True, a charismatic leader needs a willing audience. I think the general public sentiment has to exist first for the leader's message to be an effective amplifier and enforcer. So now their ire is aimed at the Jews. So what if they managed to wipe out Israel overnight? No more hatred? Hence, no more greedy leaders manipulating the masses, hence, peace in the world? Or do they simply redirect their energies at the next bordering country, or at anyone with an appetite for their oil? How else would the mullahs ensure their dominance with the removal of the enemy?

That begs the important question: If Israel had been wiped-out shortly after it's formation but modern states in the area fought and squabbled anyway, would it still be Dubyuh's fault?

B

Here's a couple of paragraphs from Tony Corn's piece, above.

And this is Corn: Tony Corn served as a political analyst at the U.S. embassies in Bucharest, Moscow, and Paris, and in public diplomacy at the U.S. Missions to the EU and to NATO in Brussels. He is currently the Course Chair of Latin Europe Area Studies at the U.S. Foreign Service Institute. The opinions expressed in this essay are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the point of view of the U.S. Department of State or the U.S. government.

Bot

-----------------------------------------

While Islam is undoubtedly no monolith, it is not the pure mosaic complacently portrayed by some, either. In the past 30 years, one particular brand — pan-Islamic Salafism — has been allowed to fill the vacuum left by the failure of pan-Arab Socialism and, in the process, to marginalize more enlightened forms of Islam to the point where Salafism now occupies a quasi-hegemonic position in the Muslim world. The West is obviously not at war with Islam as such and its traditional Five Pillars; but it is most definitely at war with Jihadism, a pure product of Salafism, which posits that jihad is the Sixth Pillar of Islam. From the point of view of threat assessment, the much-discussed theological distinction between a greater (spiritual) and lesser (physical) jihad is utterly irrelevant, and the only thing that matters is the praxeological distinction between three modalities of jihad as practiced: jihad of the sword, of the hand, and of the tongue.

Today, the most effective jihadist networks are precisely those that — from Hamas to Hizbullah — have combined these three modalities in the form of urban warfare, relief work, and hate media. At the theater level, the best military answer to this three-pronged jihad to date remains the concept of “three-block war” elaborated by the Marine Corps, which posits that the Western military must be ready to handle a situation in which it has to confront simultaneously conventional, high intensity war in one city block, guerrilla-like activities in the next, and peace-keeping operations or humanitarian aid in a third. Yet, the West’s answer cannot be mainly military in nature. When, as in the aftermath of the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime, 45–65 percent of the Muslim world ends up having a positive image of a Bin Laden, even a U.S. military victory at the theater level can lead to a political defeat at the global level. Since the end of the Cold War era, the U.S. has enjoyed an unprecedented “command of the commons,” but as the 2003 Iraq war made painfully clear, in contrast to the 1991 Gulf War (during which CNN had a global monopoly), the U.S. no longer enjoys the “command of the airwaves.” Throughout the 1990s, the emergence of global satellite televisions in Europe (Euronews) and the Arab world (Al-Jazeera) have combined to create a new correlation of forces; and while the Pentagon has recently traded the traditional concept of “battlefield” for the more comprehensive concept of “battlespace,” military planners and commanders alike have yet to fully realize that ours is as much the age of the “three-screen war” as that of the “three-block war.”6

You ask that question as if you actually believe that anything isn't!

Are you aware of the difference between a supported state and a puppet state?

Excellent article Bot, one hell of a long read but well worth it. Try as I might I can't really disagree with anything Mr. Corn said.

I have seen first hand the inter-agency squabbling that he describes. It even happens intra-agency via stovepiping and kingdom building. One ray of hope, however, is that over the last year I've been involved with several multi-agency programs. My peers in different agencies seem to understand as well as I do that cooperation is a neccesity for the countries survival. You can't see 9/11 and the Katrina response and not realize that. As a result I think the next generation of agency leaders will be less likely to squabble and more likely to work together. Hope springs eternal.

I wonder what the next administration will do? Mr. Corn lays out some good suggestions. I wish the Democratic party were not is such disarray and was able to produce a leader with some vision beyond getting elected. Now would be a good time for a new Kennedy or Roosevelt.

well, we'll see. Thanks for the link.

