrorism delegitimized the cause of non-violent advocates of the civil rights movement; and that IMO it still would have been reprehensible for MLK to say, "if you weren't racists no one would have to die." Although I would also add that the history of Black-White relations in this country are completely different than the dynamic we're discussing viv American foreign policy in the ME; at the weakest, we're just the inheriters of colonial policy there, and are suffering its effects by nature of the interweaving of post-colonial history and world events.

What are you talking about? My position is that Ms Rice's assertion that 'they are evil. The End.' is dumb dumb dumb and the reasoning behind terror has to be studied.

Well ok, but you're arguing against me, not Rice. That's your problem here. You're either not paying attention to what I am saying or you're inputing a lot more content--content of a partisan flailing to defend Rice against your attacks, or some other straw man--than I am actually offering.

Oh dear lord. I have no idea if this is extreme xenophobia/paranoia or just malicous slander, but what they hey I've got half an hour to kill.

Oh get off your horse. I don't think I've addressed you with anything other than an honest consideration of your words (although that's gonna change), so don't give me this fuckass superior bullshit.

First off nobody has ever said that *Al-Qaeda* types are to be appeased

Then stop arguing with me.

And holy hell where the hell did you miss the point of my stating *legitmate* grievances? The things you're spouting are an extreme version of the lunatic fringe of AL QAEDA and you're stating them like that's goal one.

Yeah, THE TERRORISTS. That's who I'm talking about, the people who are committing acts of terrorism. Remember them? We're talking about terrorists here. T-E-R-R-O-R-I-S-T-S. You're talking about propaganda points they use to garner sympathy. I'm talking about their actual goals and motivations.

The furthest an extremist rant from the Muslim/Arab world gets is wanting Jews completey out of the Middle East (and that is getting to an extremely small number of extremists, most everbody would be completely overjoyed by a return to the 1967 border). Where the hell are you getting genocide?

From here? I disagree with your "furthest" point.

when did you forget that American foreign policy was the question that started off this thread? These things cause Islamists to blow up and kill their countrymen and tourists in their own countries. They don't have anything to do with attacking targets in the West.

NO. The motivations and grievances of AQ-affiliated terrorist groups was underlying the question posed to Rice, her response, and the start of this thread. Did you even read the interview, or do you just jump on soundbytes and people who dare to post their reflections?

And who the hell ever said that Islamists wanted U.S support? Were the hell are you pulling these arguments from?

Stop reading more into what I am saying, than what I am actually saying. My point was that AQ as a group provides support to Islamist conflicts around the world, and my hypothetical Islamist MLK would have a hard time convincing people in the US of the moral imperative of agreeing with that position.

 

[FightyF]

But it's a parochial line of reasoning to suppose that all bad, or all good, comes from the West - and a racist one to boot...Islamism stops being an ideology intent on building an empire from Andalusia to Indonesia, destroying democracy and subjugating women and becomes, by the magic of parochial reasoning, a protest movement on a par with Make Poverty History or the TUC.

Again, I understand the appeal. Whether you are brown or white, Muslim, Christian, Jew or atheist, it is uncomfortable to face the fact that there is a messianic cult of death which, like European fascism and communism before it, will send you to your grave whatever you do. But I'm afraid that's what the record shows."

This guy is totally off base. "Islamism" isn't really a concept that exists in the Islamic World.

It only exists in the West in the mind of Neo-Con think tanks.

"Suicide bombing cannot be explained by poverty and disadvantage. The London bombers were not the wretched of the earth. They came from working-class but comfortable backgrounds, living in one of the world's most prosperous countries. For all the talk of their being marginalized, none were living in hellish ghettos. Britain today does a decent job of assimilating its immigrants, certainly better than any other European country. If anyone had cause for rage, it was not the bombers but their parents. Muslim migrants from Pakistan (in three cases), they arrived in Britain in less multicultural times. They were dirt-poor and probably ostracized and persecuted. And yet they did not become murderers; they started fish-and-chips shops."

This Zakaria guy misses the point. These people aren't fighting for themselves.

Zakaria goes on to address foreign policy:
"Nor can foreign policy really explain such rage. The invasion of Iraq clearly has greatly enraged many Muslims, radicalizing some deeply. But can a disagreement over foreign policy really make a Briton like Germaine Lindsay, who had never even visited Iraq, kiss his pregnant wife and child goodbye and go out and blow himself and others up? There is something deeper at work here. Last week Egypt, which sent no troops to Iraq and condemned the invasion, was targeted. Turkey and Indonesia—which are both opponents of the war—have also been attacked. (Besides, the demands keep changing. Osama bin Laden's primary one was that American troops leave Saudi Arabia, which they have done. Bin Laden seems not to have noticed."

It does explain the rage. Look at the second attempted bombing in London and the motive.

Rice is completely wrong in her answer. The interviewer was right, and she tried to avoid his point.

The fact that she doesn't want to seriously address the fact that the US's reaction to terrorism is creating more terrorism, means that the US will never win this war, until another more serious Administration is in office.

Her comment about them being evil...well yes, they are committing evil acts, even according to their own religion. In Islam, suicide is forbidden. Why does it happen? Because a few low-level scholars made the fatwa (religious verdict) that the ends justify the means.

Rice was also wrong in explaining why terrorism exists. She claims that since they were neither in Iraq nor Afghanistan prior to 9/11, that the terrorists had no reason to attack the US other than the claim that they are "evil and want to kill". It's obvious to anyone that the 9/11 targets were of a political nature, and that the goal was to create terror and panic within the US. It's obvious that greviences the terrorist had were made very vocal and apparent since '98.

It's her kind of reasoning and complacency that allowed 9/11 to occur. To ignore the warning sings, to ignore threats from terrorists allow these types of things to happen.

With this kind of reasoning, terrorism will never be defeated.

 

[Mandark]

I think this is what APF's point boils down to:

"Maybe US foreign policy has increased the number of terrorists. However, people shouldn't say this out loud, because it implies the terrorists are right. 'Implies' means I get to pretend they meant something they obviously didn't so I can set up my straw man. If you have to say this stuff out loud, be extremely polite, because my delicate feelings are more important than sapping away support from terrorist organizations."

