After the American/Northern Alliance vanquish of the Taliban in Afghanistan a video was discovered in a “Al Queda training base.” Today its images are the most familiar representations of Al Queda terrorists in action. One famous scene, replayed countless times on American media, depicts black clad troopers kicking down a door and shooting targets draped in a white robes blazoned with red crosses. The video was intended as a recruiting tool so it is safe to assume that the Islamic audience would be well aware of the symbolism of the white clad targets.
Of course the Cross is familiar to most people on the planet. But the Cross on the white cape? This combination is the symbol of the Knights Templar, a 1000 year old symbol of brutal Western occupation.
1099 AD after the initial conquest of Palestine and Jerusalem, the victorious French knights established fiefdoms centered on native population centers with nominal leadership from a “king” in Jerusalem, Baldwin the First. Pilgrims from across European Christendom began to trek, by land and sea, to the Christian holy sites. The countryside, like Iraq of today, was overrun with insurgents and simple brigands. Many pilgrims, poor and wealthy met miserable ends, beaten, robbed, and sold at Damascus slave markets to be lost forever. A volunteer group of knights emerged to safeguard the passage, established a monastic order as knights of the temple or Knights Templar. They wore white capes with a red cross over their armor.
Surrender of all worldly possessions and wealth to the Order was the price of admission as a Knights Templar. They were heavily armed elite shock troops with shaved heads and long untrimmed beards. The Order grew wealthy and became a potent political force and was not answerable to any authority short of the Pope in Rome and then with reluctance. The Knights Templar roamed Palestine at will inflicting brutality on civilians and combatants alike. They served as front line troops at every major Christian/Islamic conflict until Saladin’s great victory at the Horns of Hattim, 1187. Saladin allowed all survivors safe passage to exit Palestine except the Knights Templar. The captured Templars were executed.
2003, as Bush’s war began he boasted his effort was a “Crusade” until wiser heads, at home and across the world, silenced his insane intemperance. The Islamic world is hard wired with the history of Western conquest and children throughout the region know by heart the symbol of the Cross on a white cape. The memories of Islam are deep and the Bush war for oil reinforces their ancient traditions and understanding of the West. Their history tells them to sacrifice and fight for generations to defeat the invader. The Bush mythology of liberation and terrorism is for domestic political consumption.
We are in a war without moral merit beyond our cultural and historical understanding for the worst of all reasons: Greed for a few.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 40
At least 2 Crusader armies were destroyed by the Seljek Turks en route to Palestine. Many hopeful Crusaders and pilgrims never made it much past Constantinople. The ravages on commerce in the eastern Med were largely done by free lance brigands whose religious affiliation was very secondary to loot. They were not under the direct influence or control of the Seljek empire. There may have been some motivation by Urban and the French to stem Islamic advance via Palestine, but the Islamic world itself considered the area a backwater of lower religious significance. It was the influx of settlers and the Christianizing of locals that finally drove them to act.
The historian Barbra Tuchman claims a main motive was the preponderance of unemployed knights and the ravages of the Black Death and a continent wide desire for expunging of sin that lit the fire of fanatics to make the terrible journey.
The historical record is clear: Islam was first spread by the sword. But did the early followers of Muhammad view themselves as holy warriors bent on empire or liberators of backward peoples oppressed under the heel of a corrupt superstition and worse government? The historical record clearly demonstrates the advanced state of science, medicine, astronomy, mathematics and civilization in general in Arab lands at the time of early Islamic expansion in contrast to a Europe in the throes of the "Dark Ages." Even the Crusaders marveled at the advances of Islam and to the disgust of following European adventures many Crusaders went "native" in custom and habit. The lands under Muslim conquest were very fairly treated and all religions tolerated though proselytizing of Muslims forbidden and tax placed on non-believers which funded government and expansion. However the rule of Islam was light enough that many converted to avoid the tax. The deal was usually much better than the taxes under former Christian domination.
The fanatics of today bear no resemblance to these early Muslims. They are traitors to their own Koran. which forbids forced conversion. They no more represent Islam than Tim McViegh represents Christianity or America.
BTW the movie Kingdom of Heaven is quite accurate in it general historical depictions. The romance aspect I'm not certain of, but leper king and despotic Renaud were real people as was the depiction of Saladin, down to his offer of ice water.
