Why Giuliani is Unqualified to be Prez

[Patroklos]

Are people discussing naval power again?

[Arrian]

PLATO really needs to quite saying anyone who disagrees with him is idiotic or living in a fantasyworld.

There is a term for a poster who consistently acts like that. It begins with ass and ends with hat.

-Arrian

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

This is so idiotic that it is not funny. As I am sure you are aware there is more than one type of madras.

You mean it isn't funny because it's correct. And I am aware there is more than one type of madrassa. But a drop in the bucket. And not every madrassa student becomes a terrorist. That is the most idiotic thing I've heard. There are vast differences among the madrass and not everyone is a terrorist training ground. Plenty in Pakistan itself simply offer religious study (Imams come from somewhere) and are actually run by the military government (not exactly a fan of radicalism). I'm sure a good number of radical madrassa students probably wouldn't mind becoming fighters. But more than a few (especially the more wealthier ones), while radical, aren't up and joining up with radical groups in the mountains.

Okay...Let's do a little math with a few assumptions, shall we?

We will use just the published figures from Pakistan to be overly fair.

Let's eliminate half as being just good ole time religion...that leaves approx 300,000

Now let's say that half of those are the svholarly type and wouldn't be able to drive a car bomb across the street...that leaves 150,000

Now let's say that only one third of those buy into the hate thought being taught enough to buy into taking up arms...that leaves 50,000

Now let's say that these schools cover what is essentially 8th through 12th grade...

That put's 10,000 terrorist a year out on the streets willing to take up arms to enforce their brand of religious intolerence.

That's a drop in the bucket?

Gimme a break!

And that is just Pakistan...

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Arrian
PLATO really needs to quite saying anyone who disagrees with him is idiotic or living in a fantasyworld.

There is a term for a poster who consistently acts like that. It begins with ass and ends with hat.

-Arrian

Yes and people who start that kind of talk with "Go **** yourself" should not do that kind of thing eithier.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That put's 10,000 terrorist a year out on the streets willing to take up arms to enforce their brand of religious intolerence.

That's a drop in the bucket?

Even using your assumptions, that's, at best, potential terrorists. If there were 10,000 terrorists a year, you'd kind of expect a few more terrorist attacks (have there even been 5,000 terrorist attacks in the last few years?). You'd get radical Islamists, but it seems that most of them aren't strapping bombs and walking into marketplaces.

Of course, once again, you have to ask why the numbers have increased so dramatically? They are funded by the Saudis? Well the Saudis aren't exactly Wahabbists and they aren't all that fond of OBL (you wouldn't too if someone called for your overthrow) - radical but not OBL types. And even with greater funding, why send your kids to a radical school? Some can't afford decent schools, but of course there are government run madrassas and a lot of the poor really don't give a rats ass about education. Perhaps they are being led by what they see as a form of injustice (not saying there isn't some "Wag the Dog" there, though, focus on the bullying of the US and its lackies, especially Israel, over their sad state in life)?

The interesting thing is that Pakistan is seen as a great hotbed for radicalism (more than most ME countries), but it is one of the closest US allies. Though it probably doesn't help that even moderate Muslims in Pakistan and those of Pakistani descent in the US see the US War in Iraq as a War against Islam (huge, huge blunder to go into Iraq.. not like Saddam was liked by the radicals).

You go after the camps in Afghanistan (and now Iraq... but more detached from trying to bring a government into power), and initiate policies brought up in the "How to Make the Middle East Less Backward" thread (I do like how the EU is negotiating bilateral trade agreements... make trade to profitable to lose, capitalism triumphs over and commodifies all things - even religion - if you give it room to flourish)

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Arrian

Zactly. Stop the *****ing about our US foreign policy it is one of necessity that will inevitably piss off the likes of Osama. Blame US first serves nothing as there is nothing we can necessarily cede to make the problem go away.

OMG, I agree with Ogie!

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Even using your assumptions, that's, at best, potential terrorists. If there were 10,000 terrorists a year, you'd kind of expect a few more terrorist attacks (have there even been 5,000 terrorist attacks in the last few years?). You'd get radical Islamists, but it seems that most of them aren't strapping bombs and walking into marketplaces.