I'm pretty sure I could prove this, given the proper equipment.

 

[Shinobi]

Honestly I'm not sure what APF is saying anymore...he appears to be saying that one who understands and agrees with some of the motives behind Al-Qaeda's actions automatically agrees with and justifies those actions, which is obviously ridiculous. But maybe I'm misreading it.

Lehrer : answer the fucking question for FUCKSAKE. ARE THE ACTIONS OF THE US (INCLUDING PRE-9/11) RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING MORE TERRORIST? JUST FUCKING ANSWER THE QUESTION! *Draws out gun* I'M FUCKING SERIOUS HERE, DONT FUCK ME ABOUT. ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION OR I'LL BE DECORATING THE SET WITH AN INTERESTING NEW SHADE OF RED CALLED "HINT OF BRAIN"....

:lol :lol :lol

 

[APF]

I'm saying there's a difference between saying terrorist organizations may use the invasion of Iraq as a recruiting point, and saying the invasion of Iraq is the cause of attacks in London, or in the US, etc.

 

[Shinobi]

Ah, okay. Well both are different, but I think Iraq has given these people another reason/excuse to launch attacks in the west. Perhaps if this situation had been cleaned up in a year or two as some people within the administration seemed to suggest it would be, the weight of that reasoning/excuse wouldn't be there. But the situation there just seems to be getting worse.

 

[tehrik-e-insaaf]

>>>"No, these are simply evil people who want to kill"

I seem to remember someone I met once in Egypt say that. He was referring to the American Military. He said "this military effort is the design of George W Bush, and he does not represent the beliefs or the convictions of the American people, he and his army are simply evil people who want to kill"

Maybe Rice and this guy should get together and be friends.

P.S.

Zakaria is an idiot. He was born to a diplomatic family with privilege. Every time I have dinner with the guy I think "where is the window in this ivory tower"?

 

[whytemyke]

>>>"No, these are simply evil people who want to kill"

I seem to remember someone I met once in Egypt say that. He was referring to the American Military. He said "this military effort is the design of George W Bush, and he does not represent the beliefs or the convictions of the American people, he and his army are simply evil people who want to kill"

Maybe Rice and this guy should get together and be friends.

P.S.

Zakaria is an idiot. He was born to a diplomatic family with privilege. Every time I have dinner with the guy I think "where is the window in this ivory tower"?

PPS... that'd be a good contest. Who's a scarier opponent, an angry black woman or an angry arab muslim?

I say the black woman. Muslims can't attack you after they die, so if they don't get you with the bomb strapped to their chest, it's done. Black women will haunt you til you acquiesce though... bomb or not.

 

[APF]

Ah, okay. Well both are different, but I think Iraq has given these people another reason/excuse to launch attacks in the west. Perhaps if this situation had been cleaned up in a year or two as some people within the administration seemed to suggest it would be, the weight of that reasoning/excuse wouldn't be there. But the situation there just seems to be getting worse.

Agreed. Also, if we had... oh I don't know, actually found stockpiles of WMDs? Then the operation would have been vindicated/seemed justified. As it is it ends up looking like some bizarre power grab that didn't quite work, at least in the eyes of the cynical...

 

[whytemyke]

Agreed. Also, if we had... oh I don't know, actually found stockpiles of WMDs? Then the operation would have been vindicated/seemed justified. As it is it ends up looking like some bizarre power grab that didn't quite work, at least in the eyes of the cynical...

...i don't think it looked very well in the eyes of the optimist or powerful, either.

 

[tehrik-e-insaaf]

I think the model people view Al-Qaeda with is incorrect.

AQ used to be more like a generic term for a conflicted group of private equity investors (some secular, some religious, some just nuts). I would argue that the broadscale adoption of the term "Al Qaeda" has brought to together various "investors" of terrorist activities in the post 9/11 era and collectively given them the branding power/prestige necessary to begin to identify situations where people are perceivably oppressed, and incite violence there.

The Britain thing was just waiting to happen. England is an extremely segregated society and many of the so-called "Pakis" are treated like utter crap. Probably one of the middle managers in AQ thought to himself "hey why don't I go encourage them to do something like bomb the subway, that will help my organization and give them the satisfaction of knowing their 'cry' was heard"

The sad thing is that the West is responding to the Islamic communities in their country by attempting to ostracize those Muslims who do not verbatim accept Western philosophy (they do this by appointing 'leaders' in the Muslim communities who are essentially agents of the West's cultural transformation agenda). As the Muslims who do not want to integrate (but harbour no ill will for their governments) experience more discrimination for being "backwards" in their beliefs (from within their own communities), they become more ripe for being picked off by some of the middle managers in AQ.

This same technique has since been exported to Islamic countries, and you see it everyday in non-Arab countries. When I go to Pakistan I see this crap. Self-appointed enlightened "liberal Muslims" talk about how having a beard is evil. In countries like India to refuse a drink is to be an extremist. I mean seriously, there needs to be a serious examination of why these activities are occurring, and merely casting them off into a category of "killers" or "evil people" is utterly stupid and only perpetuates the problem further.

 

[Drinky Crow]

Thanks for the insight, tehrik. It's good to hear from the other side of the fence, even if it makes us terrorist sympathizers in the eyes of folks like APF.

 

[APF]

...i don't think it looked very well in the eyes of the optimist or powerful, either.

You're a powerful optimist?

 

[Guileless]

I mean seriously, there needs to be a serious examination of why these activities are occurring, and merely casting them off into a category of "killers" or "evil people" is utterly stupid and only perpetuates the problem further.

Why is it utterly stupid to call homicidal religious zealots evil? And you have dinner with Fareed Zakaria? What exactly do you not like about him other than his family status?

 

[fart]

thanks tehrik. that was not only insightful, but a welcome window out of the suburban cul de sac level of discussion that dominates gaf.

ps,

i apologize in advance for guileless, APF, etc.

 

[tehrik-e-insaaf]

I meant to ask why is it that people have beards in Islamic countries? Why are women wearing the veil? The so-called "leaders" of these people condemn their own citizens for engaging in these activities, terming them terrorists/extremists, rather then understanding the influences and the reasoning behind why they express themselves in such a way. Not every Muslim who doesn't want alcohol in their society or doesn't believe in birth control is a terrorist, but they are being termed as such because of the ideological apartheid/war that is currently going on. To perpetually engage in this ridiculous "bucketing" of people is utterly stupid because it only drives people further towards (violent) extremes.

