They're madmen!!

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll
Growing up in the 1950's,1960's and the 1970's we were taught in school about the terrible (and often justifiabley so) Communist Mother Russia.

If your talking madman as in Jihad Mad bombers, no, I dont recall that being a reference and even when I served in the U S Army in Europe in the mid-to late 1970's, we were programmed to feel they were a dangerous and mighty enemy but not so much "madmen"

GT

Right you are, Grandpa. As a whole, commies were perceived as evil but not crazy. There were some exceptions: After Stalin stopped being our friend, he was said to be a paranoid murderer. Before Mao became our friend, he was an unstable mass murderer.

But Lenin, Trotsky, Khrushev, Kosygin, Bresnev, Castro, Che, Ho Chi Minh were all seen a sane.

[chequita guevara]

All of our enemies have been madmen. Because they want war, while we only want peace.

[Kuciwalker]

You're late.

[Zkribbler]

BTW: When I said Che wasn't viewed as a madman, I was referring to the other one.

[Odin]

I get sick of the Neo-Cons using terms like "Islamo-Fascist" and saying that "they hate us for our freedoms;" that rhetoric is all because our rulers need to keep us supporting millitary conflicts and therefore keep the Millitary-Industrial Complex "merchants of death" getting huge profits, Islamic terrorism is a result of our knee-jerk support of israel and our support for hated regimes like Mubarak and the House of Saud.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Odin
I get sick of the Neo-Cons using terms like "Islamo-Fascist..."

True that is an oxymoronic phrase. The Baathist party was neo-fascist and it have virtually no religious aspect, except some obligator rhetoric. Al Qaeda is religious fanatics, but they certainly aren't fascists. And originally, these two groups loathed each other. To cram these two labels together for propoganda purposes blurs the nature of our enemies.

...and saying that "they hate us for our freedoms;"

Actually, this is true, but it's not as obvious as the Bushies would have you believe.

The muslim fanatics wish everyone to submit to the will of Allah as interpreted by Osama bin Ladin. If you don't bow to Allah's will, then you are evil and deserved to be killed.

Because we prefer living our lives using our free will rather than bowing to Osama's interpretation of Allah's will, we are evil and hated. Thus, al Qaeda hates us for our freedoms. Q.E.D.

[SlowwHand]

"The muslim fanatics wish everyone to submit to the will of Allah as interpreted by Osama bin Ladin. If you don't bow to Allah's will, then you are evil and deserved to be killed."

Exactly. It's not Allah's will. It's Allah's will as interpreted by...madmen.

[General Ludd]

Re: They're madmen!!

Originally posted by Spiffor

So, I ask you guys and gal a honest question: in your country, what was the last enemy that was commonly accepted as a rational calculating bastard, and not as a bunch of crazies?

The first three that come to mind:

Steven Harper

Paul Martin

Jean Chretien

[Spiffor]

Thanks for the answers guys

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Odin
Islamic terrorism is a result of our knee-jerk support of israel and our support for hated regimes like Mubarak and the House of Saud.

That doesn't mean that it hasn't become a thing-in-it-self. We may have created it, but it has a life of its own. Please understand that both cannot exist at the same time in our world. Either the Enlightenment prevails or superstition. Unfortunately, at home and abroad, superstition is on the upswing while reason wanes.

I do not disagree with waging war upon the Islamists. What I disagree with is the methods, which to me, seem to only increase the numbers of our enemies at the same time that we do evil to other innocents ourselves. I don't even disagree that Israel should have the right to attack Hezbollah. What tears my heart, though, is that they are murdering all of Lebanon, just as we have destroyed Iraq.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Odin
I get sick of the Neo-Cons using terms like "Islamo-Fascist" and saying that "they hate us for our freedoms;" that rhetoric is all because our rulers need to keep us supporting millitary conflicts and therefore keep the Millitary-Industrial Complex "merchants of death" getting huge profits, Islamic terrorism is a result of our knee-jerk support of israel and our support for hated regimes like Mubarak and the House of Saud.

Yeah, it has nothing to do with a chronically poor region whose rulers direct the masses attention at anyone but themselves as a cause for their woes.

[aneeshm]

Concerning India's conflict with Pakistan - Indians consider Pakistan a rational enemy with whom no dialogue or peace is ever possible ( precisely because Pakistan is rational ( I'll explain below ) ) , but Pakistanis consider India an irrational anti-Muslim ( and therefore anti-Pakistan ) enemy .

Concerning India's analysis of Pakistan : Pakistan is a state held together by the Army . The Army needs an enemy , the enmity against which can be used to rally the people around it . This takes the form of a semi-religious enmity against India . This enmity is vital to the Army , and thus vital to the state . That is why any democratically elected leader who has sought a genuine peace with India has been deposed by the Army establishment . That is why Indians have no hope of a lasting peace ever coming to pass - and this is a conclusion based on the assumption that the enemy is rational . Thus , from the Indian point of view , this fight must continue until one side emerges totally victorious .


The Pakistani view of India ( fostered by fanatics and now by the Islamised polity and clergy and educational system ) is that it is a "Hindu state" out to "crush the poor Muslims" . I refer the reader to the report ( PDF ) by a Pakistani academic institute about the dismal state of textbooks in Pakistan , and the completely lopsided and , in many cases , totally untrue depiction of history , which portrays India and Hindus as the "eternal historic enemy" .

[MRT144]

well if youre any indication of the hindu state of mind the pakis are right to foster those views

[Skanky Burns]

French nuclear testing in areas that would affect Australia may count.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Zkribbler

True that is an oxymoronic phrase. The Baathist party was neo-fascist and it have virtually no religious aspect, except some obligator rhetoric. Al Qaeda is religious fanatics, but they certainly aren't fascists. And originally, these two groups loathed each other. To cram these two labels together for propoganda purposes blurs the nature of our enemies.

Hm, throwing "fascist" around seems a bit much, but that doesn't make them less totalitarian (and that description isn't only used by conservatives).