in the other thread you said, "you don't attack people for their ideas"!!! he's just giving some historical facts about how Wahabi and then Saudi connection (financing and expansionism) produced Taliban and Al Qeada. Their hate for the Persians/Shias is nothing new. their short history of existance (Wahabism is barely 100 yrs old, thanxto Saudi oil) being of savage acts. these are in every book about Saudis & oil & the war.
Obviously that's not true. al Queida pretty much is aiming at US, UK and several other developed states. Yet they didn't attack Sweden, Norway, Netherland or Denmark, did they? Say they don't have a particular goal is simply against the facts. Invasion of Aghanistan and Iraq has raised the international status or profile of al Queida, and provided a catalase for terrorist recruiment that's for sure. Invasion of Iraq may not have greatly increased support for al Queida throughout the Muslim world, but certainly have greatly increased the influence of their ideology support throughout the Muslim world. It's free advertisement from the US, in that their objectives be known to the whole world as #1 enemy of USA. And if you have seen bin Laden's declearation of why he wanted to attack USA, you'd know they did have a goal and used the conflicts and sufferings in Middle East and Palestine as their claims. The attacks of USA before 9/11 proves that they have thought about this for a long time. The attack on 9/11 was one of the events of their planned strategy, imo. You mentioned "muslims kill other muslims all the damm time." Yes it's true but that's okay just like Americans killed Americans in the Civil War that no one would complain. Why? It's an internal affair. That Your brother killing you and you killing your brother can be treated as a family fuel. But that your neighbor's brother killing your brother would be a unusual aggressive event, and you would be very upset and fight along on your brother's side. Now US soldiers in Iraq killing Iraqis, you should know how other Iraqis/Muslins would feel, and how al Queida would take advantage of this golden opportunity for their propaganda.
I found your posts very interesting, though I wouldn't put so much effort into convincing patrickm. I don't think he listens to reason or logic. Anyway, more to the point, what would you do now? I was completely against attacking Iraq, as I thought it would create a big mess (even though getting rid of Saddam seemed a good thing, but I felt the price was too high) and cause a lot of anti-American (and supporters) sentiment, and as a consequence endanger America (and supporters) even more. Voila, we've seen it again on 7 July. Apart from the fact that the Iraq war seemed to work in favour rather than against Al Qaeda, that much was clear just based on the news I got here in Europe. Well quite clearly now the world is a more dangerous place than it used to be. Now, given that the mess has indeed been created, how would you get out of it? Of course the UK can't withdraw their troops now, simply because it would be giving in to terrorism, and as a consequence encourage further terrorist attacks. So how do you see the situation evolving in a positive way? I simply don't see a solution, and I find this rather depressing. Any ideas?
What I will suggest is a hard sell in some quarters in America and even in Europe. The propaganda image of Iran is not easy to suddenly erase from people's minds. I think the US and EU should let Iraq be handled by the Iraqi government with the help of regional states, including Iran. At the same time, the US should see if there is still any chance of what was quite within its reach only a few weeks ago: to find a reasonable resolution of its undeclared war against Iran. To focus on making sure it mends fences with Iran, not on Israel's terms, but on terms that would be in the long term advantage of the US and the rest of the world. Including, in my judgment, eventually even Israel. So far the US has been following the opposite track.
Yep, according to your judgement, it would help Israel. If it was so, Jews of Israel would not have a nation of their own, so forgive me for not taking your judgement seriously. The problem is with corrupt muslim regimes which take all the money given to its people and take it for themselves. US should mend fences with Iran, you are a lunatic. You are asking US to mend fences with a country whose majority of people hate US, whose government is sworn to Israel's destruction. Long term advantage which would suit US is to have countries whose people don't have to be affraid to speak out against its governments and who actually want to lead normal lives wihtout tyranic, totaletarian regimes. In case of Israel, US benefits from intelligence, terrorism training, what do they get from other ME countrie - oil, (for now). that's all
Apparently the policy makers in Washington think very differently than you do. I don't think they want Iranian influrence on Iraqi government. Consider the hostile history of these two countries, Iraqis probably didn't want that either. I think the best bet for Iran is that they should seek protection from the Russian, in order to fight Americans and Iraqis.
Of course the recent elections in Iran haven't helped to make the image better. Ahmadinezadh does not exactly inspire trust into an Iranian state that is open to negotiations with Western countries. And I can't see anything improving without negotiations. But from what you say a war, or I hope you just mean mean cold war, is already a given? I hope you are too pessimistic. Anyway, the solution you suggest for Iraq does not seem practical to me. And 'help of neighbouring states' is far too ill defined for me. What do you mean by help, and based on the history of Iraq and Iran, do you think help from Iran would be generally appreciated? Also, do you suggest an immediate withdrawal of the US (and etc.) troops? Wouldn't you worry about a complete and violent chaos breaking out then?