Well...actually you do. These attacks are taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan...remember they are tying down 130,000++ US troops.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Of course, once again, you have to ask why the numbers have increased so dramatically? They are funded by the Saudis? Well the Saudis aren't exactly Wahabbists and they aren't all that fond of OBL (you wouldn't too if someone called for your overthrow) - radical but not OBL types. And even with greater funding, why send your kids to a radical school? Some can't afford decent schools, but of course there are government run madrassas and a lot of the poor really don't give a rats ass about education. Perhaps they are being led by what they see as a form of injustice (not saying there isn't some "Wag the Dog" there, though, focus on the bullying of the US and its lackies, especially Israel, over their sad state in life)?

This seems like a reasonable argument on the surface, but look a little deeper. This expansion of the madrassas didn't start after the reformation of Israel...didn't start after the '67 or '73 wars (Both of which US support for Israel was clear). It when the "oil shock" of 1977 happened and the price of oil went thru the roof. Coincident? I doubt it.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The interesting thing is that Pakistan is seen as a great hotbed for radicalism (more than most ME countries), but it is one of the closest US allies. Though it probably doesn't help that even moderate Muslims in Pakistan and those of Pakistani descent in the US see the US War in Iraq as a War against Islam (huge, huge blunder to go into Iraq.. not like Saddam was liked by the radicals).

Yes...the "alliance" has many disturbing and conflicting parts to it. It was obviously an alliance of necessity for the US as they had to have at least tacit support from Pakistan to move against the Taliban. The duality of the relationship would be humorous if it were not so unsettling.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You go after the camps in Afghanistan (and now Iraq... but more detached from trying to bring a government into power), and initiate policies brought up in the "How to Make the Middle East Less Backward" thread (I do like how the EU is negotiating bilateral trade agreements... make trade to profitable to lose, capitalism triumphs over and commodifies all things - even religion - if you give it room to flourish)

Perhaps, but religious zealotry takes decades, if not centuries, to overcome by capitalistic means. Europe itself is a classic example. With the addition of the type weapons that could be made available to terrorist these days, it is hard to argue to try to give this option time to work.

[Odin]

Originally posted by PLATO
Utter ignorance on so many brainwashed lefties here.

Go read Osama's own words in AQ's manifesto.

They are killing us because we are not muslim, have power, and keep them from imposing islamic law on all of us.

That's their position on things...not Bush's. Bush just happens to agree with it.

The lefties live in a fantasy world where everything can be solved by talking it out. Would be fantastic if it were true. Unfortunately, the fact is that these people do not want us to talk...they want us to die or surrender.

Thanks to you fantasylanders, they are winning. Hope you have a nice prayer rug.

replace "Lefties" with "Naive Chomskyites" and the post would be far more correct. There's plenty of us Lefties that don't go for the "blame America first" crap.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Bosnia and Kosovo are great examples of the west helping Muslims who really stood zero chance on their own. Of course OBL is banking on most people being to stupid to know that and he's likely right.

IIRC it was the US in particular that came to Bosnia's aid.

[PLATO]

I stand corrected and ask your forgiveness.

[Apocalypse]

I thought it was mostly Germany that wanted to attack Serbia.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well...actually you do. These attacks are taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan...remember they are tying down 130,000++ US troops.

But you have less than even 10,000 attacks in the entire occupation. It appears that most of the radicals aren't engaging in violence, but those that are are doing a damned good job (then again easier in guerrilla warfare).

This seems like a reasonable argument on the surface, but look a little deeper. This expansion of the madrassas didn't start after the reformation of Israel...didn't start after the '67 or '73 wars (Both of which US support for Israel was clear). It when the "oil shock" of 1977 happened and the price of oil went thru the roof. Coincident? I doubt it.

First of all, the oil embargo was in 1973 (and lifted in '74). Secondly, while Saudi Arabia made money, the fact of the matter is that they, while radical, aren't exactly Wahabbists and, as opposed to Syria or Iran, haven't been linked to terrorist groups. Radical doesn't equal violent.

In Pakistan the rapid expansion of madrassas happened after the overthrow of the Bhutto government (which had become very unpopular) by Zia ul-Haq's military in the early 80s. In fact it was similar to Iran's overthrow of the Shah. Though, remember, Pakistan, even under Zia, was strongly pro-US. I do doubt that his expansion of madrassas (he was very pro-Islamic) taught anti-American/Western messages since they were a very strong ally against the Indians (who straddled the line, but went with the Soviets a bit too much for Washington's liking).

Perhaps, but religious zealotry takes decades, if not centuries, to overcome by capitalistic means. Europe itself is a classic example. With the addition of the type weapons that could be made available to terrorist these days, it is hard to argue to try to give this option time to work.