We did nothing compared to the Nazis. Hitler almost sucked the Iranians dry of their oil during WW2. Not only that, but he got it for free. The U.S.' involvement in Iran during the Shah's reign was primarily to monitor the Soviets during the Cold War.... not to ruin the country. I beleive the Shah did that himself by imposing a totalitarian regime, using his SAVAK secret police as executioners. This led to the 1979 students' revolt, when the U.S. Embassy was seiged for 444 days. During that seige, the Iranians managed to get their hands on classified CIA documents detailing the Mossad's operational and organizational structure. The Israelis were pretty pissed about that one.
The problem in Iran, is that 1979 coup led to an Islamic revolution that was led by Ayatollah Khomeini (Shiite Leader), who was able to overthrow the Shah's government and imposed a rule of Islamic Law that lasted to this very day. With Iran being 90% Shiite, and neighboring Iraq being 65% Shiite, I think that the US government may have created a second evil twin brother with Iraq. I have a feeling that the "insurgents" are just trying to create chaos in Iraq, so the Shiite powers will be able to come together. Hussein was Sunni, and that was why Iran and Iraq never got along. Only time will tell what will happen in Iraq, but from my perspective, I don't see that we have a choice in pulling out from the Middle East anytime soon... we have to stick around and wait until the Shiite and Sunnis Kurds all start talking to each other. It's ugly, but (from my POV) that's the reality of it all.

Slow news day? The 'all Dubya's fault' line gets one HELL of a lot of mileage. What he does lamely is his fault. Fair enough?

I agree up to a point that they hate us because of who we are. But that hatred didn't arise up in a vacuum. Kinzer's book "All the Shah's Men" has some interesting info you won't find in the British Royal History of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company.

The Brits discovered the oil and built the refinery it's true but they then proceeded to treat the Iranians like sand monkeys. I've read accounts from Iranians of the time that state they looked to the U.S. as the great country, based on justice and liberty, and hoped for some wise intervention or guidance from us in their growing hostility with the Brits. When we accepted the baton from the Brits, we also assumed the legacy of bitterness towards them.

I focus on these things because it's useful to know how the knot was tied if you want to untangle it, and to avoid repeating the same heavy-handed crap as we're doing now in Iraq.

In a previous post, you mentioned that you watch BBC News. It seems funny to me that you're criticizing Fox, when the very information YOU absorb is taylored to Europe's overwhelming Muslim population.

People should follow their own advice. :rolleyes:

you should read the article bot posted.

It's an interesting piece. I don't try to defend these people but I do try to put myself in their place. OBL unfortunately has a point about the near century (and more) of insults from the west to the Arabic/Islamic world. There was the French in Algeria even before the Ottoman empire collapsed I believe, and after the fall of the OE, the Brits made themselves at home in Iraq, Iran, Palestine.... (more, peraps?).

Imagine the nationalism we'd be coming up with were we weaker than a unified Arab juggernaut that had been acting like our new landlords for 80 -90 years.

We can call ourselves the bringers of light and liberty, but the nations western capitalist interests occupy are under no obligation to share that sentiment and are, in fact, very unlikely to.

That's what you got out of that article in policy review?

Oh I see, he posted the link above. I just read the excerpt in post #205.

No, my ramble there was the qualifier that I think is always missing in the military ambition clause in the foreign intervention handbook.

The piece talks about the rise of characters hostile to the west, among other things. Instead of just putting out fires, we need to turn over a new leaf methinks, and stop starting fires. Our part of starting them anyway.

Nice dance, wrong music.

And folks, that's why essay-style answers will always reveal more than multiple choice.

"They" -- I'll assume you mean Arabs don't hate us because of the way we live. Frankly they don't care about the way we live in the least. As long as we don't meddle in THEIR way of life. (Just like we wouldn't want them to meddle in OUR way of life.)

The reason they hate us is because we support Israel ($, etc.) -- and Israel meddles in their way of life (land-grab, etc.) -- That is why "they" hate us.

So true about the American penchant for the "quick fix". As a culture we have no patience and a very short attention span. According to Corn we need to develop counter-jihad and stick to it for the long term, in effect thinking and becoming more like the enemy. The very idea is making my head hurt.

The reason I felt like mentioning it is because they evacuated my second cousin (and his wife and kids) who is a retired lawyer doing missionary work in Beirut. Semper Fi.

I haven't bumped into any Marines in the last couple of days, but ran into three flight nurses who had just returned from Rammstein last night in a client's bar. They left drunk in a paid for cab and with all of their money.

You make them sound like the innocent victims of Isreali aggression. Are you sure that is so? Did they do anything to start the ball rolling?

Did who do something to start the ball rolling? The Israeli were given a certain amount of land. They decided they wanted more. The people they stole it from could not defend themselves against the Israeli military (help by funding from the United States) -- The people they stole the land from want it back. They can't fight a real war (they have no military because they don't get $$ from the United States) so they fight the way they can.