On Fareed Zakaria: My grand parents were in India and were very good friends with his family pre-partition (they were big-time politicians for the socialist parties, esp. Congress). I am "friends" with Fareed. He is more or less a close-minded moron who only sees the world through a lens of a brainwashed academic. He does not appreciate that people have views (or should have views) any different from Locke and Rousseau, and how those philosophies have evolved into modern liberal culture in America today. Hence, he is another "appointed leader" for cultural transformation, and people like him incite violence because of how they blindly ostracize people who he cannot seem to understand.

 

[APF]

As the Muslims who do not want to integrate (but harbour no ill will for their governments) experience more discrimination for being "backwards" in their beliefs (from within their own communities), they become more ripe for being picked off by some of the middle managers in AQ.

Your post adds an interesting color commentary, but since no one posting in this thread is trying to tell people not to wear beards--or that to do so would be "evil"--I'm not sure if your comments contrast with what anyone has been saying here.

Why should immigrants to a country not be expected to integrate into that country--or at least if they don't, why shouldn't those people at least be conscious of it? You're rhetorically trying to set up a no-win situation, where either non-integrated folks are committing crimes because they're disenfranchised, or pushback from crimes already committed are making folks disenfranchised and therefore committing their own crimes because they're not integrated.

 

[Mandark]

Why is it utterly stupid to call homicidal religious zealots evil?

Okay, I'm putting the answer in spoiler tags so that the people playing at home can have a chance to guess.

Spoiler

IT'S UTTERLY STUPID TO REFUSE TO ANALYZE WHAT CAUSES SOMETHING AS DANGEROUS AS TERRORISM.

If anyone still has questions, I'll explain a bit more, and use a popular 1980's family film to boot! But if you don't get it now, I don't like my chances of getting through.

 

[tehrik-e-insaaf]

The idea that full-scale integration is a necessary precursor to ending crimes/oppression is one of the reasons why problems exist. No matter the society and the people, integration always occurs on some level, however it occurs on a level that both sides are comfortable with. The problem in America is that integration is often forced which is 1) wrong because it suppresses dissent from the mainstream culture, and hurts creativity 2) an easy way to create segregation because both sides differentiate themselves in a way leading them further away from one another. This is the antithesis of the problem in Britain where 1) classist culture has created ghettos of people, those who are privileged and those who are not and 2) there is ineffective government hand in mediating between competing groups of people/cultures and serving as a forum for discussion.

Of course this problem is as old as time and there is no easy solution to it. I personally believe that by people merely casting off the "bearded ones" or "the veiled ones" or "the skullcap ones" as being extremists, one is unable to generate the positive discussions that are necessary for progress.

Just my 2 cents... I could be wrong... so please don't think I am trying to say the gospel truth or anything

 

[APF]

No matter the society and the people, integration always occurs on some level, however it occurs on a level that both sides are comfortable with.

I have no problem with the above, you're essentially asserting my own assumptions (also that full-scale integration is not necessary, or even desireable)

The problem in America is that integration is often forced

Howso is it forced? What does "forced" mean to you?

which is 1) wrong because it suppresses dissent from the mainstream culture, and hurts creativity

What, huh? How do you even express dissent, or know what constitutes valid, informed dissent, w/o being meaningfully integrated into the culture in some way?

2) an easy way to create segregation because both sides differentiate themselves in a way leading them further away from one another.

This is meaningless, because a lack of integration already implies an inherent segregation. We wouldn't be talking about "creating" segregation, because the segregation would by definition already be apparent. Also, how can you be further away from someone who isn't even a part of that culture or community in the first place? I don't think you're adequately phrasing what you mean here.

Of course this problem is as old as time and there is no easy solution to it. I personally believe that by people merely casting off the "bearded ones" or "the veiled ones" or "the skullcap ones" as being extremists, one is unable to generate the positive discussions that are necessary for progress.

But no one here is trying to do that.

 

[Guileless]

You have lost me tehrik. Condi Rice isn't talking about teetotalers, she's talking about the people who blew themselves up on the subway. You cannot drive them to any further extreme than voluntary suicide to cause indiscriminate mass murder.

The Netherlands is the most multicultural country in the history of human civilization and yet it still produced the man who killed Van Gough. Why do you think people immigrate to the West in the first place?

Mandark, do you want to have a substantive discussion or do you want to grandstand so the likes of fart and Fight for Freeform will quote you with emoticons? If it's the latter I can post another op-ed so you can show off your understanding of antonyms again.

 

[Shinobi]

Agreed. Also, if we had... oh I don't know, actually found stockpiles of WMDs? Then the operation would have been vindicated/seemed justified. As it is it ends up looking like some bizarre power grab that didn't quite work, at least in the eyes of the cynical...

Heh...count me in that group of cynics.

 

[Flynn]

Interesting development.

7/7 ringleader Haroon Rashid Aswat — arrested in Zambia on July 15 and allegedly arrested and released by Pakistan the week before that — was allowed to travel in and out of England before the bombings because he’s an MI6 asset.

 

[RoadStar]

you can always count on CBS on bring the light to the matter!

 

[Shinobi]

Interesting development.

......this is a hoax, right?

 

[Flynn]

......this is a hoax, right?

I don't think so. John Loftus is supposed to know what he's talking about.

 

[Azih]

Well ok, but you're arguing against me, not Rice. That's your problem here. You're either not paying attention to what I am saying or you're inputing a lot more content--content of a partisan flailing to defend Rice against your attacks, or some other straw man--than I am actually offering.

Well excuse me for attempting to stay on topic this whole time when you were running off in some other direction. To be clear then my contention that Rice's statements are (and I quote) 'dumb dumb dumb' is not being disputed by you?

Although I would also add that the history of Black-White relations in this country are completely different than the dynamic we're discussing viv American foreign policy in the ME; at the weakest, we're just the inheriters of colonial policy there

You're not seen as such because of the huge amount of aid that Israel recieves from the U.S. However this is a tangent that's headed off way into off topic land, so if you want to continue the thread it's better off via PM or new thread.

