Cornelius Fudge Says : No Global War on Terrorism

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap




I don't even know where to start with this crap, I really don't.

To link our policy vs. global salafist groups and lump with with our policy towards Lebanon (and Hezbollah) and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (and Hamas) is part of the incompetence that is making everything worse.

To view those two groups as the same thing as AQ is part of why this phrase is so stupid and should be removed. Sadly people who think like you are the ones formulating policy. We can see how succesful they have been in Iraq. Yeah, lets spread that policy....

An Hamas is not the same as Hezb, and the taliban are not the same as AQ, and the GPSC is not the same as AQ, etc. HOwever for the US to legitimize some forms of radical Islamist terrorism while demonizing others, would lead to many contradictions in our policy. Even the Europeans have come to acknowledge this.

And again, many folks who opposed the war on Iraq support the rejection of Hamas and Hezb as long as they fail to renounce terrorism. So thats just a red herring, and a diversion from the issue at hand.

Again, what gave you the idea that the Dems had softened on Hamas?

[lord of the mark]

http://www.nysun.com/article/50846

Obama Rebuffs Soros
Billionaire's Comments on Aipac Are Scored

By ELI LAKE
Staff Reporter of the Sun
March 21, 2007

WASHINGTON — Leading Democrats, including Senator Obama of Illinois, are distancing themselves from an essay published this week by one of their party's leading financiers that called for the Democratic Party to "liberate" itself from the influence of the pro-Israel lobby.

The article, by George Soros, published in the New York Review of Books, asserts that America should pressure Israel to negotiate with the Hamas-led unity government in the Palestinian territories regardless of whether Hamas recognizes the right of the Jewish state to exist. Mr. Soros goes on to say that one reason America has not embraced this policy is because of the influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Yesterday, Mr. Obama's presidential campaign issued a dissent from the Hungarian-born billionaire's assessment. " Mr. Soros is entitled to his opinions," a campaign spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, said. "But on this issue he and Senator Obama disagree. The U.S. and our allies are right to insist that Hamas — a terrorist organization dedicated to Israel's destruction — meet very basic conditions before being treated as a legitimate actor. AIPAC is one of many voices that share this view

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Again, what gave you the idea that the Dems had softened on Hamas?

What is wrong with you? Really? Shoiuld I ask that in the other thread?

1. I am a democrat.
2. You brought up Hamas and Hizbollah, not I. I simply stated my support for dropping this moronic phrase.

An Hamas is not the same as Hezb, and the taliban are not the same as AQ, and the GPSC is not the same as AQ, etc. HOwever for the US to legitimize some forms of radical Islamist terrorism while demonizing others, would lead to many contradictions in our policy. Even the Europeans have come to acknowledge this.

When dealing with different things, different policies are good. Contradictions would only exist if you are foolish enough to try to lump non-related issues together.

The fact two groups are Muslims and carry out terrorist attacks does not make them both "Islamist Terrorists." There is a fundamental difference between groups that have global idological aspirations and groups that don't. Trying to set up an Islamic state for your own people is different from trying to set up an Islamic state for everyone including non-Muslims. Treating both equally is a huge mistake. Better contradictions than hypocrasy.

Also, Europe "following the US lead" had not lead to any improvement in any policy, nor has it weakened Hezbollah or Hamas, or helped in general.

And again, many folks who opposed the war on Iraq support the rejection of Hamas and Hezb as long as they fail to renounce terrorism. So thats just a red herring, and a diversion from the issue at hand.

As noted above, your attempt to link policy in Lebanon and in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the nebolous fight against AQ and it cells is part and parcel of why this phrase is moronic, and why the less we use it, the better.

Are you able to understand that?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
So ... the one idiocy excuses the other one?

Focusing on the newly created idiocy, while ignoring the long lived one seems stupid.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Focusing on the newly created idiocy, while ignoring the long lived one seems stupid.

Start a thread about "the war and drugs" and I shall happily denigrate the term.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

When dealing with different things, different policies are good.

different policies are required in dealing with AQ vs dealing with the Taliban. which in turn are diff from those required for dealing with Hekmatya. Should we not refer to the "War in afghanistan" for that reason? A war should be capable of encompassing diff policies.

Contradictions would only exist if you are foolish enough to try to lump non-related issues together.

The fact two groups are Muslims and carry out terrorist attacks does not make them both "Islamist Terrorists." There is a fundamental difference between groups that have global idological aspirations and groups that don't. Trying to set up an Islamic state for your own people is different from trying to set up an Islamic state for everyone including non-Muslims. Treating both equally is a huge mistake. Better contradictions than hypocrasy.

there differences, and similarities. There are probably similar roots, in the failure of secularist ideologies, embrace of religious violence and suicide, etc, etc.