I too have read the Koran and I have been to the Middle East. I have seen women wearing black robes covering themselves from head to toe. I do not want this for American women. I will not glorify Islam just because I hate a politician. In Arabia, women who have ankles showing are beaten in the streets by "religious police".
Don't hate your country because you have a hatred for the President.
As far as The Kingdom of Heaven, Renauld De Chatillion was not a Templar, Nor was Guy De Lusian. The order answered to the Grand Master. Also, Godfrey was the victor of the first Crusade and the timeline was off. Additionally he was unrelated to Ballian De Ibilien.
As far as today, the Templars are an Ecumenical Order of Knighthood who assist Christians in need. They are a UN recognized NGO. The Illuminati have nothing to do with the order. Look on the web for SMOTJ and OSMTH.
Lastly, if were were not there fighting islamic terrorism we would be fighting on our own streets. They wish to establish a worldwide Caliphate, they want you to submit and pay tax, convert to Islam, or die.
My history of the Templar was brief and only to the point that we as westerners do not comprehend Islamic cultural history and why they fight and will fight our incursion upon their lands.
I do not excuse the excesses of fundamental Islam. It is foolish and grossly inaccurate to assume these excesses represent Islam any more than polygamy represents Christianity. I fear the destruction of Constitutional check and balance far greater than hordes of well armed Muslims sweeping thru Detroit or Chicago or Cleveland to impose Burkas. That idea is nonsense.
The glory of Islam does need the rapine of George Bush to define it. Early Islam benefited wisely from Aristotelian thinkers fleeing repression in an ever increasing European Dark Age and Islam rightly adopted the cultural and scientific enlightenment of Byzantium which made Baghdad one of the great cities on the planet. However Islam failed to meet its own expectations and like Christianity is a ghostly shadow of the founders' intent. If religion were damned to extinction for the savagery of those who claim it mankind would not now know God or any vision of divinity. It is crass political opportunism to condemn a religion for the excesses of a few.
I used to have a saying..."religion is not the problem, it is the people who (mal)practice it."
However...I have reluctantly decided that if an organized religion does not condemn and ostracize...even excommunicate...it's lunatic fringe, then it must accept some blame for the actions of that lunatic fringe. Al Qaeda is one example...Christian Dominionists are another. These extremist groups are tolerated in silence by mainstream Muslims and Christians respectively.
I agree with Bert that religion is often used as a foil to promote political agendas. I am not 100% confident that the main body of committed Islamic terrorists have religion at the core of their fight. I think they are reacting to a multitude of real and imagined hurts.
The fact that the greater body of Islam has not spoken loudly and clearly about the despicable nature of the tactics being used suggests to me that the highly-decentralized Muslim world sees some benefit to this current wave of violence.
As law enforcement often says -- as they look for motive -- who profits? I think when that question is answered, the source and motivation for this violence will become clear.
Very perceptive observation. "Profit," however, is not always monetary. It could be political or even spiritual. Islam, like Christianity, is aggressively evangelical. So "profit" could be defined as progress toward worldwide domination. This is the problem I see with religions...well, with Islam and Christianity, at least. They both have a clearly stated goal to convert the world to their views. This is a recipe for worldwide conflict and confrontation. As long as they both have this mutually contradictory goal, the people of earth are in danger.
The West has been in Arabia's back yard since the Crusades. From that time Arabia and Persia suffered one imperial conquest and brutal cultural assimilation after another and Islam still remains and retains a clear vision history and identity.
Yet Islam today is divided by murderous sectarian division which predates the Crusades. Many claim Islamic authority for myriad conflicting reasons. Despite this some define all Islam by the abuse of a few. Islam is no more monolithic than Christianity under the Pope in Rome. It is an organic religion and no one can speak for the entirety of all believers. Islam has endured constant encroachment and attack. Is it any wonder given the millennia of Western aggression they culturally find no fault with abuse of Western innocents despite the admonition of the Koran?
Islam is cursed by what lies under its native soil. Islam struggles with the corruption of identity thrust upon it by international lust for oil. For a century oil producing areas are socialist states fed by oil revenue and the normal check and balance of production and consumption is bypassed by the fruits of oil rendering an entire population dependant upon a single resource that only a very few generate. Without oil Islam would be a curious Middle Eastern phenomenon in a unproductive and strategically unimportant backwater. It is a mistake to distinguish between the excess of Islamic radicals and the oil under where the live. The two are inextricably woven. Once man frees himself from oil, Islam will be free and warrant the name "Peace."