Oh get off your horse. I don't think I've addressed you with anything other than an honest consideration of your words (although that's gonna change), so don't give me this fuckass superior bullshit.

What superior bullshit? Your post reeked to me of xenophobia and paranoia (and I stated *why* I had that reaction for Pete's sake) therefore I stated as such. You're free to dispute my reasoning and/or my conclusion (as long as you give reasons why). Please do.

Then stop arguing with me.

Funny I thought we were having a discussion. To respond... Al-Qaeda doesn't need to be appeased But the LEGITIMATE GRIEVANCES that cause them to flourish DO need to be appeased. Your (and Rice's) belittling of that with your 'why are their motivations being studieeeed' completely shuts that down.

Yeah, THE TERRORISTS. That's who I'm talking about, the people who are committing acts of terrorism. Remember them? We're talking about terrorists here. T-E-R-R-O-R-I-S-T-S. You're talking about propaganda points they use to garner sympathy. I'm talking about their actual goals and motivations.

And what I've been stating for all this time is that those two things are INEXTRICABLY LINKED, the propoganda points (legitimate grievances) ARE a part and parcel of their actual goals and motiviations with the added caveat that they are the ones they use to freaking recruit because the rest of their community shares them (and rightly so since they are you know LEGITIMATE), it's when they have the ear of those who agree with the legitimate grievances that they convince some of them of the extreme stuff. The extreme stuff that you're stating as if it was goal one of the Average Ahmed on the street . Hell I went to the whole trouble of distinguishing between the legitmate and illegimate grievances and to have you just ignore that.... well it hurts. To quote from my FIRST DAMN POST

If the cause is legitimate then you resolve them and try to figure out why the issues festered for long enough to cause the violence, if it isn't then you head to millitary resolution. If (as is routinely the case) the greviances are an unholy tangle of legitmiate and illegitamate then you do both.

From here? I disagree with your "furthest" point.

Yes where it states

"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such

. What extremists want is Jews out of the Middle East what they do after that is frankly irrelevant to them (as long as they don't try to come back o'course). That is not genocide. What the legitimate moderates want is a return to as close to the 1967 borders with a viable contigous state left behind that isn't under an IDF thumb. Do you see the difference between the two positions? Do you see how the lack of the latter leads to openness to the former? And here's a bonus, do you see how the administration of the United States of America saying "NO GRIEVANCES" would lead the people who hold the second view to give serious consideration to AQs trump propoganda rhetoric of there being an American led Western war on Islam?

Now do you care to say why you're disagreeing or are you content with just typing 6 letters and leaving it at that?

NO. The motivations and grievances of AQ-affiliated terrorist groups was underlying the question posed to Rice, her response, and the start of this thread. Did you even read the interview, or do you just jump on soundbytes and people who dare to post their reflections?

I jump on anybody who I disagree with (ranging from my parents to random peeps on the net i.e yuo), don't take it so freaking personally. And yes I saw the whole interview. What you don't seem to get is that what I'm beginning from is that 'motivations and grievances of AQ-affiliated terrorist groups' and 'American foreign policy towards the Muslim world' ARE ONE AND THE SAME. And some of them are legitimate and some of them aren't. This is especially true in regards to the AQ types as they are the ones willing to blow up Western targets. The idjits that go after fellow muslim targets in muslim countries are a different kettle of motivations entirely.

Stop reading more into what I am saying, than what I am actually saying. My point was that AQ as a group provides support to Islamist conflicts around the world, and my hypothetical Islamist MLK would have a hard time convincing people in the US of the moral imperative of agreeing with that position.

And my response is that it doesn't even make sense to talk about an Islamist MLK. MLK was the voice of legitimate black grievance that was listened to, millitant black activists were the fringe (some of them lunatic) that became irrelevant when their legitimate grievances were addressed (because of the efforts of MLK) and their radical illegitmate extensions dropped by the wayside along with them. They are plenty of Muslim voices of legitimate grievance similar to MLK, too bad the Rician attitude of "THERE ARE NO GRIEVANCES, THEY ARE EVIL" makes it impossible to listen to them and in fact pushes the moderate legitimate grievance people towards sympathy for the extremist fringe because hey their legitimate grievances have just been stated NOT TO EXIST by the U.S Secretary of freaking State... Plus of course they're foreigners and overall Americans just aren't all that interested in what foreigners think so they never get heard.

 

[Mandark]

Guileless, I recognize that your feelings are very sensitive and it makes you feel bad when more people disagree with you than agree with you. However, I do not think this is significant enough for me to change the substance or style of my posts.

And now, to explain, veeeery slowly, the important points.

1) American taxpayers, by and large, should not be blown up. This assumption is shared by myself, the leadership of the two major political parties, and the captains of industry.

2) Condolleeza Rice, as Secretary of State of the United States of America, has a professional responsibility to do what is in her considerable power to prevent people like me from being pieces of steaming meat on a pavement.

3) As an open democracy, Rice will be questioned by the press and by citizens about the direction of US policy.

4) If she is asked whether US policy is making it more likely for people to be blown up or less likely, she is morally obligated to respond honestly. Acceptable answers are "No, because..." "Slightly, but this is offset by..." "We don't know but we're trying to figure out."

5) "But the terrorists are BAD!" is not an answer to this question. It would answer the question "Are the terrorists good or bad?" but this is not the question that was asked.

This is really simple. Some people have argued that US foreign policy has made it a target for terrorism, and/or increased the number of people willing to commit acts of terrorism. Personally, I think the arguments are fairly convincing.

And what counterarguments are presented?

Nick Cohen: "It's not true because I say so, and will read the minds of those who disagree with me! MIND-TAKER!!!"

Fareed Zakaria: "The bombing of a Hilton in Egypt, popular among British and Israeli visitors, shows that foreign policy can't be driving this."

Condi Rice: "But they're BAD!"

I don't want to get blown up. If my government is doing something that increases the number of people wanting to blow me up, I want it to stop. Or I want a really God damned good explanation of why it's good policy anyway. And if it's not, I want it to explain why it's not, and address the criticism.

