Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (220794)	2/24/2007 8:11:02 PM
From: kumar	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Message 23314098

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (220794)	2/24/2007 8:28:43 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"The nature of Islamist rule is totalitarian and fascist." The nature of your arguments Nadine is that Islam is wrong in all of its forms mostly because it isn't Judaism. The nature of your argument should be that totalitarianism and fascism in any of its forms (religious would not be one of the fascist forms you know) in any of its guises is wrong. I would suggest to you that totalitarianism is separate although often hidden by any number of guises including religious. Why can't you make that leap? The most fascist ideology alive today is the military-industrial-conglomerate corporate structure of the West. Why aren't you against that? They want to turn Iraq into a big oil company. Why aren't you against that?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (220794)	2/24/2007 9:26:34 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

AQ seeks to recreate the caliphate, to undo "the humiliation of the last 80 years" (since the Ottoman Empire fell) to use their own words. Everytime they gain control of any land, as they did in Afghanistan or in al Anbar in Iraq, or still have in Waziristan, they set up an Islamic emirate. Look, I wasn't opposed to bombing Afghanistan and getting rid of the Taliban after they refused to dismantle the camps and hand over the leadership of AQ. I was opposed to not finishing things off there before starting any other little adventures (if other adventures became necessary). But who gives a shit what these guys "want"? yeah, yeah, they've managed to wreck some havoc and managed to kill several thousand Americans with one blow. It was a shock. So go after them! No one says let them continue. But AQ was NOT a problem in Iraq. You keep pointing to Ansar al Asam, fine, we could easily have taken out their main camps if they were such a threat without invading Iraq to do it. We had total control of the airspace there. I don't know why they were allowed to remain, or what was going on there, I just keep hearing people like claim that somehow they were a link between Saddam and AQ, yet they were in Kurdish controlled territory, and had zero to do with Saddam. I don't understand for the life of me how the same people can say that the war is hopeless, lost, time to run away from Afghanistan and Iraq, but on the other hand dismiss the idea that AQ could win or actually means business. Not many people that I know of say to just get out of Afghanistan. That is where our forces should have been sent to begin with, IMHO, along with NATO forces and as many others as possible. Now it is apparently spinning out of control too. But they will all make common cause against the US or Israel. Yes, but in good measure, IMO, because of our own diplomatic stupidity and naive belief that military force is the appropriate weapon to use in this case. Nonsense. "Islamo-fascist" may be a very general label, but it is far more accurate description than "the tiny minority of Muslim extremists" whom we were supposedly fighting before. We completely disagree here. But I will say that the "tiny minority" has grown over the past 4 years. It still isn't very large, IMHO, but if the successor to Bush is anything like Bush, it will definitely continue to grow.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (220794)	2/24/2007 9:28:15 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 281500

"the idea that AQ could win " Win the "Caliphate"? How does this work Nadine? Who "owns" the "Caliphate" now? Do WE own it? Building something is much more difficult than blowing something up. You give AQ a LOT of undeserved credit! Those jihaddis must be geniuses!

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (220794)	2/24/2007 10:06:17 PM
From: SARMAN	Respond to of 281500

Crap. AQ seeks to recreate the caliphate, to undo "the humiliation of the last 80 years" (since the Ottoman Empire fell) to use their own words. Everytime they gain control of any land, as they did in Afghanistan or in al Anbar in Iraq, or still have in Waziristan, they set up an Islamic emirate. I don't understand for the life of me how the same people can say that the war is hopeless, lost, time to run away from Afghanistan and Iraq, but on the other hand dismiss the idea that AQ could win or actually means business. That is the most ridiculous think that you ever posted,and believe me most of your posts are ridiculous. The US lost in Iraq and Afghanistan because of stupid people like you keep egging Bush on. You failed to tell Bush that those people are armed to the teeth unlike in 1967 or the time of the Lawrence of Arabia. LOL Wake up Nadine, 30 day of katyoshas dropping on Israel by group on unorganized hezbo's and Israel flattening villages. Answer this, where are the kidnapped Israeli soldiers? APAC and the Zionists neocons are going cost the US big time, if the US goes after Iran. Did you hear? Israel is negotiating with the US flight path over Iraq to hit Iran. Iran will retaliate and hit Tel Aviv. How many Jews are you willing to sacrifice to achieve your goals? I ask you this, is your loyalty to AMERICA or ISRAEL? Apparently it is neither.