One-sixth of the people on earth are practicing Muslims. Islam, like Christianity, is a proselytizing religion. Even without oil, Islam would be a potent force in the world, and the clash with Christianity would still be inevitable.
Two wrongs have never made a right.
There is no excuse under any religion for the barbarism displayed by radical Islam. However is it foolish to ignore historical context in divining how 1 billion people react.
Exactly right. Governments that get their operating cash from oil or other natural resources instead of from taxpayers do not have to answer to those taxpayers. Such governments are not responsive to their citizens. In the case of Saudi Arabia, the government gives the people just enough money to keep them from fomenting a revolution...and of course they have plenty of cash to pay their police force and buy all the weapons they need to put down a revolution if it started. The people, however, are uneducated, idle, hate their government and are devoutly religious and anti-American. A lethal combination.
The only reason our troops are there is the oil, of course. Once the oil is gone, we will lose interest in the Middle East completely...except for supporting and defending Israel, of course. But things will not go back to the way they were before the oil windfall. Arab governments and individuals have accumulated huge sums of cash which they have invested all over the world. They have also "invested" in terrorist groups intent on destroying us.
I am not demonizing Islam or most of its adherents. They are just people, like Christians. Some good, some bad, some insane.
The problem is, how to keep the lunatics from ruining things for the rest of us.
Name a conflict anywhere in the world that does not have islamic fascists on one (or both) sides. The difference that you seem to be missing Sam is that they are fighting us in the name of Islam and we are defending ourselves in the name of freedom and the representative republic form of government. They do not (in most cases) enjoy freedom of religion, speech, assembly, the press, to own, keep and bear firearms (in many cases). We do not have an objective to create a world-wide Christian Government based on the new Testament (like their Caliphate). We can not (perhaps exercising the noble savage principle) place ANY Islamic country on par with our own. In our country you are allowed to be Islamic, or not.
Also, a fervent Christian would be maniacally peaceful (turn the other cheek), where-as a radical Moslem wants all to march to his tune.
I do not deny their highly advanced early societies, but go there now, try to open a school about interpretive dance, sculpting, painting, watch what happens then (exception-Turkey).
Let's stand side by side and resist their tyranny! Our national survival will be decided in the next fifty years, let's pray for a tough leader.
As far as the Knights of the Temple, they still exist (a UN recognized NGO (SMOTJ)) and they are still doing their charitable mission in His name. Additionally, our brethren the Sovereign Military Order of Malta continue to do God's work. Respectfully, NON NOBIS, DOMINE, NON NOBIS
Yeah, all those fervent Christians who participated in the Crusades were maniacally peaceful. Rich, go read about the Dominionists. They want nothing less than a US government and laws based on the Bible, a Christian theocracy where all US citizens "march to their tune," and when they get that, the rest of the world comes next. Islam has no monopoly on fascists. We will have a Christian fascist state here if the Christian Right Wing has their way.
The Christian West has been meddling in the Islamic Middle East for centuries as Sam says. As for Israel winning their land "fair and square," they would have been overrun many times had it not been for Jewish supporters in the US and Europe providing weapons and money. They won the land by force of arms, against huge odds, and they are to be commended for that, but force of arms does not constitute a legal right to the land. Ownership of that land is buried in the murky depths of past history, and nobody can figure out who really owns it. At the moment, Israel occupies it, and will continue to as long as we support them.
The current position of what now are known as the Templars is irrelevant to their historical role. How does the establishment of Jewish colonies by the Brits mitigate the widespread Arab interpretation of that move as just one more Crusade?
Until we solve that problem, we are in great danger. Not just America and western Europe. All of mankind.
The oil problem will be gone in a few years. But Israel will still be there, and there will still be a militant branch of Islam bent on their destruction.
I am sure the Bush-haters would more protest even louder if their gas was $5.00-6.00/gallon! It would be his fault for not acting.
It is true that we may never be totally safe from Islamic Imperialism, but neither should they be safe from our reach. We have no imperial ambitions (defined as a kingdom that has subordinate kingdoms). We (alone) free people and leave them to their devices (France, Belgium, Germany, South Korea...). If we can get another republic in the mid-east the whole world will change. Face it, we need an ally there to contain the madness in Iran.
Israel could solve the problem by stopping the practice of giving the Palestinians land (for use in rocket attacks). The Islamic world loves having apologists, but the fact is (ask Iran) many of them are at war with us (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Palestine Authority) even though we don't admit it.