Do YOU think American policy has increased or decreased the number of people willing to blow themselves up to kill Americans? Why?

 

[tehrik-e-insaaf]

.>>Howso is it forced? What does "forced" mean to you?

Forced mean there is a concerted effort by a group of people who consider themselves "superior" to "enlighten" those unlike them. These can be outsiders or people within the community the immigrants belong to. In both cases they can be filled with pressure and if people are not quick to adopt, they can be outcast. In the American Muslim community speaking Arabic is good and acceptable, speaking any Urdu is unacceptable and considered "cultural" - hence many South Asians such as myself feel pressured/forced to abandon my own language (Urdu) because I will be ostracized and called "backwards" for caring about my "evil/corrupt" culture. This is just one example, I would hope it would be obvious.

By the way, about the Arabic/Urdu issue, I believe the root of this is in Arab ethnocentrism that dominates American Islam, and the US Government and the media do a good job in making most important the power/relevance of Arab culture in places where it is not needed nor welcome.

>>>What, huh? How do you even express dissent, or know what constitutes valid, informed dissent, w/o being meaningfully integrated into the culture in some way?

1. Who are you to decide between valid/informed dissent versus bad dissent?
2. I already argued that some level of integration was inevitable/necessary that is a prerequisite for people even living in a particular area. I was merely commenting on the agendas of assimilation that can limit dissent or open-thinking. I think the topic of "origins of terrorism" is one of those issues. The problem is that there are a number of people who merely bucket any person engaging in activities that resonate of an image of "the terrorist" as also being "the terrorist." One of these could be, say, suggesting the non-seperation of Church and State. Many people instead of engaging this discussion thoughtfully will just discuss it as the rantings of an "evil terrorist" which hurts open thinking and thought even if the idea may not be a good one. It also sets a bad precedent and leads to an inability to encourage civilized/tolerant discussion (which makes it a ripe opportunity for organizations/groups/networks like AQ to exploit).

>>>This is meaningless, because a lack of integration already implies an inherent segregation. We wouldn't be talking about "creating" segregation, because the segregation would by definition already be apparent. Also, how can you be further away from someone who isn't even a part of that culture or community in the first place? I don't think you're adequately phrasing what you mean here.

The argument is that at times, forced integration can play a role in creating further segregation (both sides may become disillusioned and in their suspicions differentate themselves further, which one could argue is the reason for so many Islamist movements in the West). This is a very simple argument, I don't see why you are having difficulty understanding it.

>>>But no one here is trying to do that.

Are you even aware of what you are saying? My argument had to do with people within various communities who appoint themselves to the "all enlightened" role, and perhaps a select group of people within the current government and in other communities who exaggerate things like this. Please re-read my post with a little bit of an open mind and not with such a malicious intent!

Here is a bit of advice: I am not on any side. I am merely making observations and suggesting reasons for why things might be. Instead of considering me an "enemy" you have to argue to death at all costs, why don't you just try to engage in a meaningful dialogue? I seriously understand where you are coming from and for this reason I haven't criticized/negatively responded to you at all (instead of I am just throwing in my comments), but if you are going to engage in a discussion with me at least make an effort to understand the broader context in which I am stating my position rather than make it a "I MUST REDEEM MYSELF LEST I DIE WITHOUT ANY HONOR IN FRONT OF THIS TERRORIST SUPPORTING PIG"

Now if you want to reply to this message, instead of engaging in a line by line response picking at specific comments and hoping to get an edge, why not engage me on a fundamental level? Writing full sentences in paragraph format and attempting to capture the thesis in your reply instead of breaking everything down to individual words and prepositional phrases to pull a rabbit out of your hat is tougher, but I promise will be more useful and will also make me feel it is worth the time to engage you.

That said I don't think you will be replying with anything meaningful since I don't think you disagree but instead want to incite further debate for no particular reason. So I will be exiting this thread. Thanks!

Just my 2 cents... I could be wrong... But I think you should relax Cheers friend!

 

[APF]

What superior bullshit? Your post reeked to me of xenophobia and paranoia (and I stated *why* I had that reaction for Pete's sake) therefore I stated as such.

No. You assume that anyone who disagrees with the tone of the BS moral-equivalence, apologizing and excusing of terrorist attacks because people from other countries may have "legitimate" concerns about US foreign policy, is therefore xenophobic and paranoid. Your attitude is absurd. People in this forum are either zero or 100% with no reasonable middle-ground, and it's pathetic.

Al-Qaeda doesn't need to be appeased But the LEGITIMATE GRIEVANCES that cause them to flourish DO need to be appeased. Your (and Rice's) belittling of that with your 'why are their motivations being studieeeed' completely shuts that down.

No one said terrorists' motivations don't need to be studied, and neither of us spelled "studied" with so many 'e's. Nor has anyone said that the concerns people have over US foreign policy through the years should not be seriously addressed. What Rice said is that no one is forcing terrorists to attack the US, nor has the invasion of Iraq forced British-Pakistanis to attack London; the terrorists themselves are choosing to do so. You're creating a lot of straw men to attack both Rice and myself, and that's sad. Neither of us are saying anything wrong, or bizarre, or unreasonable, and yet you're working yourself into a fervor, just because she used the word "evil" to describe terrorists, and because I disagreed with the way someone phrased something somewhere. Not to make an analogy, but it's not my words causing you to fly off the handle.

* * *

That said I don't think you will be replying with anything meaningful since I don't think you disagree but instead want to incite further debate for no particular reason. So I will be exiting this thread. Thanks!

That's sad. I thought you had some valuable contributions that warranted discussion. I just disagreed with a lot of what you said and wanted to see where you were coming from. It's unfortunate that you feel your words should go without scrutiny or debate, and it's sad that you apparently don't value dissent as much as you implied you did. Oh well, but I'm honestly sorry to see you act like this.

[EDIT: as for responding line-by-line, that's what people do on messageboards, usenet, etc.]

 

[whytemyke]

Christ, I can't believe you guys are still arguing about this same bullshit.

Rice was wrong to call anyone trying to understand terrorists and fix the problems diplomatically apologists. Plain and simple. And anyone trying to seriously apologize for terrorists are wrong, too, ok?

