[quote name='SuA' post='118969' date='Jan 29 2007, 02:26 PM'][quote name='DaGroaner' post='118941' date='Jan 29 2007, 09:31 PM']My family immigrated to the US from Germany when I was a child and my children are the first generation of my family born in America. I have traveled extensively through Europe. When exactly was it that Europeans liked Americans? 1946? You can fool others with that BS but not me.[/quote]
we liked you just fine under Clinton. american popularity was at an alltime high in the last 25 years under his presidency, i think.

[quote name='DaGroaner' post='118941' date='Jan 29 2007, 09:31 PM']Next? You treat our military nice because they spend lot's of money over there and that's exactly how deep it goes.[/quote]
me? i'm not even german, so i don't see how exactly it matter that your army spends money overthere.

[quote name='DaGroaner' post='118941' date='Jan 29 2007, 09:31 PM']What on Earth huh? I guess that explains your fate.[/quote]
yes, what on earth indeed. you believe that in 2 decades the muslims will have taken over Europe and going door by door to cut off the heads of non-believers?

where does this angst come from?

i have arab family (my father remarried with a morrocan woman) and i'm an army reservist. i do think i have a firsthand view on the current European situation.

is my stephmom going to cut off my head? unlikely. who is going to cut off my head then, the random arab in the street? just as unlikely. the criminal youths? they might steal from me, but cutting off my head is a bit too far. so the brainwashed mofos in the few extremist mosques? perhaps they'll blow up things, shoot people, it's possible, but going door to door cutting off heads? yes, that's terribly likely to happen. ok then, foreign forces? yeah, of course, i see the entire Middle East bond together to assault Europe in the hope to chop off everyone's heads.

do i need to add [sarcasm]-tags or can you figure it out by yourself?

even if somehow (like by divine intervention) muslims got the upper hand in Europe, why would they cut off people's heads for fucks sake...

[quote name='USpride' post='118942' date='Jan 29 2007, 09:38 PM']Especially to respond to someone so hopelessly uninformed/ignorant. Personally, I believe you are here simply to stir stuff up and couldn't possibly believe what you yourself are writing. Flash: the growing muslim minority in Europe does not like you and wishes you ill will. A favored method of removing infidels- this includes other muslims- is decapitation. Surely you know this. Your reference to "being lynched" is a reprehensible attempt at humor (at least I hope it was).[/quote]
the muslims are a very small minority here, and the extremist muslims are a small minority within an already small minority. do you really think all muslims are out to cut off your or my head because i dont believe that Allah is the one true god?

i know muslims first hand. hell, they're in my family and i've traveled to many countries around the globe.

what do you hope to gain by this hatemongering? i don't fear my neighbour, do you?

[quote name='USpride' post='118942' date='Jan 29 2007, 09:38 PM']President Bush is fighting a war that your governments in Europe are as well- only they are aware that their populations (ie. you) are too stupid to realize what is at stake - the very survival of the way of life that all people post WWII have enjoyed. So your governments supply logistics, intelligence, and arrest terrorists that the US helps identify. Don't worry (for now) we'll do the heavy lifting.[/quote]
you mean you fight wars against people you trained, funded and then betrayed?

bin laden you trained & supplied. hussein you even gave chemical weapons to and now you're saying he was dispicable for using them? stop being so goddamned twofaced.

i want to believe you're in it for the good fight, but seeing what's happening, that's quite hard to believe.

you had a chance to overthrow hussein once before and the political climate was right at the time. you didnt. now you're back there under false pretenses, while fighting a war that'll cost both you and the civilians dearly. it's not hard to see why the majority of iraqees prefered to be under hussein's rule over their current predicament.

do you realise that instead of going all out into war, you couldve solved so many problems in the world with a fraction of the money?

[quote name='USpride' post='118942' date='Jan 29 2007, 09:38 PM']Your welcome. (Feel free to respond in German... or Arabic)[/quote]
i'd better start learning arabic then, but i sure as hell won't learn german. fucking ugly language.

--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(G O B @ Jan 29 2007, 10:33 PM) </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The mess in the middle east is a WORLD problem. The general concensus in America today is to say fuck it. Nobody else is taking it serious so why should we. WE WILL PULL BACK AND TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN.
Bush is a temporary inconvienience. Had he come to power in England or Germany then he would have been another fuhrer-but in America we don't trust OURSELVES enough to let any man have that much power. (term limits need to be universal!

