War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser

Timber, this took me by surprise. I hadn't heard anything like this before. Can you elaborate for me?

What is one of the major reasons Al Queda is against the US? They have stated our support for Israel as one of the major reasons. What is the aim of the radical Islamofacists? To kill Jews and in turn convert the world to Islam. You wouldn't call this anti-Semitism?

I happen to think it isn't even about Israel with groups like Al Queda. I think it is control of the world under sheria law.

I thought they hated us for our freedom.

Baldimo pretty much answered your query, FreeDuck. The primary focus of The War on Terror is armed militant radical Islamic fundamentalism, which itself has as a primary focus the eradication of Israel - or, as they term it, "The Zionist Entity". There's no gettin' around it; anti-semitism is the prime mover of terrorism today.

I sort of agree. But how much do you think has to do with anti-semitism and how much to do with Israeli-Palestinian conflict? I realize that's a fine distinction, but it is possible to be against Israel's occupation and against US support for it without being anti-semitic. Not that the terrorists are, by any means, but you can see how their message might resonate with folks in other parts of the world who are.

It ain't our freedom that infuriates the militants, its our support for Israel that drives their antagonism toward us. To the mind of bin Laden and ilk, Israel stands only with US support; their intention is to cause the US sufficient inconvenience as to bring about a cessation of US support for Israel. While it will take time - a generation or two or three perhaps - having embarked on the endeavor, the militants have set in motion the machinery of their own doom. The expansion of democracy throughout the region is the single greatest threat to the aims of the militants, occasioning great desperation on their part. They - the militants - have fatally underestimated the resolve and fortitude of The US and her people, and draw false comfort from the partisan wranglin' brought on through the ridiculously misguided and thoroughly counter-productive efforts of The Democratic Party to reverse the decline it has brought on itself.

Some of the militants might be driven by some sort of a plan to separate America and Israel.

I don't really see that as where BinLaden was coming from. To me it looked more like a pure power struggle in Saudi which had absolutely nothing to do with Israel. The old guy running the place was about to croak and the five or six dudes next in line were all in their late sixties and on up so that time wasn't on their side either. BinLaden thought he saw a shot at leapfrogging the seventy-somethings by scoring a sufficient number of moxie points by walking up to a 1500-lb gorilla which appeared to have been asleep for the previous eight years (us), and kicking the gorilla in the balls. Based on the experience of the previous eight years, he figured the Americans would lob a few cruise missiles in and he'd have to lay low and keep his head down for a couple of months, and then it'd blow over.

If the guy had any clue as to what was actually likely to happen, he'd not have done it.

They tought they were still dealing with Clinton type people who would cut and run at the first sign on trouble. This is what happened in Somalia and there was Al Queda support to the locals. They have through wrong when we have a strong president and strong support form the US population for the president.

Thanks gunga for a relevant link.

Oh, no?
Purported al-Zarqawi tape: Democracy a lie

Read your history, Brandon. Hitler made precisely the same argument against democracy - the " ... greatest of Zionist lies", in his own words.

Brandon, I read this and laughed too. Though surely not for the same reasons as you.

The questions that I raise are:

-- Does this mean George Bush was lying (again) when he said, "They hate us for our freedom"?

-- Or does it mean he's just dumb (again)?

Since I don't frequent the ultra-right propaganda websites, this must be GOP Talking Point #57 (look, a Kerry reference!) in their ongoing attempt to find a rationalization justifying a war now nearly two years old. Like all the others, this one has probably been test-marketed in the right-wing blogosphere, served up through their media organs --the ones on the dole as well as the ones who aren't -- and is now being parroted strenuously by the usual suspects here.

That ongoing ridiculousness aside, however, I have always gathered from what bin Laden has said that the religious fundamentalists on their end of the God-spectrum were incensed not so much by the nebulous tenets of 'democracy' and 'freedom' but by the general malicious influence (not to mention ubiquitous presence) of Americans and American culture on their world.

This is really not unlike the Christian conservatives attacking elements of the same culture which they find offensive. Like Spongebob, for example. No blood being spilled yet by the Godniks in support of their cause -- that's the only difference I see.

And it seems to me to be a very effective strategy thus far that Osama and his band of merry men have executed -- to gradually bleed the Great Satan white by fomenting insurgency in as many hot spots as possible.

That's what was done in Vietnam, after all, and in Afghanistan to the Soviet Union as well. Took a decade, both times.

I think all that has the ancillary purpose of weakening Israel, but I doubt that was their primary goal. The US has done much more to offend the Muslims in the past ten years than Israel. And I think that's why we were attacked. (They could have flown planes into the Knesset, after all.)

And in case you haven't noticed, the Palestinians have a new leader who strongly advocates conciliation.

So by the logic previously given by the righties just now, my question is:

Will the WOT subsequently come to an end if the Palestinians and the Israelis declare peace on each other?

PDiddie, this of course is just my personal take, and most likely not at all somethin' with which you or your ideologic compatriots will agree, but I figure that sorta thinkin', and the elitist, exclusionary, divisive, denialist philosophy behind it, is precisely why The Democratic Party is in the shape it is, and is likely to continue - even accellerate - its downward spiral. I read your statement up there as an extraordinary confirmation of the "just don't get it" syndrome.

Now, naturally, I could be wrong. I'll observe, however, in particular reference to politico-economic discussion exchanges involving yourself and me, that the point of view and preferences held by the two of us have been significantly different - even antithetical. I submit, for your consideration, that over the years during which you and I have engaged in this excersize, events foreign and domestic, political and economic, have provided those with whom I agree considerably less disappointment than has been experienced by proponents of the positions you espouse.

Now timber, none of that diatribe answered any of the questions I posed.