But one thing is clear: Al Qaeda declared war on the US in 1996. Regardless of whether or not the American government chose to recognize the threat, they still declared war. We didn't take them seriously, and we paid for it, as an enemy. Nobody had a problem with Americans trying to understand their enemies during WW2, and why they'd act the way they act. But somewhere during the Cold War, American society became incredibly hostile to academics, especially ones trying to understand their enemies so as to avoid all type of conflict in the future. (EDIT: Todd Gitlein, a professor at NYU I believe, wrote an essay back in the first years of the millenium (2000-2002, in there) about anti-intellectualism and it's role in american society. I STRONGLY suggest anyone involved in giving an opinion on the Condi quote find the paper and read it, as it will enhance your understanding of what she's doing immensely.) There are thousands of theories on this, but all are moot here. The fact of the matter is that Condi is trying to scare people out of understanding their enemy so as to create a stronger backing for this administration, whatever it may choose to do. Simple power politics here, people. Ok?

No need for this debate to continue. Go on about your daily lives.

 

[Guileless]

If I were overly sensitive Mandark do you think I would post for 2+ years at a forum where my ideas are greatly outnumbered and routinely derided? Since you did actually post something substantive this time (and even took it "veeeery slow" for me since you know I am not too bright) I will compose a reply tonight when I get home.

 

[AssMan]

Rice: "When are we going to stop making excuses for the terrorists? The terrorists on September 11th, attacked the United States. We weren't in Iraq

Isn't this a bit of a double standard?

 

[Bluecondor]

Rice makes a perfectly good point.

The apologizing for terroism has to stop. It's getting old, it's easy to do, and its intellectually lazy to just blame the west and close the book.

I'm not saying the west can be excused for the things it has done wrong, but apologizing for terrorists is pretty much the same propaganda rationalization the Japanese government used to sell its war to my grandparents.

#1 The west are imperialists enslaving Asians
#2 We as Asians must kick out the British and American oppressors and free the people of Asia
#3 The attack on Pearl Harbor and invasion of East Asia is an act Self-defense

Of course killing 'inferior Asians' is just collateral damage and the fact that not all Asians agree with the fact that the Japanese opressors will replace the Americans and the English is easily ignored.

Sound familiar? I thought so too. Replace Asia with Muslims and Pearl Harbor with 9-11 and you have the Apologist's Guide to Apologizing for Osama Bin Laden.

Al-Quaeda has killed thousands of Muslims in the name of their fight against the west. They wish to replace dictatorial regimes in their home country with equally if not more oppressive and destructive Islamic states like the Taleban. This is all the same territory Japan covered.

I wonder what lessons people really took out of World War II, because it seems like even the left is too busy sniping at Bush and wallowing in their own victimization complexes and indignance for oppression to see the big picture.

This is an excellent analogy. I've never thought of it this way......

 

[FightyF]

Why is it utterly stupid to call homicidal religious zealots evil?

Seriously dude, I always get the impression that you are missing quite a few brain cells.

The issue is to EXPLAIN terrorism, and she chooses to simply label them "evil" while dismissing and denounicng any rational explanation that is based on history and politics.

As I said, no doubt these acts were evil. Thus, these people are evil. But that doesn't explain why.

Anti-American Terrorists do what they do because they feel that this is a way of fighting back against the US. Obviously, terrorism will not get anyone anywhere and it hurts anyone's cause more than helps it, but no one said their response/tactics are smart or intelligent in any way.

Understanding this is key to destroying the ideology of terrorism carried out by Muslims.

This ideology is extremely weak within an Islamic context but it is constantly given credibility, and the terrorists are constantly given attention When people in places of power like Rice don't understand how to tackle this issue...it doesn't bode well for it. This is why IMO it's up to the Muslim community to tackle it themselves, the Bush Administration's efforts have done nothing to curb it...it has done the exact opposite.

 

[whytemyke]

If I were overly sensitive Mandark do you think I would post for 2+ years at a forum where my ideas are greatly outnumbered and routinely derided? Since you did actually post something substantive this time (and even took it "veeeery slow" for me since you know I am not too bright) I will compose a reply tonight when I get home.

Your ideas are greatly outnumbered because you're a dumb fuck with stupid ideas to begin with.

You're a powerful optimist?

Not in the least. Powerful optimists are how we got into Iraq 1,800 soldiers ago.

 

[APF]

Not in the least.

Why did it take you almost a day to respond to that, when you had made other posts in the interim? Didn't you also command this "debate" to stop?

 

[Guileless]

Here's what I think Mandark. Sorry for the length but I'm trying to be honest here.

The terrorists have come from a variety of countries (including the UK) and widely varying economic circumstances. They have attacked a wide variety of targets, from hotels and nightclubs to the Pentagon. They have attacked countries on four different continents, from the US itself to staunch opponents of American policy like Turkey to countries like Bali that aren't very important diplomatically. They have claimed a wide variety of causes, from Afghanistan to Palestine to troops in Saudi Arabia and even Somalia. Based on all of that information, you can come up with many different arguable "causes" of terrorism and nobody can definitively prove or disprove such a theory.

But there is a common thread that links all of the terrorists--Islamo-fascism. For that reason, I think that the radical ideology shared by all of the terrorists is the proximate cause of the terrorism. While other factors may contribute in some way, they are all a distanct second. And I do not think we should be concerned about what they think of our policy. In fact, we should pursue a policy that pisses them off. They are so wrong about everything that if they don't like it, then it's almost definitely the right thing to do.

I'm guessing you're thinking of some hypothetical quasi-jihadist who embraces the theory of radical Islamic fascism but isn't quite ready to do anything about it. Then he sees the news about Iraq one day, which puts him over the top and convinces him to commit suicide so that he can kill infidels. This person may exist, and Iraq may make him do this. There's no way to know this for sure, though it is obviously an attractive idea to people who don't like the policy or the people who make the policy.

But it is crazy to make long-term policy based on the short-term reactions of a hypothetical group that may not exist and can never be ascertained. If you assume, as the Bush Administration has, that the cause of terrorism is the perverted ideology they profess--which is incredibly retrograde and destructive to themselves regardless of whether they try to kill non-believers--then the goal should be to eliminate the ideology.