Remember, Christians don't wear dynamite vests. The Dominionists do not blow up children, or shoot rockets into school-yards to achieve their goals.
Want peace? Look at the countries where the republic form of government is in effect. In those places there are peace and justice. That is the bottom line. Would you rather be accused of a crime in Israel, or Iran?
I cannot understand why some Americans identify with our enemies more than our friends.
The "Christian Right" is no threat to socialists/liberals, they are protected by Radicals in the courts. They read into the Constitution and add to it as needed. It is constitutional, so I will defend it.
How many of our founding fathers were beautified moslems? In fact, where is there freedom in the Moslem world (Excepting Turkey [ever hear of a Turkish Prison])?
Regards!
A Crusade is an armed, religious invasion like Saladin's campaign against the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Repatriation of the Jews to their God given homeland is different. Even Moslems acknowledge that Israel was given to the Jews by God. It is Islamic doctrine (as spoken by the Prophet) to revere the Old Testiment as it is the word of God. In the Old Testiment God gave that land to the Jews. So the Moslem's crying about the Crusades is stale and old. None of them personnaly suffered. And one can always find an earlier example, right?
Are we all on the side of the United States of America? I am, without apology. Those with the liberal social attitudes and gentle permissive natures are the first locked up by these despots.
Regards!
You make a lot of statements that are clearly your opinions. Are they facts?
You speak of Islamic Imperialism, but give no examples, and deny that we are engaged in the same thing. Most of the people in the world would say that WE are the imperialists. No Muslim country is invading foreign nations. We have recently invaded two, and are threatening a third. Even former friendly nations find our "pre-emptive war" policy initiated by the present neocon government both frightening and abhorrent.
You are correct that Christians don't wear dynamite vests, but I fear the Christian Right more than I do any terrorist. Their concerted campaign to undermine the Constitution, to impose biblical law, christian prayer in schools, opposition to a woman's right to choose, medical advances like stem cell research, same-sex marriage...the list goes on and on. Their goal is to impose their beliefs on all of us. That represents a much greater danger to our nation that terrorism. It threatens to destroy a carefully designed secular democracy that our founders established for us.
As for the "Radicals" in the courts...even with Bush's recent packing of the Supreme Court, even they drew the line at some of his fascist power grabs and thumbing his nose at the rule of law, habeas corpus and due process. I find it amusing that Right Wingers like you are always bashing the "radical" courts while Bush is busily packing them with Right Wingers, some of whom can't even stomach his excesses.
Re Crusades: Are you denying that the Christian attacks on Islam were Crusades? That would be a level of denial equal to anti-semitic denial of the Holocaust!
I find claims for land (or anything else) based on the Bible totally preposterous. The Israelis occupy the land today through force of arms. Who really has a claim to that land? It has changed hands regularly down through history. Nobody can say who owns it. The Palestinians who claim it were squatters on the land less than a hundred years ago. As I said before, until this is resolved, it will be a continuous point of conflict, and a rallying point for Islamic fanatics...a breeding ground for terrorism.
In current political spin-speak the neocons refer to Islamists as "Islamic Fascists" or "Islamofascists." That they themselves are "Neoconfascists" doesn't seem to occur to them.
Then you make the incredible logical leap of tying Islamic recongition of the Torah while forgeting Muhammad as their prophet, just as Christians believe Jesus their fullfillment of Judeaic prophecy.
Repetitive disinformation and half truth is a tried and true tactic of any rightest regime. You're also assuming actions of the Bush Admin have anything to do with patriotism or the best interests of America and that those who seek understanding based on truth, history and reality are not "on the side of America." That is proven false on many levels.
Rich your interpretations of history facts on the ground are agenda driven and not directed toward objective truth. This thinking has got us nowhere. It's time to move beyond old methods of imperialist conquest and recognize the need for new methods and rational policy that understand the history and motive of the Islamic world.
Lots of name calling here. I wonder why all of the sudden anger? Are you accustomed to sycophantic "you are right" and "well said" one sided discourse?
Are you saying the Saladin's attack on the Kingdom of Jerusalem wasn't a crusade? Are Christians the only one's who can crusade? Come-on be honest.
Things I never said: 1. I am well versed on Crusader history. 2. The Christian Crusaders never committed ill acts. 3. That the courts should be bashed. 4. The Holocaust should be denied.