The middle east is headed for a complete meltdown of reason and order. These people are still in the dark ages of fudelism and there are no strong national identities. The tribes need to fight and kill each other untill some of them unite and form cohesive states. If Europe ans Asia are still left after that happens -so much the better. If not - oh well.

Whatever the USA will be here. Somehow I think the Russians and Chinese will survive also. The rest of you are on you'r own.[/quote]
the Middle East is a problem, yes. but the USA is going about it the wrong way.

- the US used lies to 'sell' their assault -> the international community is pissed off.
- the US is using religious quotes to back their speeches and reasoning -> hello? do you know a better way to jumpstart a new generation of insurgents/terrorists?
- the US uses questionable tactics -> Guantanamo, the illegal prisoner transports throughout Europe, etc

that doesn't really help much. if anything, it was a catalyst for the problems to come.

if the same conviction (and cash) had been used on other matters, there would be peace in Israel. many local instabilities would've been wiped off the face of the earth due to food and medical projects inside Africa, Asia and the Middle East. (which would've generated good will towards the USA)

(to avoid any confusion: i do feel for the troops in the field, but i do not support their command-in-chief)


either way, you call me ignorant and oblivious to the world around me, i call you naive and manipulated. i suppose that makes us even?

i dont think we'll see eye to eye on thisone anytime soon, except if ze Germanz invade Europe again, ow, i mean ze Arabz invade Europe and start cutting off heads of every non-believer they encounter. so let's leave it at this before someone looses his temper.
[/quote]

Quickly...

Item one, you liked the face Clinton put on America but you OBVIOUSLY don't know US.

Two, your country is not a member of the EU?

Three, keep downplaying the Islamic threat if you want. I really couldn't give half a crap what happens to Europe as long as it doesn't get a foot-hold here.

Hate? No one hates like Euros. No one. Conversely no one in the whole world is as generous as Americans... particularly Conservative Americans.

Wrong way? Who the fuck are you to judge. You dopes couldn't even handle Yugoslavia on your own. WTF are you talking about.

*pokes political thread with 10ft pole*

*runs away*

First off, you're taking what I said out of context. I said I have no problems with *EX-MILITARY* Congress officials setting wartime policy. I have a problem with "ChickenHawk" (as in ones who have not served a lick in any branch of the Military services) Congressional critters telling the U.S. Military branches on how to go about fighting the wars they find themselves embroiled in.

Even though he is an asshole that gives the Naval branch of the U.S. services a black eye, John Kerry (supposedly? ) honorably served, so in my book he has more right to spout than someone like 2/3rd's of the current Congress (conservative estimate?) who's asses were safely home at college somewhere on Mom and Pops tab smoking dope and already dissing the country every chance they got while the patriotic and poor were doing their fair share of the fighting in Southeast Asia.

Get that straight before spouting off. Next thing I know you'll be saying it's *MY* fault that no WMD's were found in Iraq.

SuA, where the fuck are you from, anyway?

I stand by my posts. Accusations of hatemongering while defending militant islam is laughable. If you chose to ignore what a good forty percent of the worlds muslims believe and in many cases espouse, it's your own funeral.


"do you really think all muslims are out to cut off your or my head because i dont believe that Allah is the one true god?"- The people you don't see as a threat say they will. I guess they're liars (as well as cowards).

"you mean you fight wars against people you trained, funded and then betrayed?"- Yeah we sure betrayed Bin Laden and Saddam. WTF were we thinking. The only reason we had any alliance for any time was they were the less radical of two extremes. You can only betray a friend NOT your enemies enemy.

As a foreigner you are not familiar with American protocol - You do not insult your country when overseas, especially during a time of war.

"so let's leave it at this before someone looses his temper." - Oh, you defender of the peaceful muslims you....

Please continue fiddling while Rome burns...

SuA, while I appreciate and am interested in the opinions of Europeans about my country, I don't think you have the visibility that we (I) do on the situation.

Iraq was, and still is a world problem, and more specifically a US problem. If someone across the pond wants to kill me with a cordless drill and videotape it to sell his sick religion and exploit my skin color/modern lifestyle but doesn't have the means to do so YET, that's a big ass pile of leaves in my front yard. This war could be won if you either

a. Turn the cameras off and handle it. (E.G. Don't lock off Sadr City for 2 years and let them build up because you're worried about the media backlash of another big firefight)
b. Get the fuck out (At this point, sorry) and let the animals sort it out.