In other words, if a person is going to kill you, but you can keep them from doing so by kicking them in the balls, it may not be "manly" but would you rather die or kick the bastard in the nuts?

THAT is the reason they hate us. Believe me, if we didn't support Israel and 9/11 still happened I would be the first one to nuke each bastard country that had "terrorists" -- because we wouldn't have been involved. We got involved. And the people that call our "friend" their enemy didn't like it.

That lil' ol six-day war thingy was in the mix, too.

You're kiddin' right? Let me guess you buy the BS that it was a "pre-emptive stike" by Israel? I'll bet you do.

Now, read wiki -- pay special attention to the foot notes.

Could you be a little more cryptic, please?

So all the armies were gathered there for what? A garden party?

I'm familiar with that head pain of which you speak.

If we want the land, let's send settlers there, drive out the present inhabitants, and set up house. That's the old fashioned way. Not pretty but it's the way history has flowed for a long time.

This business of colonial overseer, where no way would we want to live there, but we sure do like the riches under their sand and we support, arm, and prop up decadent fools who facilitate our steady, drip, drip, exploitation of their natural wealth is a recipe for long term disaster and grief.

Helping to plop down a small group of relatively decadent European extracts on some of the better land in the area, encompassing one of the all time top holy cities, is just an added irritant.

Hard to say which component arouses more opposition.

Probably not. The answer when they have their back to the wall is always the war... (usually right before they talk about Hitler). In the end, when they learn that you know dam well it wasn't preemptive and that Israel simply went out on a land-grab... they get nuts on you.

This is usually wrapped up with a foil-hat comment or something stupid like that.

In the end, the story is simple. Israel took land via war. They pissed off the region, and can't make it stable. They need US support to make it stable -- they obtain support via control on the media -- and US Men and Women die. Both on our soil (9/11) and in the Middle East.

It the policy that our lawmakers to support them. And we can't change that. So, as Americans... it is what we have to endure.

It's a tough one. I agree the Zionists are long time ethnic cleansers. OTOH, the Arabs don't seem to have any room in their future for any sort of compromise. I can imagine I'd be feeling pretty steamed up and ready for blood if a missile landed in my daugter's bedroom and I felt like I had been trying to do a live and let live approach in good faith.

If there weren't so many fringe zionists who want to press on and they weren't pulling crap like building a wall that accidentally appropriated more good land w/ water, maybe the thing could wind down.

Don't know how the irritants on both sides are going to be reined in.

I saw on CNN yesterday that an arab got both his daughters killed by an arabic missile. Talk of the irony. What makes it true? Hezbollah apoligized and said the girls were martyrs. Wonderful. That makes it all better. :rolleyes: However, if they were doing ethnic cleansing like they should be, according to your statement, why was that arab there and why did the Hezbollah apoligize?

So your contention is they started it all and this is what we have today? Ok. I suppose you can ignore the facts if you want. The whole ball of wax started, AFAIK in 48 and lasted for 13 months before some sort of armastice was enacted.

That is correct.

The cause AND effect by BOTH sides has not been good. The problem is that BOTH sides have their share of issues, and we sided with only 1. -- Making the other side our enemy.

It's complicated beyond complicated. Very few clean hands in the area, IMO.

Jews for Justice in the Middle East put out some interesting pamphlets on the history of the whole thing. Lot of evidence that early Zionists had ethnic cleansing on their mind from the git-go. You can read their stuff here.

From your link:

"Objections to Israel's policies do not reflect anti-Jewish beliefs. Palestine is simply a matter of freedom lost and justice denied. We are American Christians who grew up believing that all Americans care about such things."

Exactly.

That's why I always like the oral exam option. Same rigour as with an essay, but the additional pressure of talking on your feet and communicating your point.

And, your don't in about 30 minutes to an hour and your hand isn't all cramped up...

Here, let me help.

The article Bot posted didn't really support your contention of reality.

In other words it would be like posting the periodic table of elements and you responding:

"you know, I see that Argon is a noble gas but that reminds me that the reason everything in the world is going to crap is that the US has been a despotic, imperilistic slavedriver for the rest of the world. And, dammit, nobody takes this into account! Let me clarify, it all started with Vietnam when we selfishly decided to eradicate a peace loving people just because we were bored with our greatness. Dammit, take off those red, white and blue glasses that you all wear you arrogant titanium hulled b@stards! [....] Can't you see we're killing the Earth!"

Well, not to overly simplify but Grandpa always said an unruly beast must be stopped of his provender else it will destroy everything in it's path....


http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y18...ite/sheeny.jpg

Ok. How did they start the ball rolling since the creation of the state of Isreal?

