[PostFactum]

stratos stratos:

I would lean towards western intervention mostly along the lines of economic. The west be it Europe or the US have exploited their countries over the decades sense WWI. Be it Englands setting up oil fields and infrastructure then demanding huge discount on the oil. France setting up trade agreements that heavily favoured them and hurt the ME countries. The US setting up proxi gov. to get huge breaks on oil purcheses. The people in the ME have pretty much gotten fed up of being exploited. Yet at the same time they want the money from the west to keep flowing in and in the case of the Gulf War they want the West to fight in their battles.

All countries exploite their neighbours and not only them. For example Russia and Turkmenistan. Russia exploite them as a cheap work resource, and Turkmens use Russia as a drug market. About US and wars, well it would be a big mistake to wait when German and it's alliance will win, and then have a very strong enemy. It's much easier to break a tree when it's small. Money....well, call me country that will refuse from them.

[stratos]

$1:

All countries exploite their neighbours and not only them. For example Russia and Turkmenistan. Russia exploite them as a cheap work resource, and Turkmens use Russia as a drug market.

True but in the case of the US our exploitation of the Middle East had no true return of the Middle East being able to exploit the US in return.

$1:

About US and wars, well it would be a big mistake to wait when German and it's alliance will win, and then have a very strong enemy. It's much easier to break a tree when it's small.

Yet in the case of the Gulf war there were a number of Middle East countries that could have banded together and taken out Iraq. The either would not do to differing government hostilities and or religious divisions. They requested the UN and thus the wests aid in dealing with Sadam’s invasion of Kuwait.

$1:

Money....well, call me country that will refuse from them.

Very true, yet in the case of the Middle East it’s more like we hate you, we don’t like you, we will kill you, but send us the almighty dollar so we can live better lives.

[N_Fiddledog]

Are you guys under the impression that this business of Muslims attacking the West is new, or the causes of their aggression can be laid at a recent source?

I imagine you've heard Thomas Jefferson formed the Marines to fight the Barbary pirates. They were slavers, who attacked American ships for slaves or ransom, also they were Muslims. The Marines are called leathernecks, because they used to wear high leather collars as protection against Muslim head whacking.

Western leaders have been dealing with Muslim problems since they've been dealing with Muslims.

Won't listen to me? Ok, will you listen to John Quincy Adams then? 1829.

"The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force".

Don't know him? How about Winston Churchill? "Sir Winston, as an officer of the British Army, served in the Sudan and in the Crimean War; in both instances against the Muslims."

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step, and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it (Islam) has vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”

But what do they know right? They're Infidels. OK, how about straight from the horse's mouth then. Ayatollah Khomeini - 1942.

“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world…. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers] Islam says Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us Islam says Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender to the enemy Islam says Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Koranic] verses and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

[stratos]

If you had read my earlier post in response to Gunnir (I think) we were talking about what has motivated the attacks on the West in recent times. For me I can trace it back to WWI and the exploitation of trade and oil from the Middle East. I'm not saying it is right or wrong but I do feel it is a major motivating factor for many.

Yes the west has had to deal with the Muslims sense its inception of the Islamic religion. No one is denying it. What is being talked about is the factors behind the recent situations.

Muslim radical leaders varnish the cause with Islam and some of it's teachings. Yet the religion it's self is not the one and only nor IMO the major factor currently. The underlying cause IMO is the perceived exploitation by the west of the Middle East. Some of those perceptions are correct and others are as farfetched as you saying it's all about religion and only religion.

Does the Islamic religion lend itself to this type of exploitation by radical leaders. I assume it does do to the effect we have seen it have on the radical leader’s followers. Yet keep in mind that they have gained most of these followers from the ones most hurt by their own governments and by the western government’s decisions and actions.

Thus when people say the vast majority of the followers of Islam are not out to kill infidels they are correct. Yet the radical leaders and some Muslim lead governments use rhetoric that comes across as saying that the west is evil and all should die who are not of the Islamic faith. These are what we in the west hear and see on a daily basis and thus our own reactions to said rhetoric. It has become a nasty cycle as of late where both sides focus in on the hate filled speech.

We in the west see terrorists and the radical leaders as the problem and in the Middle East they, I think, see the greed and entitlement of our culture as the problem. DD could probably give a far better perspective then any of us here in the west can on how the Middle East view those of us in the West.

[N_Fiddledog]

I don't have a problem with that theory in general - that the cause of the current problems are part ideological and part historically mechanical (cause and effect).

All I would have to counter it would be my own theory that says attacks by the followers of the pirate of Medina became inevitable when the west became fat, lazy, and weak enough to allow it.

As to the ideological side I would say, as far as the current problems go, that began with Al Banna and the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood in, I think, the 1930s.

Although...I saw this documentary one time and it traced the current problems back to this guy - I forget his name - he was this western trained Muslim professor who became disillusioned with the West. He saw it as kind of a fat, lazy, corrupt cow, and it was time to go all Halal on it. This guy's writings were really popular with guys who were being brought along by the Muslim Brotherhood, like Al Zawahiri.

[BartSimpson]

stratos stratos:

We in the west see terrorists and the radical leaders as the problem and in the Middle East they, I think, see the greed and entitlement of our culture as the problem. DD could probably give a far better perspective then any of us here in the west can on how the Middle East view those of us in the West.

Pretty much everything the secular, atheist, liberal leftist stands for is what the Muslims loathe about the West.

Women's rights, gay rights, sexual immorality, democracy, science-as-religion, tattoos and piercings, smoking pot, pornography, secular education, secular government, militantly anti-religious behavior, hooliganism (Black Bloc types), disrespect towards elders, Birkenstocks, and etc.

Ironically, it's the people who most adamantly assert that Islam is a religion of peace who are the people most hated by Muslim extremists.

[DrRosen]

Ahh, the 1950s, when intercourse was strictly missionary a position and the uppitty niggers, women, fags and muslims knew their place in the world. Cue the Leave it To Beaver and Lawrence Welk.

[PostFactum]

DrRosen DrRosen:

Ahh, the 1950s, when intercourse was strictly missionary a position and the uppitty niggers, women, fags and muslims knew their place in the world. Cue the Leave it To Beaver and Lawrence Welk.

How did you call, me? A nigger? Do you know what I will do with you for that?

[DrCaleb]

[martin14]

DrRosen DrRosen:

Ahh, the 1950s, when intercourse was strictly missionary a position and the uppitty niggers, women, fags and muslims knew their place in the world. Cue the Leave it To Beaver and Lawrence Welk.

Let's see PD neg rep you for that one.

[PostFactum]

Martin do you remember a Camel Jockey last year?

[martin14]

PostFactum PostFactum:

Martin do you remember a Camel Jockey last year?

I most certainly do.

[PostFactum]

martin14 martin14:

PostFactum PostFactum:

Martin do you remember a Camel Jockey last year?

I most certainly do.

I think we have a kind of a new one

[martin14]

PostFactum PostFactum:

martin14 martin14:

PostFactum PostFactum:

Martin do you remember a Camel Jockey last year?

I most certainly do.

I think we have a kind of a new one

Yes but this one is extra special.

[PostFactum]

martin14 martin14:

Yes but this one is extra special.

Damn, if I was black colored it will be offensive.