Do you deny that the government of Iran is Islamic-Fascist? Look up each of those two words, don't they apply? And don't they apply to UBL?
Do you really believe that the President's actions are not driven by patriotism? Really?
Do you think he hates his country and seeks to do it harm? Isn't inactivity in a war worse?
What about the success of Afghanistan? The increased stability in Iraq?
Why do people on the left ignore the 160+ mustard gas artillery shells that Hussein had? Yes I know that was one of the Chemical agents used against the Kurds.
Do you know that the Islamic Jihadists are traveling to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight us? We can conveniently kill them there and save us here in the states from attacks. (worked didn't it?) It is better for combat to be on the other guy's turf. We have had ZERO sucessful attacks since 9/11. Is that an accident?
Can you imagine if 9/11 would have happened under H.R.Clinton or B. Hussein Obama? P.M. Neville Chamberlain ring any bells? The enemy holds weakness in great disdain. Do we really want a leftist to be our commander in chief in wartime? You can't "nice" and enemy into submission.
Can we have a discourse without using the DNC talking points? Becoming more and more shrill when confronted with opposing opinions may be the sign of a weak argument.
I ask you again, name a conflict anywhere in the world where the Moslem's are not on one side or another.
Do the Moslems try to understand our history and our sensitivities? Can we practice our religion freely in their airports? Can we have this discussion in their enlightened lands (with very few exceptions)? Is abortion (ie: woman's right to choose) legal in many (any) of their lands?
Gents, they are NOT better than us, we are one of the few spots in the world with peace, proserity and strength. That is a fact, deal with it.
I choose to be in a strong, free and vibrant land. I enjoy our disagreement and you guys are none the less in my eyes for your opinions. I will help keep you free with my last breath.
If we had imperial ambitions we would keep the territory we capture (Germany, Japan, Italy, Afghanistan etc). Instead we free the people and give it back. Who else, except Great Britian, does this? Also, we are not a monarchy or dictatorship, so the imperial model does not fit.
If you gents want to have a mutual affirmation society here, say the word, but you seldom address my points specifically. Doubt it? Re-read the above.
Very Respectfully
Rich
Islamic: the religious faith of Muslims including belief in Allah as the sole deity and in Muhammad as his prophet
I'll address your last point as a measure of your capacity to look beyond rightest agendas:
There is no comparison between the invasion and occupation of Iraq and WW2 and post war Germany, Japan and Italy. WW2 was a conflict between large standing armies with specific strategic goals that were achieved. Governments and militaries surrendered which ended the war. Post war occupation of Japan and Germany was brief and there was NO insurgency. Afghanistan is still home to thousands of GI's and most of the country under insurgent rule. We certainly are giving it back to the Taliban, if that's what you mean. Italy switched sides in 1944 after Mussolini was hung and GI's were treated with flowers and parade upon entering Rome.
McArthur landed in Japan after the surrender aboard a C-47 escorted by 2 P-51 Mustangs. Along the both sided of the road to his headquarters Japanese soldiers in full battle gear stood at attention with backs toward his motorcade in a gesture of submission. Seen that in Iraq? The post war comparisons are silly. America had no imperialist ambitions in those places. Iraq, however sits upon one of the world's largest untapped oil reserves. For the last 100 years America and the West have supported any government, no matter how brutal or fanatic as long as the oil flowed. During Saddam reign Iraq nationalized its oil which restricted the profits of American oil companies. The attack against Iraq is a imperialistic grab for oil. Read the draft Iraq hydrocarbons law, (written by US oil interests before any shot was fired) now languishing in the Iraqi parliament. 70% of Iraqis want us gone. We are still there. Is this "giving it back?" "Imperialism is the forceful extension of a nation's authority by territorial gain or by the establishment of economic and/or political dominance over other soverign nations." America invaded Iraq, wrecked the existing government, attempts to insert supply sided economics and "Democratic" process upon a people who view themselves first as Muslim, 2nd as sect, 3rd as tribal and last as Iraqis. Iraq itself was formed by imperialist fiat at the Paris Peace conference 1919 by the Western victors, carved out of late Ottoman Empire and then given to the Brits as a protectorate. The native Shi'ia Sunni and Kurd had no input in origin of their nation. America has a long history of imperialism. Read up on Bush's favorite Teddy Roosevlt and also Americas conquest of the Phillipines during the Spanish American War.