You're invited to try again, or you can start with a couple of new ones:

Rafick starts this thread with an article uncited yet sourced to the Inter Press News Service Agency (I cannot find it at their website, but that could be because it's at least a year old). The comments of Mr. Zelikow (do I have his name correct?) in that post were made nearly on the first anniversary of the 9/11 attack.

Yet Freeduck responded, as did I, with surprise to hear this postulate articulated by you.

Why is it just now floating up to the top of the bowl?

I don't think the right answer is that we "just missed it". Obviously a few of the right wing nutjobs were advancing it years ago, just as obviously it failed to acquire legitimacy then. How does it do so now?

Not to seem mean or anything here, PDiddie, but to me it appears your latest gets even deeper into "just don't get it" territory. Whether or not you " ... think the right answer is that we 'just missed it' ... ", that evidently is the case.

Further, your observation and its accompanying querry " ... Obviously a few of the right wing nutjobs were advancing it years ago, just as obviously it failed to acquire legitimacy then. How does it do so now?" are, to my mind even more conclusive evidence of misapprehension on your part.

I'm not tryin' to pick a fight with ya, PDiddie, I'm just observin' that given the tradition established, any attempt by me to relieve you of your misapprehension likely would be as futile as have been all such previous endeavors. Whether you won't or can't is immaterial; you just plain don't get it. Its a philosophy thing, I guess. I don't begrudge you your point of view - far from it. I'm simply baffled by it; it fits neither the relevant current evidence as I see it nor the relevant history as I know it. Obviously, your mileage varies. Perhaps that's because you're spinnin' your wheels, or takin' the wrong route. None the less, I just don't see you gettin' to where you wanna be usin' your current approach. While I'm sure we have pretty much the same overall ultimate goal, I can't see that you're headed in the right direction to get there.

As I've said, I could be wrong. Thats just how it seems to me, and it seems to me its been this way for a good long while.

So you don't even care to try to answer the questions, then?

Why don't you take into consideration that this conversation isn't just happening between the two of us?

There may be others reading along who would like to have this explained (and perhaps even stand a greater chance of being converted than do I).

I'm not trying to be mean or pick a fight either. I think your logic is bankrupt, have explained why I think that is so in a previous post, and I am asking you to explain your position in greater detail.

At this point, you may do so or not. I do not think it is your perception of my inability to understand your rationale that is preventing you from explaining it, however.

Ratf**k


That sums up where you are coming from. What branch of the Aryan nation do you belong to?

Timber - your idea that the war on terrorists really is a war on anti-semitism appears to run into 2 problems, to wit:
1. Arabs are every bit as semitic as jews.
2. If by anti-semitism we mean "anti-Israel" then how does your stand contradict the main thesis of the thread title?

Travel overseas has made me more observant of statistics - including the fact that Vlad Putin, the ex-KGB man, was warmly received at a concentration camp memorial in which 1 million were killed, whereas his own country's Gulag killed upwards of 60 million as per their own statistics during the time the communists ruled.

Never mind that Pol-Pot killed 2 million of his own people, or that the Chinese and North Koreans murder millions of their own via planned starvation - memorial service for those eludes me - or that additional millions die yearly in Africa and Asia - the "holocaust" racket is intent on focusing on industrial efficiency, presumably, since the contemporary victims are killed by low-tech implements such as machetes, bacteria, viruses, germs, and the like.

The "holocaust" racket has collected billions already based primarily on original Russian estimates of "4 million dead" (since revised to 1 million) at Auschwitz, so that mythology is unlikely to stop with the latest blackmail of insurance companies and banks wishing to avoid bad publicity. I would nevertheless have thought that to someone who saw the slaughter of Marines at Khe-San (and I didn't, but you did!) the latest "incidents" at Fallujah et al would strike a warning note.

As I know that your own son is out there I don't want to make this personal - simply ask that you review your original statement. Thanks.

Think mebbe you miss where I'm comin' from with this tack, HofT (and great to see ya again - hope all is well with ya). But yeah, perhaps my use of the term "anti-semitic" was imprecise; the parties at question essentially are mutually abrahamic both in ethnicicity and theology. I prolly shoulda just said "anti-Jewish" - Israel is a side show to the overall antipathy of the Islamic culture toward the Jewish culture. And while Arab/Islamic terrorism is not the only flavor of terrorism, it comprises the biggest helping of the stuff on the plate currently before us. I think my statement stands.

Gotta say too that comparin' "Fallujah et al" to Khe San is sorta like comparin' a squabble over a parkin' space to a full-blown riot. Not to dismiss the tragedy of any death, but from a purely operational perspective, overall own-force casualties to date in Afghanistan and Iraq combined are militarily insignificant. For an instance truly representative of slaughterin' Marines, I refer you to Tarawa. I wasn't there, but my dad was. And his dad heard Gunny Dan Daly shout "C'mon, you sons-o-bitches! Do ya wanna live forever?" at Belleau Wood 25 years before that. Its a matter of perspective.

Thanks for thinkin' of my son. I appreciate that.

I agree that Israel plays a major role in how we got where we are with Arabs and half of the rest of the world.

After the 67 war, we adopted the policy that we would ensure the existence of Israel. It has kept us in Diplomatic **** Creek since. We can't forget that in 67, the entire Middle East threw in directly or indirectly against Israel and STATED the goal of the destruction of Israel.

And, of couse, against all odds, Israel spanked their collective ass.

Because of our efforts to keep them from being annihilated--plus a bit of dabbling in Iran/Iraq war--to counterweight the Soviet's dabbling--we are pretty hated in the ME. In the bi-polar world, they (the Arabs, in general terms) picked the Soviets, because we picked Israel. That's it in a nutshell.