So what do you suggest as alternative to mending fences? War? Do you think that would improve the situation? Also, could you point me to some references that show Ahmadinezadh has sworn to destroy Israel. From what I read he seems very Iran-centered, and not open enough, but you do sound a bit paranoid. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, go ahead. Of course, we should also keep in mind that the best solution is always for the people of Iran to elect a government that is more willing to negotiate.
To be honest, I have not had time yet to research all the statements of the new Iranian leader, but I know that for the past ten years Iran as a country has not just financed terrorist organization who are sworn to Israel's destruction, but moreover it won't allow its athletes to compete against Israelis. When one nation does not even recognize another nation, when its history and geography manuals don't show Israel on any of its maps, I can safely ASSUME that this country is not too "warm" of another. As to mu suggestion, mine unfortunately will mean war of some sort. We need to completely reeducate and change mainstream media of muslim nations who teach hate for America, hate for Christians and Jews. We need to freeze all money going from terrorist sponsor nations to terrorist organizations and we DO have to go with full force after those organizations who practice violence and all those who advocate, train, sponsor, harbor terrorist groups
Ahmadinjead has really been the object of a smear campaign, both by his opponents in Iran as well as by his opponents outside. I have listened now to perhaps 5-6 hours of different interviews, campaign speeches and press conferences from the guy. On his own, Iran's foreign policy will be less flexible on the "nuclear issue", but over all he is not what he has been painted to be. He is open to negotiations, but he is not open to seeing Iran being dictated to. The majority of Iranians support his position on the nuclear issue and you would too if you were their shoes. (1) The help I refer to is something along the lines of the platform that made SCIRI the most popular party among the shias. Indeed, only the other day, the new Iraqi defense minister (a sunni) visited Iran and concluded an agreement for training of Iraqi forces by Iran. Without American troops, basically the new Iraqi government would be allowed to rely more heavily on Iranian support to train and equip its armed forces, while there could be a small contingent of Iranian troops in the shia and Kurdish areas of Iraq as well. Baghdad would have a multinational force backing up the Iraqi forces, including Iranian forces, but of course rely mainly on the Iraqi security forces. The Western regions of Iraq (the Anbar province) could take Syrian (perhaps with some Saudi) peacekeeping forces. (2) The US has tried a lot to fuel suspicion and to encourage negative feelings towards Iran among the Iraqis. Nonetheless, among the shia, the political figures who are popular are all pro-Iranian -- and known as such in Iraq. Indeed, the way to see your popularity and profile rise in Iraq is to be somehow associated with Iran. Take the case of Chalabi. When he was seen as a neocon puppet, no one among the Iraqis wanted anything to do with him. Once he was alleged to be an Iranian "spy", he suddenly found himself become a "legitimate political figure". Clearly, all of Iraq's most popular figures are pro-Iranian, and to the extent they are forced under US pressure to distance themselves from Iran, their popularity has dented. That is true of Jaafari for instance, who since becoming prime minister was beginning to lose his stature by appearing to ready to please the US and too interested in distancing himself from Iran. He got the message himself, and is going to making his visit to Tehran next week. Basically, within shia politics in Iraq, the city council elections in the shia region were contested by two pro-Iranian parties (Dawa and Sciri) and the one that was seen as even more pro-Iranian (SCIRI) is the one that won. Even Ayatollah Sistani, who is Iranian born but who the US wanted to present as some sort of an 'anti-Iranian cleric' after they were confronted with his popularity, in reality has excellent relations with Iran. Indeed, the only foreign dignatory Ayatollah Sistani has met was Iran's foreign minister in his recent trip to Iraq. On the other hand, Sistani has stead fastly refused meeting anyone else from any other country, certainly from the US or any non Moslem country. No. Obviously it has to be orderly and part of a larger plan. The kind I don't see as likely but the kind that I feel holds the real answers to the problem.
No, I strongly disagree. You are preaching World War III here. That's certainly not the solution. In fact, I also disagree about Israel. To pick a random example, you simply can't build a ghetto-like fence if some of your ancestors have experienced analogous things in the past (thanks grandpa et al.). Putting the blame entirely on muslim nations is a gross simplification. You need to get rid of the stereotype that Iran is a terrorist sponsor nation. What does that mean anyway? Of course the USA are a terrorist sponsor nation as well, having finaced the taliban, and I am not even mentioning their army. So no, things are simply not as black and white as you seem to think. From my point of view, the blame is fairly evenly distributed. Bottom line is that we have to learn to get along now, and bombing each other won't solve anything.