Now you can disagree with how to eliminate the ideology, but that is a separate discussion. The point I'm making is that what the terrorists believe is evil, and that those evil beliefs dictate their behavior. Nobody makes them believe those things. There are poor and oppressed people with foreign policy greviances everywhere (and indeed throughout history), but the vast majority of them do not blow themselves up so they can kill strangers in the name of God. The people that do this all believe in the same ideology, and they are all evil. That is why I agree with Rice.

 

[ronito]

The point I'm making is that what the terrorists believe is evil, and that those evil beliefs dictate their behavior. Nobody makes them believe those things. There are poor and oppressed people with foreign policy greviances everywhere (and indeed throughout history), but the vast majority of them do not blow themselves up so they can kill strangers in the name of God. The people that do this all believe in the same ideology, and they are all evil.

I have to agree with Guileless here. I'm all for understanding and what not, but to say that this is because of foreign policy and oppression ergo it's understandable makes no sense. Look at at Ghandi, Mandela, Tutu, King, they all came from groups of oppressed peoples and they changed the world without resorting to violence.

 

[whytemyke]

Why did it take you almost a day to respond to that, when you had made other posts in the interim?

Hahaha, why does it matter? Honestly, most of the shit you've written in this thread I just skip over, since you've been saying the same dumbass, line-riding shit for many many posts now.

blah blah blah I'm saying the same thing as you are but I'm the one that's right blah blah blah No I was only saying that it's misrepresented blah blah blah I support the war but I also support peace...

I mean, c'mon dude...

Didn't you also command this "debate" to stop?

Yup. Another quality observation. You're really good at this stuff!

 

[whytemyke]

I have to agree with Guileless here. I'm all for understanding and what not, but to say that this is because of foreign policy and oppression ergo it's understandable makes no sense. Look at at Ghandi, Mandela, Tutu, King, they all came from groups of oppressed peoples and they changed the world without resorting to violence.

Look at the American government... they came from groups of oppressed peoples and they changed the world THE MOST by using drastic violence.

 

[APF]

Hahaha, why does it matter? Honestly, most of the shit you've written in this thread I just skip over, since you've been saying the same dumbass, line-riding shit for many many posts now.

I was trying to be light-hearted, but now you're just being an ass. Thanks for demonstrating the fact that you'll respond to me w/o actually trying to see what I'm talking about. I'll be sure to do the same for your posts from now on.

 

[Azih]

No. You assume that anyone who disagrees with the tone of the BS moral-equivalence, apologizing and excusing of terrorist attacks because people from other countries may have "legitimate" concerns about US foreign policy, is therefore xenophobic and paranoid.

What the hell. And you're accusing ME of straw men?

Where oh where did anyone in this thread equate terrorist morals to anyones?

Where oh where did anyone apologise for their actions?

And Where oh where did anyone excuse terrorist attacks?

And if no one did, then how are you claiming that I am calling xenophobia/paranoia on anyone purely because they disagrees with positions that *no one here has put forth*.

Also don't try reading my mind, don't try guessing at my assumptions. You're not very good at it. Don't think I didn't catch that 'You assume that' you sneaky devil you.

Your attitude is absurd. People in this forum are either zero or 100% with no reasonable middle-ground, and it's pathetic.

Ahem, unless you can answer these questions

Where oh where did anyone in this thread equate terrorist morals to anyones?

Where oh where did anyone apologise for their actions?

And Where oh where did anyone excuse terrorist attacks?

in the affirmative then you would have to see that no one here is at 0 or 100%.

Now that everyone in the thread believes that they're the ones on the reasonable middle ground isn't surprising at all. That's just par for the course everywhere. But that you think that I'm at a complete end of any spectrum is very very odd.

No one said terrorists' motivations don't need to be studied

When someone brings up terror analysts saying that current U.S policy is creating terrorists and Rice responds with a phrase like "when are we going to stop making excuse for the terrorists" then isn't she equating any study of the connection between current U.S policy and the rise of terrorism with providing excuses for terrorists?

Providing excuses for terrorists = Bad

If stating that current U.S policy is creating terrorists = Providing excuses for terrorists
then
stating that current U.S policy is creating terrorists = Bad.

Now any move towards that sort of a position strikes me with complete horror and dread, and at the very best Rice is guily of extremely poor choice of response to the question asked because that is the position she moved towards by talking about 'making excuses for terrorists' in response to a question about what terrorism experts are saying.

And no I am not taking the words out of context, because she goes on to say an even more horrible thing with

"No these are simply evil people who want to kill'.

Are you seriously unwilling to acknowledge that saying that terrorists are simply evil people who want to kill makes further analysis impossible?

In fact I am going to bold that because I think that's the fundamental divide between Guileless/you and the rest of the thread at this point.

Holding the view that terrorists are simply evil people who want to kill makes further study of their motivations pointless and indeed a foolish waste of time

again

Holding the view that terrorists are simply evil people who want to kill makes further study of their motivations pointless and indeed a foolish waste of time

That's the contention, agree or disagree with that as you will but please address it.

Nor has anyone said that the concerns people have over US foreign policy through the years should not be seriously addressed.

Certainly, the contention however isn't that but instead that Dr.Rice's comments discourage any study or analysis that would lead to a serious address of legitimate grievances because the legitimate greivances are an integral part of the terrorist agenda and motivation. (Bolded again to highlight the argument, I can expand on this if you wish)

What Rice said is that no one is forcing terrorists to attack the US, nor has the invasion of Iraq forced British-Pakistanis to attack London; the terrorists themselves are choosing to do so.

And that would be fine as long as you also go in with the attitude that 'we must study, analyse and have a discussion on *why* they chose to do so.

Frankly if Rice showed up at a rally with a sign saying "No one forced British Pakistanis to attack London; they themselves chose to" I'd cheer her on. But if she says that in response to a question about the analysis of terrorist motivations than I will (and am) boo her.

You're creating a lot of straw men to attack both Rice and myself, and that's sad.

And what are my straw men?