I didn't always have such a low opinion of these people, but once you see a truck dumping bodies out of it with dog's heads sewn on to replace human heads, your opinions change. My .02

This thread is going straight to you-know-where

more than you know about my country, i bet

but we (or at least I) were talking about perceptions (as that is what Kerry was talking about).


it is. we house the 'capital' of the EU.


yet, Europeans don't generalise an entire religion into a threat. it appears you are eager to do so.


that's fair enough


Belgium. i doubt most of you could pick it out. but maybe some of you might know our capital: Brussels.


where exactly do you get your 40% figure? funny, how the Europeans are somehow threathened, which according to you has been proven by survey, yet it never made any news...

if they're so eager to cut off heads of heathens, why havent they started in their home land? and what possible purpose could it serve?

anyway, there is no way 40% of the muslims want to cut off the heads of all heathens for fucks sake...


agreed, Iraq was & is a problem, but now more than ever.

you do realise that Hussein was actually an enemy of muslim extremism in his country, right? he had nothing to gain from it and it threathened his powerbase. therefor it was in his best interest to kept it at least somewhat under control.

so you rush the country under false accusations of having wmd's, and the country turns into an extremist cesspool. the civilians on the ground have it worse than under saddam, extremists are streaming in from over the globe and local factions are tearing eachother to shreds.

i fail see how the attack 'solved' any of Iraq's problems.


shock & awe is a powerful tactic, aint it?

but what is more important: you let a few extremists build the view of an entire race and religion? somehow i think you see that's not right yourself.

How dare you come in here and attepmt to insult OUR intelligence with your asinine theories as to how we should handle things? The first clue to your idiocy (and perhaps every other Euro's) is when you said Americans were at an all time high, popularity wise, with Euros because of Clinton.

You should probably just STFU now.

i didn't insult anyone, did i? well, saying someone is naive or manipulated probably isnt the nicest thing to say, but the initial reply is what warranted that.

some argumentation to back that bold statement up might be nice...

and for the record, i didnt say it was at an alltime high. obviously the highest point was during the liberation during WW2. but i was talking about the past 25 years or so.

i'm trying to give a civil & composed view of what others think (as it is relevant to the topic), you are the one resorting to obvious insults and that doesn't wish to argument any of his stances.

even if we don't see eye to eye on political or strategic matters, there's no need for insults...

Not all Euros are as short-sighted and ignorant as this dope.

anuary 25, 2007 Font:
THE WEST AND ISLAM
"Hurray! We're Capitulating!"
By Henryk M. Broder

The prevailing feeling among Muslims is that they are being abused by the West. What should we do about it? We might as well surrender. After all, we're already on our way.

This essay is an excerpt of Henryk M. Broder's book "Hurra, Wir Kapitulieren," ("Hurray! We're Capitulating") published by Wolf Jobst Siedler Verlag in 2006. The book spent a number of weeks atop the DER SPIEGEL bestseller list.

But then again, he did offend them.
Ten years ago, in the spring of 1996, the world still seemed more or less okay. The towers of the World Trade Center dominated the Manhattan skyline, the American president had an affair with an intern, the Helmut Kohl era was coming to an end in Germany, and intellectuals killed time by debating over whether Francis Fukuyama was right in claiming that we have reached the "end of history" and whether capitalism had truly triumphed or socialism had merely lost the first round. In those days few were aware of the fine distinction between Islam and Islamism.

One had to look very closely to recognize the first signs of a brewing crisis. In Berlin, the Rote Grütze theater group was performing an enlightening piece called "Who Said Anything About Love?" To advertise the play, posters depicting a young man and a young woman, naked and full of innocence, were handed out in schools.

The schools had no qualms about displaying the posters, until a school official from Berlin's Tiergarten district requested a permit from the city's education authority. The agency turned down the request, arguing that the poster could hurt "the feelings of non-Christian pupils." The education authority was acting preventively and with what amounted to exaggerated concern for a cultural minority that had yet to be integrated into permissive German society. No Muslim pupils had complained about hurt feelings, nor had their parents expressed concerns about immoral harassment.

That was 10 years ago. Today everything has changed, except the resolve not to hurt the feelings of Muslims. The issue today no longer revolves around a group of Berlin pupils with an "immigration background," but around 1.3 billion Muslims worldwide -- many of whom are thin-skinned and unpredictable. At issue is freedom of opinion, one of the central tenets of the Enlightenment and democracy. And whether respect, consideration and tolerance are the right approach to dealing with cultures that, for their part, behave without respect, consideration or tolerance when it comes to anything they view as decadent, provocative and unworthy -- from women in short skirts to cartoons they deem provocative without even having seen them.


Photo Gallery: The Cartoon Jihad
Click on a picture to launch the image gallery (10 Photos)
The controversy over the 12 Muhammad cartoons that were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in September 2005 and led to worldwide protests and unrest among Muslims was merely a taste of what is to come, a dress rehearsal for the kinds of disputes Europe can expect to face in the future if it does not rethink its current policy of appeasement. As was the case in the 1930s, when Czechoslovakia was sacrificed in the interest of peace under the Munich Agreement -- a move that ultimately did nothing to prevent World War II -- Europeans today also believe that an adversary, seemingly invincible due to a preference for death over life, can be mollified by good behavior, concessions and submission. All the Europeans can hope to gain in this asymmetric conflict is a temporary reprieve, a honeymoon period that could last 10, 20, or maybe even 50 years. Anyone on death row breathes a sigh of relief when his execution is postponed to some indefinite time in the future.

The uproar over the Muhammad cartoons was symptomatic precisely because what triggered it was so insignificant. The drawings themselves were unbelievably harmless.

Freedom of expression in conformity with Shariah

It took two weeks for "spontaneous" protests to begin. On Oct. 14, 2005, 3,000 Muslims staged a demonstration on Copenhagen's town hall square after Friday prayers. In a letter to Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, ambassadors from 11 Islamic countries demanded that he take the "necessary steps" to avert an abuse of Islam. Rasmussen responded that it was not his responsibility to discipline journalists, and he refused to schedule a meeting with the irate ambassadors. The Egyptian foreign minister got the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) involved soon after. The OIC had already made clear what it wanted in its "Declaration of Human Rights in Islam" in 1990: "All have the right to freely express their opinions in a manner that does not run counter to Shariah law." In essence, what the OIC wanted was to compel Western nations to bring their form of freedom of expression into conformity with Shariah law.

Then a delegation of Danish Muslims traveled to the Muslim world, carrying a folder with the 12 cartoons from Jyllands-Posten, as well as of three significantly more provocative drawings in their luggage. The three drawings portrayed the Prophet as a pedophile devil, with pigs' ears and having sex with a dog. Where the bonus material came from and how it found its way into the documentation remains unclear to this day. But clearly someone was interested in generating the appropriate reaction. Newspapers in Arab countries promptly wrote that the Danish media had portrayed Muhammad as a pig, the original 12 cartoons magically turned into 120 drawings, and the Danish government was accused of being behind the whole thing.


AFP
The West has values worth defending. Doesn't it?
European Union foreign ministers met in Brussels on Jan. 30, 2006 to discuss the crisis. Some believed that Denmark had missed its chance to resolve the conflict on its own. The foreign minister of Luxembourg wasn't just speaking for his own country when he said that the entire affair was "more a Danish than a European problem." The Austrian foreign minister went even further when she said: "statements and actions that degrade a religion in an offensive way should be clearly condemned." Even the Americans abandoned their Danish allies. During the course of a single day, three State Department spokesmen used adjectives like "unacceptable," "offensive" and "objectionable." Muslims got the message.

A year ago on Feb. 3, 2006, a "Day of Anger" was proclaimed. Across the Muslim world, the Muhammad cartoons were the focus of Friday prayers. Millions of Muslims who couldn't even locate Denmark on a map demonstrated against these insults to the Prophet, incited by their imams. The embassies of Denmark and Norway were set on fire in Damascus, the Danish embassy was torched in Beirut, firebombs were hurled at the Danish consulate in Tehran, and Danish and Norwegian flags were burned in Nigeria and Algeria.

Part II: Cowardice, fear and an overriding concern about the trade balance


In the past, an attack on an embassy would have been reason enough to go to war. But this time the affected countries did their utmost to "de-escalate." The victims were repentant and begged the perpetrators for forgiveness. Indeed, the West was intent on not doing anything that could possibly give offense and cause these fanatical Muslims to become even angrier.

Objectively speaking, the cartoon controversy was a tempest in a teacup. But subjectively it was a show of strength and, in the context of the "clash of civilizations," a dress rehearsal for the real thing. The Muslims demonstrated how quickly and effectively they can mobilize the masses, and the free West showed that it has nothing to counter the offensive -- nothing but fear, cowardice and an overriding concern about the balance of trade. Now the Islamists know that they are dealing with a paper tiger whose roar is nothing but a tape recording.


Photo Gallery: The Cartoon Jihad
Click on a picture to launch the image gallery (10 Photos)
As different as the West's reactions to the Muslim protests were, what they had in common were origins in feelings of powerlessness and helplessness. Critical souls who only yesterday agreed with Marx that religion is the opium of the masses suddenly insisted that religious sensibilities must be taken into account, especially when accompanied by violence. The representatives of open societies reacted like the inhabitants of an island about to be hit by a hurricane. Powerless against the forces of nature, they stocked up on supplies, nailed doors and windows shut and hoped that the storm would soon pass. Of course, whereas such a reaction may be an appropriate response to natural disasters, such a lack of resistance merely encourages fundamentalists. It completely justifies their view of the West as weak, decadent and completely unwilling to defend itself.

Should the age of consent be 12?

Those who react to kidnappings and beheadings, to massacres of people of other faiths, and to eruptions of collective hysteria with a call for "cultural dialogue" don't deserve any better.

"The West should desist from engaging in all provocations that produce feelings of debasement and humiliation," says psychoanalyst Horst-Eberhard Richter. "We should show greater respect for the cultural identity of Muslim countries. ... For Muslims, it is important to be recognized and respected as equals." In Richter's view, what the Muslims need is "a partnership of equals."

But Richter neglects to describe what this partnership might look like. Does achieving such equality mean that we should set up separate sections for women on buses, as is the custom in Saudi Arabia? Should the marrying age for girls be reduced to 12, as is the case in Iran? And should death by stoning be our punishment for adultery, as Shariah law demands? What else could the West do to show its respect for the cultural identity of Islamic countries? Would it be sufficient to allow Horst-Eberhard Richter to decide whether, for example, a wet T-shirt contest in a German city rises to a level of criminal provocation that could cause the Muslim faithful in Hyderabad to feel debased and humiliated?

The discussion over which provocations WE should put an end to so that THEY do not feel upset inexorably leads to the realm of the absurd.

Should devout Jews be entitled to demand that non-Jews give up pork? And should they have the power to impose sanctions if their demands are not met? Can a Hindu in India run amok because the Dutch do not view cows as sacred beings? Those who believe Muslims have the right to be outraged by the Danes failing to abide by an Islamic prohibition -- especially when it's not even clear that such a prohibition even exists -- must answer such questions clearly in the affirmative. Even illiterates must then be allowed to ransack bookstores; in a world in which anyone is entitled to feel offended and humiliated, anyone can also choose which provocations he is unwilling to accept.


NEWSLETTER
Sign up for Spiegel Online's daily newsletter and get the best of Der Spiegel's and Spiegel Online's international coverage in your In- Box everyday.

The comments made by German pastor Burkhard Müller on Feb. 11, 2005 on "Wort zum Sonntag," a weekly Christian program aired on the ARD public television network, demonstrate just how far we are willing to go when it comes to denying reality. "Islam is a great religion," Müller said, only minutes after the previous news program had shown scenes of burning flags, devastated embassies and holy warriors yelling "death to the infidels!" Where does it come from, this determination to disregard the facts or conveniently distort them so that they cloud our perception of reality?

A natural tendency to avoid conflict

It comes from fear. Fear may be a poor counselor, but when it comes to educating the masses, there is no more effective tool. Mao famously said: "Strike one to educate one hundred" -- an axiom that helped him solidify his power.

It is not respect for other cultures which influences behavior, but rather the awareness of just how fanatic and ruthless our adversaries are. The wilder and more brutal they appear to be, the more likely they are to attract attention and gain respect. Whether venturing into unfamiliar territory means taking a walk in a different neighborhood or visiting a foreign culture, our natural tendency is to avoid conflict.

"Nowadays acts of terrorism are not committed for their own sake, but in the name of an ideology one could call Nazi-Islamism," Romanian-American author Norman Manea told the German daily Die Welt in March 2004. The only difference, in Manea's view, is "that this ideology invokes a religion, whereas the Nazis were mythical without being religious." Manea believes that what he calls a "World War III" has already begun. "The Europeans are putting off the recognition -- as they did in the 1930s -- of the tremendous tragedy that awaits them and that has, in fact, already arrived."

This sounds like an extreme exaggeration, conjuring up visions of a Day of Judgment, of an Apocalypse Now! Of course, in 1938 hardly anyone could have imagined where the policy of appeasing the Nazis would lead. History does not repeat itself, and yet there are parallels that do not bode well. The willingness to submit to self-deception is as widespread today as it was in the years leading up to World War II.

Muslims 'about to take over Europe'

Jan. 29, 2007 0:20 | Updated Jan. 29, 2007 16:59
Muslims 'about to take over Europe'
By DAVID MACHLIS AND TOVAH LAZAROFF




Islam could soon be the dominant force in a Europe which, in the name of political correctness, has abdicated the battle for cultural and religious control, Prof. Bernard Lewis, the world-renowned Middle Eastern and Islamic scholar, said on Sunday.

The Muslims "seem to be about to take over Europe," Lewis said at a special briefing with the editorial staff of The Jerusalem Post. Asked what this meant for the continent's Jews, he responded, "The outlook for the Jewish communities of Europe is dim." Soon, he warned, the only pertinent question regarding Europe's future would be, "Will it be an Islamized Europe or Europeanized Islam?" The growing sway of Islam in Europe was of particular concern given the rising support within the Islamic world for extremist and terrorist movements, said Lewis.

Lewis, whose numerous books include the recent What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East, and The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror, would set no timetable for this drastic shift in Europe, instead focusing on the process, which he said would be assisted by "immigration and democracy." Instead of fighting the threat, he elaborated, Europeans had given up.

"Europeans are losing their own loyalties and their own self-confidence," he said. "They have no respect for their own culture." Europeans had "surrendered" on every issue with regard to Islam in a mood of "self-abasement," "political correctness" and "multi-culturalism," said Lewis, who was born in London to middle-class Jewish parents but has long lived in the United States.

The threat of extremist Islam goes far beyond Europe, Lewis stressed, turning to the potential impact of Iran going nuclear under its current regime.

The Cold War philosophy of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), which prevented the former Soviet Union and the United States from using the nuclear weapons they had targeted at each other, would not apply to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Iran, said Lewis.

"For him, Mutual Assured Destruction is not a deterrent, it is an inducement," said Lewis of Ahmadinejad. "We know already that they [Iran's ruling ayatollahs] do not give a damn about killing their own people in great numbers. We have seen it again and again. If they kill large numbers of their own people, they are doing them a favor. They are giving them a quick, free pass to heaven. I find all that very alarming," said Lewis.

Lewis acknowledged that Ahmadinejad had made the notion of Iran having the right to acquire a nuclear capability an issue of national pride, and that this should be borne in mind in trying to thwart Teheran's nuclear drive. "One should try to make it clear at all stages that the objection is not Iran having [a nuclear weapon] but to the regime that governs Iran having it," said Lewis.

This idea already had support among those Iranians who, on the one hand, believed that their country has a right to possess such a capability but, on the other, feared it being acquired by a government that they do not support.

Israel and the West should work to strengthen moderate forces within the Iranian population, he urged, via an aggressive propaganda campaign including the use of television and radio programs.

"All the evidence is that the regime is extremely unpopular with their own people," he said. "I am told that the Israeli daily [radio] program in Persian is widely listened to all over Iran with rapt attention." Israel and the West should also be looking to reach out to moderate forces within the Arab world, which are equally alarmed by the spread of extremism in their midst, said Lewis. "The Arab governments understand that Israel is not their biggest problem," said Lewis.


Here too, he said, Israeli media had a positive effect in the region, particularly in Jordan, where Israeli programs were broadcast and were widely watched. Jordanians "get the message of how a free society works. As one fellow put it, it is amazing to watch these great and famous people banging the table and screaming at each other. Even more striking is the fact that Arabs can denounce the Israeli government on Israeli television. That has an impact." Lewis also highlighted the Washington-based Syrian Reform Party, whose leader Farid Ghadry openly admires Israel.

Regarding the summer's war against Hizbullah, Lewis warned that a second such conflict could break out in the near future.

He quoted a Christian Lebanese friend saying soon after the fighting ended that "Israel has lost the war, but Hizbullah has not won" because many people in Lebanon were blaming Hizbullah for bringing conflict to their country. Now, though, he added, it was his sense that Hizbullah had "gained some ground since then."

Amir Mizroch contributed to this report.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satell...icle%2FShowFull

I would agree with you on the hussein notes 100%. In hindsight, he was an absolutely necessary evil, and it takes that kind of sicko to control those extremists. I agree that it has not solved any problems, but again I think that has to do with the way we are fighting the war. We are basically on patrol, shooting back at people that kill us. We're going over there to play defense. But without a whole lot of sources of intel, that's pretty much all you can do.

My first tour over there, I realize that it was a few bad apples screwing it up for the rest of them. My second tour, I realized the good apples don't care, or don't care enough to do anyhting (e.g. Tell the police that your neighbor has a SAM-7 and intends to shoot down a helicopter). That's why at this point, let the animals kill each other. Fuck 'em and everybody who looks like 'em.

Read a little about the history of Iraq. Read about the troubles Britain had in the twenties when they tried to invade for the port. The exact same thing happened. They conquered it with ease, but occupation to follow was the tough part. Then some years later, a big insurgent attack left 300 dead, they pulled out. Sectarian violence, then in the 50's enter the Baathist party. Iraq is stable for another 30 years. History repeats itself. I say we not only leave, but we also don't let them have a government. They'll work it out. This has been going on since the 1600's. Iraq does not want to be a part of modern society and contribute to world trade. They want to sit in the blazing sun, getting pissed off, cutting barber's heads off for giving "western" haircuts. As long as it doesn't involve me, you can live your life and make a name for your country however you want.

I think the biggest mistake(and this does not make everyone involved idiots btw it makes them human), was in slamming the door shut on the Baathists. They were loyal to Saddam based on fear only. What we need to remember that the best and the brightest rise to the top in any society because they are able to adapt to what ever situation they find themselves. We went on the assumption that they were evil and would therefore be unwilling to change to fit the new situation. We should have given them a place at the table where Saddam was no longer sitting at the head of it. That assumption IMO is where we lost the peace so to speak. We froze out the very people that made the country run while Saddam was in power and they likely would have done the same for Maliki. Maliki is trying to fix that now and I hope he succeeds.

@ DaGroaner:

the only thing i can see you posting is people overreacting, hyping or simply trying to make a buck for themselves.

much of the article revolves around the cartoon bullshit, but you have to remember that in the arab countries many fake and a lot more shocking cartoons had been distributed saying they were from the Danes. anyway, assaulting a country because an angry mob (and not the country itself) destroyed your embassy is a little overreacting, don't you think?

for the rest: come on, "about to takeover Europe"? who are you kidding here?

the article is pretty laughable:
- should we deny muslims the right to vote? that's pretty strange coming from an american, i thought everyone was supposed to be equal overthere. or was it "everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others"?
- fear = respect? hah, not by a longshot.
- strike one to educate on hundred? yes, if it is wise to do so. there is no use striking one if the other hundred get pissed off & rape you.
- Nazi-Islamism? god, i thought the word Islamo-fascist was a bad choice of words, but NAZI? haha, that's really wonderful.


@ shaneman153a:

the same could've been said of Vietnam. it appears we don't learn from the lessons already learned.


@ DaGroaner:

you're probably right about the Baathists, but it's hard to know where to draw the line.

and i wouldn't count on Maliki for a solution. he no longer has the strength to carry on with all the adversity staring him in the face (the man didn't even really want to be in the position he is now).

LMMFAO, Neville Chamberlain is here talking about not repeating history. You Euros are amusng... for awhile.

You need evidence that Clinton was a POS? i'm not even sure where to start with that one...

........it's just a damned shame we here in the US don't behave according to what the rest of the world thinks we should............ The US was the only country that told the UN (with it's world-wide small-arms ban for civilians resolution) to stuff it........... The Euros thought it was a great idea......... Sorry, it was just contrary to our Constitution, which as you know, is very politically incorrect in the world climate of today..............

Leads me to some advice my Dad gave me many years ago:

"Boy, don't pay any attention to someone who don't know what the fuck they're talking about.........."

I've always tried to take his advice.............

That's good advice; I'll be sure to pass that on to my son when he gets school age.

Peace in our time?

British Police Arrest 8 Allegedly Plotting 'Iraq-Style' Kidnapping
Wednesday, January 31, 2007




BIRMINGHAM, England — British police arrested 8 suspects allegedly plotting an "Iraq-style" kidnapping in a nationwide anti-terrorism operation Wednesday morning.

Streets in England's second largest city, Birmingham, were sealed off and authorities said a series of predawn raids were conducted at multiple addresses. Birmingham is one of the country's most ethnically diverse cities and has a large Muslim population.

Police sources told FOX News' sister network, Sky News, that the plot involved the abduction of an unnamed "not high-profile" man in his 20s. The suspects wanted to film his torture and beheading and post it on the Internet for propaganda purposes. The intended victim was made aware of the plot and is now in police protective custody. Police are withholding the man's name and occupation for the time being.



The kidnapping and subsequent beheading of British citizen Ken Bigley in Iraq in September 2004 was front-page news in the U.K. for several weeks and generated considerable amount of anti-war sentiment.


The arrests follow a six-month investigation, Scotland Yard sources said, and the targets of the plot are thought to be "not principally in London." Police said that plan was not meant to inflict "significant numbers of casualties," and is being described as a "different approach" to terror.

The operation, which was led by the Midlands Counterterrorism unit, is ongoing and authorities said more arrests may be coming.

Last week, police arrested five people in terrorism investigations in the English cities of Manchester and Halifax.

Rizwan Ditta, 29, and Mohammed Dilal, 26, of Halifax were later charged with possession of information of use to terrorists.

Three men arrested by Greater Manchester Police remain in custody but have not been charged.

The Associated Press and Sky News contributed to this report.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,248878,00.html

That was before the Dems fucked over John Bolton though. *He* was basically the one who told the UN to go stuff their small arms policies for the US.

Proves to me right there that the elitist Dems want to turn us all into subservient unquestioning EU peasants. Proves to me too that electing an elitist Dem to office is *NOT* in my best interest as a responsible firearms owner.

Fuck the Dems (and all the traitorous Repubs) I say. They can all go line up and suck my gun owning balls.

i hope that article wasn't posted as a way to validate the so called danger of arab invasion followed by mass beheadings of heathens...

the target was a fellow muslim.
the men are extremists, hardly representative for the muslim community.
they are not the avant garde of some foreign army preparing to invade europe...

i don't see how this contributes to your stance that there will be an muslim invasion and that heathen europeans will get beheaded soon.

Groaner,
Obviously, this guy just knows best...........
Never mind that the Muslims stated goal is the forcible conversion of all mankind to Islam, with the handy alternative of death if you happen to decline the invitation............
Never mind that although they are just a teeny, tiny bunch of radical extremists.....the "moderate Muslims" are not speaking out against this "renegade" bunch of terrorists, much less taking any appreciable steps to stop this activity within their own community....... I take that as giving credence to the activities they're undertaking.....(could be they're afraid of what would happen if they did speak out....)
Sua.........it's kinda like the McDonalds shooting.......it could never happen to you or yours, until it does. It speaks of a mindset of religious ideology, not an "invasion" of a typical type........ You obviously view this quite differently than most of the rest of us here, and the condescending tone you seem intent upon using, and the critical review of national policy and our leaders frankly doesn't set too well (with me.....) To each his own, I guess, but further lectures aren't really appropriate....and from my editorial perspective, your opinions blow......... 'Course, me being a Southern American probably distances us beyond repair, not being an enlightened sort of guy and all, ya know.......

Just my $.02...........

He is a typical Eurodope and their denial of what is staring them straight in the face exemplifies why my initial remarks on Europe are accurate. I'm sure he took it as typical American arrogance but the fact is that I see the same thing here and am far more concerned about US. We have plenty of dhimmi liberals here too.

+ 1! SuA is completely irrelevant as is his "country" if you want to call it that. They can't even agree on their own langauge nor governence. Their biggest export is (was) the coke head Jean Claude VanDam. Nothing to argue about. C-ya SuAge.

I thought their biggest export was kiddie-porn.

i can respect that, and that really shouldn't be a problem. as hard it is for us to admit the truth probably lies halfway, instead of with a single one of us.


and yet again one decends into namecalling. look, there's no need for that.


yes, of course, our country is totally irrelevant until you need to use our airfields and harbors for those supplies you keep shipping. or when you come asking us to send more troops into Afghanistan.

as for not agreeing on a language? our country has 3 official languages within welldefined borders, what's wrong with that? that happens when you create a buffer-nation from 3 different countries.
the government surely isn't any more controversial than your own, so that's not much for you to speak about.

and since there seems to be some controversy on the subject: diamonds are our biggest export.