There are two points made clear Rich: imperialism and WW2 post war occupation.
I disagree totally with your generally cynically outlook. But I respect your intellect. My comments about name calling were largely addressed elsewhere.
We disagree that our motivation is the oil. If we wanted it we could just take it and be done. Otherwise why do we allow all of these countries to nationalize the oil we discover, drill and tap for them? All of it after we invest in the infrastructure to recover it.
I will be very happy when we dont need the oil anymore, then they can return to their nomadic ways.
I don't want my sisters, mother and daughters to live under that system (islamic law). But others are lionizing it while denegrating our system. I guess it is a question of outlook.
I wish we were imperial sometimes. We could take the resources we need, but we aren't and can't.
Respectfully;
R
I guess you must be addressing your namecalling accusation at me. I called you a Right-Winger. Are you denying that?
I will also be glad when we don't need Middle East oil any more, but the Arabs will not return to their nomadic ways. They now own a large part of the economic infrastructure in the world with the investments made with their oil money. Get used to it. Arab money is here to stay, and it is supporting your current lifestyle by buying US Treasury bonds to finance our oil purchases. When they and the Chinese stop doing that, you and I will both be in big, big trouble.
I don't want anyone in this country to live under Islamic law. I also don't want anyone in this country living under Biblical law. This is supposed to be a secular democratic republic. That is what our founders envisioned. Are we in agreement on that?
I don't wish we "were imperial sometimes." I have no desire to rule the world and "take the resources we need," but I find it alarming that you have that desire. I think we need to be peaceful and responsible citizens of the world.
I don't find Sam's outlook to be cynical at all. Your view that we should take what we need is profoundly cynical. It is the view that much of the world has of us. We no longer hold the moral high ground, and it is views like yours that have cost us our "good guy image" in the world. If we are going to win the war against terrorism, we desperately need to regain that good guy image, because we need the cooperation of every nation on earth if we are going to beat those guys. If we fail to do that, we will be destroyed, and no amount of troops or planes or bombs or patriotic prattle from people like you will save us. I want you to think about that very hard before you come back with some more Bush talking points.
Your accusation that we are using DNC talking points is profoundly hypocritical, as you are parroting the Bush/Cheney spintalk party line. But that is a standard mudslinging campaign technique...accuse your opponent of exactly what you are doing.
I only have one question: Do you want us to win the war, or not? If so, then you should remember that you liberal elites are made free by the exertions of better men than you (the military). A simple thank you is enough.
The United States of America is a political relationship between citizens upon a space of land. The Constitution defines that relationship. Each new citizen and each governmental official, from the Postal Clerk to the President swears to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Allegiance is not sworn to a particular current ideology or even to a star spangled banner; our loyalty and commitment as citizens is to adherence to the Constitution. We do not swear to secure commerce, easy access to oil or the preservation of big buildings no matter how they fall. There is no leeway granted for any government to supersede the checks and balances in this document. It has, however, happened and by the most revered Presidents, Lincoln and FDR. Yet no President, before Bush, came to power with the intention to make unequal the co-equal branches of government. No President sought to codify this breach of Constitutional principal through legislation by a subservient and ideologically driven Congress, such as the one recently defeated. No President has used a contrived war like Iraq as a vehicle to subvert the most closely held rights of Americans. Therefore George Bush, by the very example of ideology and practice is un-American an unpatriotic condemned by the very document he has sworn to preserve and protect.
Rich you are correct in your literal definition of fascist to the first definition in Webster. The second definition, and equally valid, states fascism is "any tendency toward or actual exercise of severe autocratic or dictatorial control." It is fair then to consider Bush and his neo-con allies as at least tending toward fascism.
Do we wish the war "won?" The only credible and definition Bush will accept as "victory" is unfettered access to Iraqi oil. That is not my war, or America's war.
If I hated the President (I don't)I wouldnt want our COUNTRY to fail.
The Idiot Islamic radicals (your phrase) planned the 9/11 attacks on Saint Clinton's term. Did Bush cause that attack? Or was it weakness of character on the part of the President?
The Iraqis are not free to have us leave as the majority wishes. The only freedom Bush requires is freedom for them to hand over soverignty of their oil resource, which no legitimate government in IRaq will ever do. And Iraq did not attack us on 9/11. And it is proven again and again we are creating more "terrorists" than killing by occupation of Iraq. If all you have to offer is more RNC/oil cabal nonsense, save your fingers.