Neither of us are saying anything wrong, or bizarre, or unreasonable

Actually your genocide comment was pretty damn unreasonable. I'm glad to see I pushed you off that. Or do you wish to discuss that again?

and yet you're working yourself into a fervor just because she used the word "evil" to describe terrorists

I'm not in a fervor friend I'm just disagreeing with using that word in response to that particular question because I believe that

Holding the view that terrorists are simply evil people who want to kill makes further study of their motivations pointless and indeed a foolish waste of time

and because I disagreed with the way someone phrased something somewhere. Not to make an analogy, but it's not my words causing you to fly off the handle.

but I'm not flying off any handle here.

Please don't guess at my state of mind (especially over the internet), you're not very good at it.

[EDIT: as for responding line-by-line, that's what people do on messageboards, usenet, etc.]

Hey I'll agree with you on that.


Edit: Ah hell, I'll let Mandark handle Guileless. I need to freaking sleep.

 

[APF]

Where oh where did anyone in this thread equate terrorist morals to anyones?

I'll try honestly answering your questions, but you're succeeding in making me not care one way or another. First off I have no idea what you're saying above. No one is ascribing the morals of terrorists to anyone on this group, if that's what you're trying to suggest. That's just a bizarre accusation for you to make, if I'm interpreting you correctly. Also, to respond to your next few questions--although I am about to snip them--you're attacking straw men arguments rather than trying to directly address something I said. Someone excuses or apologizes for behavior when they try to imply it's just or merited in some way. See this post where I use the dictionary to try and show what I meant. I haven't attacked or singled-out a poster here for doing that, however, so I'm not sure why you're so angry? I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings because you feel that description applies to you.

Ahem, unless you can answer these questions

I think I did my best.

Now that everyone in the thread believes that they're the ones on the reasonable middle ground isn't surprising at all. That's just par for the course everywhere. But that you think that I'm at a complete end of any spectrum is very very odd.

It's just because you're either not reading what I'm saying, or you're not listening/absorbing it, or you're seeing straw men rather than the reality. Personally, I like to think of myself as part of the "Reality-Based Community." I try to see where someone is coming from and address it directly. Perhaps I failed when it came to your posts, but that seemed the likely answer, considering the fact that you consistently refused to address the crux of what I was saying, preferring to address caricatures of arguments you resented instead.

When someone brings up terror analysts saying that current U.S policy is creating terrorists and Rice responds with a phrase like "when are we going to stop making excuse for the terrorists" then isn't she equating any study of the connection between current U.S policy and the rise of terrorism with providing excuses for terrorists?

No, of course not. How do you diagram that logically? You can't. Does Not Follow. The idea that she's supposedly "anti-intellectual" (not your argument, but it was raised in this thread) is laughable. Rice herself is an intellectual; her bonifides in that arena are certainly higher than anyone posting here. (That doesn't mean she's right in everything she says, but that's not what I'm saying)

Providing excuses for terrorists = Bad

Uh, yeah? Why can't people agree on that point? It seems so obvious to normal people, but there are crazy folks out there with bizarre priorities.

If stating that current U.S policy is creating terrorists = Providing excuses for terrorists then stating that current U.S policy is creating terrorists = Bad.

Not necessarily "bad" actually, but both incorrect and dangerous. There's a difference between saying some folks disagree with policy and other people take advantage of that fact, and saying that the policy creates terrorism. They're just two different kinds of statements, meaning two completely different things.

Now any move towards that sort of a position strikes me with complete horror and dread, and at the very best Rice is guily of extremely poor choice of response to the question asked because that is the position she moved towards by talking about 'making excuses for terrorists' in response to a question about what terrorism experts are saying.

In reality, she was in the process of responding to a question about the inevitability of future attacks, and what you are talking about was added in that context :

"Is another attack inevitable?"
"Well of course people are worried because blah blah blah... That's why we're doing blah blah..."
"Well what about people who say your policies creates more terrorists than you eliminate?"
"They don't need people to make excuses for them; blah blah blah... People need to really look at the terrorists and call them what they are, blah blah blah..."

Are you seriously unwilling to acknowledge that saying that terrorists are simply evil people who want to kill makes further analysis impossible?

I think you're just wrong, but I understand why you're saying it. Personally I think--know--these folks are evil. That hasn't stopped me from trying to seriously study who they are and what drives them. It's just different from the "excuses" people typically provide. Even the "grievance" of bases in SA is much more complex than folks make it out to be. Similarly, arguing against folks who conflate the goals and motivations of terrorists with the goals and motivations of concerned but peaceful activists != the stopping of any and all analysis of terrorism or evaluation of US foreign policy. I shouldn't have to restate this over and over again, but apparently my point is so subtle and nuanced that no one but dogs and John Kerry can hear it.

Certainly, the contention however isn't that but instead that Dr.Rice's comments discourage any study or analysis that would lead to a serious address of legitimate grievances because the legitimate grievances are an integral part of the terrorist agenda and motivation. (Bolded again to highlight the argument, I can expand on this if you wish)

Again, saying someone is evil and wants to kill you, and doesn't need excuses to do so, is different from saying we don't need to see what makes these folks tick. You're inferring a lot more content than was actually said, by her or anyone else. Even if you took Guileless' point about doing the opposite of whatever they want seriously, that still mandates analysis of what it is they want in the first place.

Frankly if Rice showed up at a rally with a sign saying "No one forced British Pakistanis to attack London; they themselves chose to" I'd cheer her on.

LOL, that's almost exactly what she said, but thank you for suggesting I'm more eloquent than she is.

Actually your genocide comment was pretty damn unreasonable. I'm glad to see I pushed you off that. Or do you wish to discuss that again?

What, that there are genocidal extremist groups who want to exterminate Jews--or at least Israelis--for the sake of their race/religion/nationality? Does that really demand debate? I guess I could do the actual legwork and pull some quotes...? How about if I used the term, "ethnic cleansing"--is that gentle enough for you?

 

[Azih]

Alright let's take this one by one.

You said:

You assume that anyone who disagrees with the tone of the BS moral-equivalence, apologizing and excusing of terrorist attacks because people from other countries may have "legitimate" concerns about US foreign policy, is therefore xenophobic and paranoid.

I want you to withdraw this statement. I've already said why, but if you want I can go over it again.