Also, Europe "following the US lead" had not lead to any improvement in any policy, nor has it weakened Hezbollah or Hamas, or helped in general.

It has almost certainly weakened Hamas. And it has put considerable pressure on Syria.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


What is wrong with you? Really? Shoiuld I ask that in the other thread?

Ask whatever you like. Be as boorish as you want. Your favorite philosopher seemed to think that a superior avenue to truth. I find its not.

[GePap]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by lord of the mark

Originally posted by GePap

different policies are required in dealing with AQ vs dealing with the Taliban. which in turn are diff from those required for dealing with Hekmatya. Should we not refer to the "War in afghanistan" for that reason? A war should be capable of encompassing diff policies.

The phrases are NOT similar. "War in Afghanistan" denotes the location of a conflict. "War on terrorism" denotes some amorphous struggle against a notion.

there differences, and similarities. There are probably similar roots, in the failure of secularist ideologies, embrace of religious violence and suicide, etc, etc.

The difference in goals are sufficiently great for a different policy to be called for. Just like the US had a different policy with Communist China and the Communist Soviet Union.

It has almost certainly weakened Hamas. And it has put considerable pressure on Syria.

Hamas is still in charge of most of the Palestinian government. As for Syria, France's pro-Lebanon policy had more to do with particular French interests in Lebanon than some acceptance of US lead.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Ask whatever you like. Be as boorish as you want. Your favorite philosopher seemed to think that a superior avenue to truth. I find its not.

Unlike you, I don't like to spam with irrelevant crap.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by GePap
Good. That phrase is utter ****, and the sooner we stop muttering that lie, the better.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

The difference in goals are sufficiently great for a different policy to be called for. Just like the US had a different policy with Communist China and the Communist Soviet Union.

and in case you havent noticed, our policy towards Hamas IS different from that toward AQ. WRT to Hmas we have specific conditions for recognition, and maintain a financial and diplo boycott. WRT to AQ we have no intention of recognizing them under any conditions, and are engaged in global violent conflict with them.

However we must formulate policies to address the deeper issues that lie at the root of both phenomena. Just as during the cold war, while adopting different policies on China and the USSR, we ultimately came to realize a need to advance democracy and market development, a strategy that was not specific to the USSR alone.

hamas is still in charge of most of the Palestinian government. As for Syria, France's pro-Lebanon policy had more to do with particular French interests in Lebanon than some acceptance of US lead.

hamas is, nonetheless, weakened relative to where it was when the boycott began.

Syria is under pressure from the entire EU, and not just France. The positions of the UK and Germany have as much to do with their opposition to terrorism as to concern for Paris' position in Lebanon.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Unlike you, I don't like to spam with irrelevant crap.

if you feel what I post is not relevant, you are free to ignore it. Or to simply state that its irrelevant. I dont find all your posts relevant, but I try to refrain from getting personal about it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
and in case you havent noticed, our policy towards Hamas IS different from that toward AQ. WRT to Hmas we have specific conditions for recognition, and maintain a financial and diplo boycott. WRT to AQ we have no intention of recognizing them under any conditions, and are engaged in global violent conflict with them.

Fine. Thus is is idiotic to call our policy with Hamas part of some "war on terror." Therefore more reason to drop the phrase as I advocate.

However we must formulate policies to address the deeper issues that lie at the root of both phenomena. Just as during the cold war, while adopting different policies on China and the USSR, we ultimately came to realize a need to advance democracy and market development, a strategy that was not specific to the USSR alone.

The phrase "war on terror" ignores the reality that one can't spread democratic ideals with military force, and that alliences with dictatorships, actively advocating abuses of human rights, and belittling diplomacy are ways to fail in trying to spread democratic ideals to deal with the underlying problems, and therefore one more reason to drop the phrase as I advocate.

hamas is, nonetheless, weakened relative to where it was when the boycott began.

All Palestinian factions are weaker, including Fatah. And Hamas has not budged on its positions, and the peace process remains stalled without pressure from the outside for the parties to meet. Yeah.....

Syria is under pressure from the entire EU, and not just France. The positions of the UK and Germany have as much to do with their opposition to terrorism as to concern for Paris' position in Lebanon.

Pressure towards what exactly? I have seen no change in Syrian policy since the withdrawal from Lebanon.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


if you feel what I post is not relevant, you are free to ignore it. Or to simply state that its irrelevant. I dont find all your posts relevant, but I try to refrain from getting personal about it.

I honestly find your obsession with this whole issue of the Democratic party and policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict weird, or your need to post something about Obama distancing himself from Soros in a thread about the phrase war on terror.