I was reading this thread and learning a great deal without religion raising it's ugly head until you entered the conversation. However, I understand that you are coming at things from the point of a dedicated Christian rather than a student of history or political scholar, so I understand what you are saying and even agree with some of it. However, you have chosen to couch this largely in religious terms, you know, kill the radical Muslims and we'll all be happy!
\\\\Do you deny that the government of Iran is Islamic-Fascist? Look up each of those two words, don't they apply? And don't they apply to UBL?/////
For starts, Islamic and Fascist are mutually incompatible things! Even by the wording of the definitions you offered, there is nothing to tie them together! No Muslim would ever be accepting of anything greater or more important than his religion and fascism gives this spot to the government. Totally unacceptable. This was a term that, I believe, Michael Savage started to make it sound more nasty for Muslims. From there it grew in the worst way.
\\\\Do you really believe that the President's actions are not driven by patriotism? Really?
Do you think he hates his country and seeks to do it harm? /////
Your beloved president does not see his actions as being non-patriotic or patriotic. His dedication is to the PNAC agenda for a Pax Americana and really doesn't care, in my opinion, about America. It is to be replaced by a world governing body of basically corporate design which, in his opinion, is the way things ought to be and will be much better! I just happen to disagree as does a great amount of the American public. So the answer to that question is that his actions are totally agenda driven, not patriotic and no, he doesn't hate America, but wants to "improve" it his way.
\\\\What about the success of Afghanistan? The increased stability in Iraq?////
What successes in Afghanistan? We left there in such a hurry to get into Iraq we got a collective whiplash! Today I heard where the president of Afghanistan is working to join forces with the Taliban as a means of holding his government together. Does this sound like an improvement to you? I'm afraid we cut and run there a little too quick! Adding in an extra 30,000 troops in Iraq was bound to make it more secure. However, it's still a long way from secure and deaths are continuing. There has been little real progress on the actual sharing of power and the other pie in the sky ideas to make a successful central government there.
\\\\Why do people on the left ignore the 160+ mustard gas artillery shells that Hussein had? Yes I know that was one of the Chemical agents used against the Kurds.////
No one I've heard is denying Saddam used gas against the Kurds. We gave him the gas for use against Iran! And now we are bitching about his having it? After all, Saddam was our man in the Middle east until he chose to invade Kuwait!
\\\\Do you know that the Islamic Jihadists are traveling to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight us? We can conveniently kill them there and save us here in the states from attacks. (worked didn't it?) It is better for combat to be on the other guy's turf. We have had ZERO sucessful attacks since////
Any time the Al Queda wishes to fight us in this country, they can! They have no real troops on the ground in Iraq and we certainly don't have them "tied up" in any way. They are choosing the battle ground, not us. And we are going along with their choosing. Is that dumb or what?
\\\\Can you imagine if 9/11 would have happened under H.R.Clinton or B. Hussein Obama? P.M. Neville Chamberlain ring any bells? The enemy holds weakness in great disdain. Do we really want a leftist to be our commander in chief in wartime? You can't "nice" and enemy into submission.////
I personally wish to God that Bill Clinton had still been in the White House when the attacks occurred! And HR Clinton or Barak Obama would be just fine as well. Remember that the first and second world wars were won by "leftists" by your definition!
\\\\Can we have a discourse without using the DNC talking points?////
Not being a Democrat, I'm not knowledgeable on just what constitutes the DNC talking points. If you have a problem with some point please describe the point and your problem. This kind of comment is not productive.
\\\\I choose to be in a strong, free and vibrant land.////
I do also and hope we can keep a little of that freedom before the current regime takes it all away with Patriot Act like legislation and illegal wire taps!
\\\\If we had imperial ambitions we would keep the territory we capture (Germany, Japan, Italy, Afghanistan etc). Instead we free the people and give it back. Who else, except Great Britian, does this? Also, we are not a monarchy or dictatorship, so the imperial model does not fit.////
I agree that we were not an imperial state when WW II took place. But Bush was not president then! And you don't have to have a monarchy or dictatorship for an imperial belief. Had we Bush's predilection for preemptive war we'd have remained in Germany long enough after the first world war that the second would never have occurred with Germany. But there is a new man in the White House with a whole new agenda today!
Thanks Rich! Hope this addresses some of your questions.