In Iraq, for instance, it seems most terrorists simply want to get down to fighting each other for control of the country and go after American troops because they are standing in the way of the battle. Will there be more violence when the US leaves Iraq? Yes... but it'll be directed towards each other... not the west.

And zealotry could perhaps be more quickly eradicated if we actually did try to work with most of the ME governments on a somewhat equal level, rather than attempt to simply throw our weight around. Economic freedoms plus working intently hand in hand with them on problems of radicalization (which most of them fear... especially states such as Egypt and Jordan). Asking them to help out taking down Iraq probably wasn't going to help the radicalization problem in their own countries.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
I thought it was mostly Germany that wanted to attack Serbia.

IIRC Germany (or was it Austria?) was acting as Croatia's "protector"

[Odin]

Originally posted by PLATO
I stand corrected and ask your forgiveness.

You are forgiven, my faithful subject.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But you have less than even 10,000 attacks in the entire occupation. It appears that most of the radicals aren't engaging in violence, but those that are are doing a damned good job (then again easier in guerrilla warfare).

You also have multiple people involved in single attacks. It is not a "one terrorist=one attack" situation. There have been reports of hundreds of terrorist gunmen involved in some altercations.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

First of all, the oil embargo was in 1973 (and lifted in '74). Secondly, while Saudi Arabia made money, the fact of the matter is that they, while radical, aren't exactly Wahabbists and, as opposed to Syria or Iran, haven't been linked to terrorist groups. Radical doesn't equal violent.

I wasn't refering to the embargo. The price shortly after the embargo fell drastically. I am refering to the oil shock of 1977.
Secondly, The Saudi's have been linked to funding a great many of the Madras, including many of the private madras in Pakistan. From these schools it is known that many terrorist are recruited. While it is true that Saudi's are not directly linked to funding terrorist, the break between what they are doing and funding terrorist is incredibly small.

Secondly, I believe that Radical does equal violent for all practical purposes. It is the radical (and growing) wing of Islam that fosters the violence. While all radicals are certainly not violent, I believe that it is safe to assume that all violent muslims are radical.

In Pakistan the rapid expansion of madrassas happened after the overthrow of the Bhutto government (which had become very unpopular) by Zia ul-Haq's military in the early 80s. In fact it was similar to Iran's overthrow of the Shah. Though, remember, Pakistan, even under Zia, was strongly pro-US. I do doubt that his expansion of madrassas (he was very pro-Islamic) taught anti-American/Western messages since they were a very strong ally against the Indians (who straddled the line, but went with the Soviets a bit too much for Washington's liking).

Yes...and the "freedom fighters" that Washington created in Afghanistan to oppose the Soviets were just as friendly! This brings me back to my main point...The ideology of the terrorist does not care if we help them or not. Their entire focus is for the infidel to die or surrender. America makes a convienient target because we are the strongest and most capable of opposing them. However, we are not the only object of hate. There are islamic radicals doing violent things in both China and Russia and they were strongly opposed to the Iraq war.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

In Iraq, for instance, it seems most terrorists simply want to get down to fighting each other for control of the country and go after American troops because they are standing in the way of the battle. Will there be more violence when the US leaves Iraq? Yes... but it'll be directed towards each other... not the west.

No...the Sunni backed by AQ and the Shia backed by Iran will fight to determine which one ofthem gets the right to carry the war further. It will not stop there if one of them attains dominance. It will simply shift and they will have the power of a state behind them then. And what are we going to do about it if that state launches an attack? Invade? Nuke 'em Or finally admit that not solving that situation was a huge freaking mistake?

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

And zealotry could perhaps be more quickly eradicated if we actually did try to work with most of the ME governments on a somewhat equal level, rather than attempt to simply throw our weight around. Economic freedoms plus working intently hand in hand with them on problems of radicalization (which most of them fear... especially states such as Egypt and Jordan). Asking them to help out taking down Iraq probably wasn't going to help the radicalization problem in their own countries.

How long will that take? What will the terrorist be doing while we try to do this? What would be our response if a terrorist organization popped a nuke in Cairo to take down a government that was co-operating with the infidels? It is easy to scoff at that question until one thinks back to Russian nuclear security in the 90's, or Iran's rush to enrichment, or DPRK's unknown nuclear stocks. Hell, we can't even tell you where all the enriched uranium from Savanah River is.