Well, unfortunately, it would be nice to be able to be totally neutral and not piss anyone off but in reality, that doesn't always work. Neutral is also a side and neutral also has it's own downfall. For instance, if we didn't give all those dollars and tech devices to Isreal, if Hussien had started shooting them to make it an arab_Isreal conflict and we asked them to hold back, what do you think they might say? Sorry, but in many cases, you are taking a side even if you stay away. It is much harder to avoid taking sides than simply not siding with either.

Is that supposed to be some kind of fat Chinese Elvis???

So, Mrs. Peragro has a graphic design site because she is in love with websites and graphic design. Essentially it's been a journal for what she wants to do while she learns the code and how to do it. Over the last few months she's gotten some comments from folks with similar interests and some outstanding talent. One such fellow is a young teenager by the name of Nadim who lives in Beirut. He and my wife conversed mostly about graphic design and web page construction. Nadim appears to be a very bright lad with lots of talent. Here's my wife's site.

Well, she heard from Nadim last night. Evidently, his father died of a heart attack a few weeks back and here recently his and his mom's apartment was destroyed by Israili artillery.

Nadim is on the web here, he posts on Terror on Lebanon here
and has a Digg site here.

I just figured out what Digg was today, after Mrs. Peragro made me. Turns out that you can go rate the stories on Digg and the most highly rated float to the top. Mrs. Peragro is threatening my life, as I type this, if I do not post this here, because she says that I spend too much damn time here anyway and I should do something useful with it. So, if you Digg then please go check it out.

The Lebanese blog has some interesting stories on it besides Nadim's. This is one screwed up situation no matter how you look at it.

Vas?ist du eine ganz meshuggener oif fremder erd? oyy vasymir....

That is just it. I doubt there are many people alive from 48 today. I doubt most of the people know what they are really fighting about other than they need to fight to avenge some sort of wrong doing from who knows when. Kinda of a "I am going to cut your nuts off and hang it on my door because you pissed off my Grandfather way back when." Religion unfortunately tends to make every struggle a holy cause. Maybe we would all get along better if someone were to go back in time and assisinate all the religious people who started a religion.

They both did. If you are trying to find an innocent party here, I doubt you will find it. However, we picked a side that was advantageous to us at that time and whichever side it was, it would later come back to present it's share of problems. You can side with one or the other or none. Either way you still have a problem.

Ok... so who wants peace?

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1153433434727&call_pageid=970599119419

Sorry, but the more and more this goes on... the more and more Israel is going to look bad -- and lose support, perhaps one day even the United States. This is NOT the time of the six-day war. We have media and internet like never before... Israel has clearly made their position. They do NOT want peace.

History of Palestine
 

Here's some interesting reading:
Brief history of Palestine - 3rd Millennium BC to 2000

-5 pts for failing to mention Dubyuh's involvement.

A balanced history of Palestine

It's 'cause I crammed. If I'd had more time to prepare I would have gotten that:smart:

I'll go ahead and translate your comments for everyone else:

What? Have you totally gone crazy for foreign dirt? oh [incomprehensible]....

Sie müssen abändern ihr studienfach. Dein Jiddisch ist widerwärtig. Nehmen wir einmal dein Deutsche ist ebenso elementar.

I see. So this kidnapping soldiers, etc, etc is a peaceful sign? Did you remember that Isreal said they would have peace talks if they could stop the bombing for 2 weeks. What was the outcome of that again from the peaceful nation of Palestine? OK. So if they stopped, what is Kofi going to do? Have another oil for food program and let his son make some more money? Can Kofi do anything to stop the rockets and mortar shells from coming in? To qualify for being recognized as wanting peace, what do you recommend they do? Take it in the shorts all day long? Maybe if Hizbollah released the prisoners and promised to stop the fireworks it might be able to see whether they will stop their offensive but at this point, what are you offering them? Kofi's word?

Tanks massing on the border, I suspect we will see action soon, probably within 24 hours. Lets see according to my cell its about 5:18AM in Tel Aviv. So if the tanks don't move within the next two hours, it probably won't happen until dusk or tomarrow morning. I don't think Isreal is advanced as we are, with American armor I'd move at night.:D :cool:


Good for them, there attack into Lebenon, will probably be swift. Its Syria and Iran that are troublesome.

They have been telling civilians in South Lebanon to leave for the last 3 days. Hopefully, they have listened. When they do go in I hope they have a plan for killing the routing Hezbollah as they run into Beirut to hide in civilian areas.