Ok thanks for the detailed answer. I can see your points, and wish you were right and you could implement a peaceful Iraqi state with support from Iran. Of course, you can also see that this won't go down very well in the USA... which, given the inherent instabilty of the region, is partially understandable. If you were an American politican, would you want a strong Iran-Iraq coalition? I don't want a strong USA either, as I don't trust their choice of presidents, so I am hesitant about creating an anti-American powerhouse in the east, a coalition that might explode if somebody as crazy as the current American president come into power... which, considering history is not so unlikely. anyway, I am waffling now, as I simply don't know a solution.
Just when I though of having a good argument, you say something like that. I don't argue with people who put America and Iran as the same in sposoring terrorists. And that ghetto-like fence, which you obviously have never seen in real life saves many Jewish lives, but than you wouldn't care about it. I will, as difficult as it is, contain myself from calling you some names. Can't we just get along might be the most (I appologize) moronic statement which one can make when you face people who want to cut your kill you, cut your throat, blow you up or convert you.
hey Mr. slick, seems like you are laying the foundation to call him anti-semitic and thereby discredit anything and everything he has to say. play it nice!
I am sorry, but I simply state my opinion. I guess we are all slaves of the media we are exposed to. I get my news from BBC, CNN, German TV, La Monde Diplomatique, El Pais, NOS, some Dutch newspapers, the Guardian, the Independent, the Spiegel, the Sueddeutsche, and from talking to my friends in London where I work. Based on this, I make up my political opinion, and I am sorry if that doesn't agree with yours. I am sure I am fairly Europe centered, so it's possible that I put too much blame on the USA, and maybe also on Israel given that I've never been there and I don't speak Hebrew. I have quite a few Israeli friends though who also condemn the fence. Mostly expatriats, which might explain it. Anyway, my concern is that you don't have a solution either, so calling me moronic is a bit silly really. Or do you honestly believe that a war is the solution? That's just crazy. Who do you want to fight then? Just Iran and Iraq, or also Saudi Arabia? Lybia? Jordan? Madness. We have to get along, face it.
I was not going to call him that, at all. I discredit him for saying that US's army and Iranian sponsored Hezbollah is the same, that's what discredits him
But would you for even a tiny % consider that all those media outlets have an agenda that is not 100% right and that there is a chance that US and Israel are not the satan and that there are many people in ME that just hate others for them being different.
You are just too black and white. I never said this. What I did say is that neither the USA nor Iran are innocent or could claim to be so. And I also said some people who made important decisions in the US financed the Taliban, which makes them supporters of terrorism. Do you deny this?
from their point of view, Hizballah is fighting for little dignity that they have left, theirstruggle would be more recognized if they could turn it into an internationally recognized army. you are an extremist at heart
If the Israelis, who are the ones lobbying the most to get the "world" to "confront" Iran, get their way, and later someone mentions that the Israelis were pushing for this policy, that person would be called anti-semetic! Some people like to have their cake and eat it too!
So if Germany decided to build a fence on the border with Poland that would Poland a "ghetto"? Why doesn't Israel have the right to build a fence on its own border? Uh, arthur? Surely you know that the word stereotype is clearly inapplicable here. Iran is a state that supports terrorist groups. And does so pretty clearly.
Of course they are not the bloody satan. And of course there is a lot of hatred in muslim countries which is completely misguided. I don't deny for a second that some of the politicians in muslim countries fuel the hatred and incite terrorist acts against innocent civilians in Europe and the US. But I also think that a lot of hatred in the US, Israel and Europe is fuelled by misconceptions. And I do blame some of the politicians in the US, Europe and Israel for inciting this hatred as well. If I had done or said the things that Bush, Blair or Sharon have said in the past, I would either become a buddhist monk, or kill myself. The guilt is shared, and argueing who is the most guilty part is like argueing about the distribution of sweets at a childrens' birthday party.
You do know that there were people who warned other people and nations of Hitler. There were people who warned about Pol Pot and Stalin. So warning about possible crisis to come is not that bad unless it's you and your sick obsession with destroying Israel.
Iran supports Hezbollah. Hezbollah is seen as a terrorist group by only those countries that have been forced to see it that way by the US and Israel. In the wider international community, including among some Europe, Hezbollah is not regarded as a terrorist group. On the wider subject of "terrorism", I will repost what I said about it elsewhere: