A View from the Eye of the Storm

[Nashwan]

So why don't they suicide bomb these oppressive rulers?

Because it's easier to hate "them" than "us" (ie any outside group), because the opressive rulers generally have more effective police forces, and because the opressive rulers to a certain extent fund and tolerate the extremists whilst attacks are not directly aimed at them.

Also, the vast majority of suicide attacks in the ME are by Palestinians against Israel, there  have been a much smaller number by other groups against the west.

Al Quaida clearly wants to get the west out of the middle east, presumably once that has happened they will turn more attention to their own governments. It's no good overthrowing the Suadis whilst American troops are in the region, because the Americans will step in to stop an Islamic regieme being established.

[NUKE]

I read the whole thing and the guy pretty muched nailed it. We are in a world war with fanatics and we need to fight them head-on and go on the offensive, because nothing short will stop them. It is a world war.

When people say we can't fight "terrorism" because terrorism is "a system, not a defined enemy" they are dead wrong. The countries that support terrorists are what we need to be fighting and the rest will take care of itself. That should define the war on terrorism, and Bush made that clear in the beginning.... we not differentiate  a nation that harbors or supports terrorists from the terrorists themselves.

We need to go after the countries that support terrorists, plain and simple.

We need to go after Syria, Iran and Arafat and the terror groups under and around the PLA .

Iraq was not a mistake, it was a necessity and a good start as well as good example to others, like Lybia. We need to fight now and offensively, not fight later as a reaction.

Great read and worth the time to do so.

[Toad]

Do you raid a mosque, which serves as a terrorist ammunition storage? Do you return fire, if you are attacked from a hospital? Do you storm a church taken over by terrorists who took the priests hostages? Do you search every ambulance after a few suicide murderers use ambulances to reach their targets? Do you strip every woman because one pretended to be pregnant and carried a suicide bomb on her belly? Do you shoot back at someone trying to kill you, standing deliberately behind a group of children? Do you raid terrorist headquarters, hidden in a mental hospital? Do you shoot an arch-murderer who deliberately moves from one location to another, always surrounded by children? All of these happen daily in Iraq and in the Palestinian areas. What do you do? Well, you do not want to face the dilemma. But it cannot be avoided.

I think the bias may be in the eyes of each individual reader.

I can easily see where one who believes the author is just focused on the Palestinian/Israeli aspect can take that from this quote.

When I read it, however, I saw pretty much what is going on in Iraq right now. I really didn't attach any particular P/I significance to it. I saw it as an overview of the situation.

It's pretty clear the Islamic militants are doing these things wherever they come in conflict with the "outsiders", not just in Gaza.

I pretty much saw the whole article in that light, a worldwide overview.

[Sixpence]

"I think you're fixated on the Arab/Israeli aspect of this as written by a Jew.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck. Seems he is blaming the world's problems on his enemies. I didn't see him call any other parts of the world "dysfunctional", you know, where they butcher each other, like Africa or Kosovo? I'm sure we could come up with a few more. He makes some good points, but ones that could be used to describe other parts of the world too. If you say his speach is unbiased, I do not agree.

What's your take on these situations then? How does Israel figure into each of them?

Well, how does Isreal figure into kosovo? Or arpartheid? Or the aborigines? Or any situation in Africa? But did they figure in the palestinian people and how they live, or palestine?  Let me ask you a question, does Isreal practice expansionism? Before you answer, let me point out their government subsidy for having many kids(we won't mention the territory taken yet). And where are they expanding? There is only one place to go, arab land, now do they figure in? How can you say his speach is unbiased if he points out situations where Isreal is not a factor, but refuses to mention that of which Isreal is?

Now we may indeed have to deal with the rest of the middle east, and if that does not include saudi arabia, then terrorism will never end. And Isreal has nothing to do with that. But it does have alot to do with arab areas around it, and this man refuses to mention it. Is Isreal the root of the problems in the middle east? Of course not, but i'de say they have more to do with it than Jordan, but yet Jordan is part of the "dysfunctional" area.  It is a duck my friend.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Sixpence
I didn't see him call any other parts of the world "dysfunctional", you know, where they butcher each other, like Africa or Kosovo?

You guys need to slow down and read it.

Right at the beginning he says:

our Chairman suggested that I present my own personal view on events in the part of the world from which I come.[/u]

You know, if he was from Africa or Kosovo he might have focused on that. Go figure.

I didn't say his speech was unbiased by the way. I said I think a lot of the bias is in the eyes of the reader. For example, the way you miss his "mission statement" right at the beginning and jump on Africa and Kosovo.

I'm sure if he solely addressed the Palestinian/Israeli issue in and of itself you'd have lots to talk about.

Again, I see this as an overview of the problems the entire world may soon have with Islamic militants and their support structure.

Like I said, one of his most telling comments in my opinon is:

According to a report prepared by a committee of Arab intellectuals and published under the auspices of the U.N., the number of books translated by the entire Arab world is much smaller than what little Greece alone translates.

What do you think of that, Six? Forget P/I for a second and address something he actually said.

Does that statement worry you in the least? It does me.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Toad
What do you think of that, Six? Forget P/I for a second and address something he actually said.

Does that statement worry you in the least? It does me.

Then you must really be worried about africa, shoot, I don't think some of those countries have books to translate.

[Toad]

Well, I'm not seeing that many Africans beheading Americans lately.

Maybe I missed it.

[Toad]

BTW, if you want to discuss some of his concepts, I'll oblige.

If you just want to assault the writer, I'll pass.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Toad
Well, I'm not seeing that many Africans beheading Americans lately.

Maybe I missed it.

Is somalia in africa?

But we are getting off the statement, you take this

"According to a report prepared by a committee of Arab intellectuals and published under the auspices of the U.N., the number of books translated by the entire Arab world is much smaller than what little Greece alone translates."

As a reason that muslims do not like us right? So if we find other countries in the world that translate less, would they be a threat to us too? Is that how this works? You are looking for reasons to justify your opinion about a region or people, and imo, that is not a good reason to go by. I'm sure the people of that region would like to read about other parts of the world, but governments like that of saudi arabia will not let that happen.

BTW, I do not think I assaulted the writer.

[Toad]

No, I would see it as an indicator that they're not too interested in what's going on in the world. I'd see it as an indicator that the problem is pretty deep and that change will be extremely slow if at all. I take it in the vein that folks that aren't interested in learning are usually hard to deal with; they think they already know everything they need to know.

OK, maybe "assaulted" is the wrong choice. Let's say you've focused on the author rather than what he had to say. There's lots of folks that I don't particularly care for that still say intelligent thing.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Toad

No, I would see it as an indicator that they're not too interested in what's going on in the world. I'd see it as an indicator that the problem is pretty deep and that change will be extremely slow if at all. I take it in the vein that folks that aren't interested in learning are usually hard to deal with; they think they already know everything they need to know.

I agree, but we partake in that by pampering saudi arabia. Can you think of a more oppressive government than that of saudi arabia? If your wife's head gear falls off the police beat her in front of you in public. And don't get caught reading any western books either. But, for the love of oil, they are our "friends". Al-qeada has it's very origins from saudi arabia, and probably most of it's money.

OK, maybe "assaulted" is the wrong choice. Let's say you've focused on the author rather than what he had to say. There's lots of folks that I don't particularly care for that still say intelligent thing.

I think I mentioned he makes some valid points, but alot of those are points we already know. What I tried to focus on is what he didn't say, which, imo, makes his speach biased. When we point out other's faults, we often point out our own and what we can try to do to improve them, I think his speach does not include that, thus  the bias.

[Toad]

I see. We pamper Saudi Arabia so none of the rest of the countries are interested in spreading knowledge.

Gotcha.

Nevermind.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Toad
I see. We pamper Saudi Arabia so none of the rest of the countries are interested in spreading knowledge.

I am showing you a country who does exactly what you say, but they get our support, why?

We pamper saudi arabia, who leads the way and holds most influence in the region. You showed me a point, I showed you how we partake in that. You know, it's funny, some say we support Isreal too much, but saudi arabia does not get the same argument, I don't understand. Never forget. And never forget that almost all of the hijackers of TWC attack were from saudi arabia.

[Toad]

Do you raid a mosque, which serves as a terrorist ammunition storage? Do you return fire, if you are attacked from a hospital? Do you storm a church taken over by terrorists who took the priests hostages? Do you search every ambulance after a few suicide murderers use ambulances to reach their targets? Do you strip every woman because one pretended to be pregnant and carried a suicide bomb on her belly? Do you shoot back at someone trying to kill you, standing deliberately behind a group of children? Do you raid terrorist headquarters, hidden in a mental hospital? Do you shoot an arch-murderer who deliberately moves from one location to another, always surrounded by children? All of these happen daily in Iraq and in the Palestinian areas. What do you do? Well, you do not want to face the dilemma. But it cannot be avoided.

Tell me how our relationship with Saudia Arabia somehow provides the answer to these questions.

Like I said, nevermind.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Toad
Tell me how our relationship with Saudia Arabia somehow provides the answer to these questions.

And what does that have to do with the translation of books?

If the terrorists you mention above include al-qeada, and it gets alot of money and members from saudi sources, and we turn a blind eye to it, is our relationship relevant then? We support a brutally oppressive regime with as much hate against the west as any nation in the region(if not more). It is the "Mecca" of anti west sentiment.