GA / Lapid: U.S. and Israel facing `war of civilizations'

[rini]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/361755.html

[bluesoul]

1. There we go again

"war of civilizations". Oh my...

[drewb]

2. There are those that choose peace...

It's only war if you have two sides that want a war.


Why can't we choose peace?


"War is the insane death dance of a paranoid society, would you join the dance?"

http://www.zendik.org/dontgomovie.html

[Muddleoftheroad]

3. Radical Islam

It is not a war with Islam. It IS a war with radical Islam and they DON'T choose peace. Our options are fighting the war through a variety of methods (includind undermining them by advocating freedom in the Muslim/Arab world) or losing.

[drewb]

4. Why must we fight?

You need two sides to have a fight, why are you so interested in supplying one side?

[Muddleoftheroad]

5. No you don't

When one side doesn't fight back, that's called murder.

I have no interest in being a victim.

[drewb]

8. S T R A W M A N

I don't want to be a victim either, I choose to treat everyone with dignity and respect. I get dignity and respect in return. Is that such a difficult concept?


On second thought, why do I even bother? :shrug:

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. Difficult

Well, it's difficult if someone wants to kill you no matter what you do.

As an African-American, I know all about this. Some people used to hate my race NO MATTER WHAT. Some still do.

Jews have the same problem Many of their enemies have sworn to destroy them. It's hard to reach agreement with such as Hamas.

Some of these same forces despise everything the West stands for from multiculturalism to pornography and everything in between.

[bluesoul]

11. Many are intent

on destroying Muslims and Arabs. No even mentioning the remarks of people like Coulter (invade, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity) or Boykin's bigoted anti-Islam sentiments.

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. Surprised?

The Arab world has done a crappy job of building support in the U.S.

They took the side of the Soviets in the Cold War. They have backed terror for decades, some of which has killed Americans. (Achille Lauro anyone?) Many are member nations of OPEC and a good chunk of Americans remember the oil crisis and gas lines. They have attacked Israel, an American ally and friend, on a regular basis and still do so. And many supported or were pleased by the 9-11 attacks.

Yes, there is a lot of history on both sides going back many centuries, but trying to change attitudes is up to BOTH sides.

[bluesoul]

13. That looks like a

lame excuse to me for justifying bigots like Ann Coulter and general Boykin, nothing more...

[GabysPoppy]

14. Who brought up Coulter and Boykin?

The only person who brought up those names was yourself.

[bluesoul]

15. Exactly as examples of such sentiments

And the only answer I got was "Are you surprised...." As I said....

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. Quick question

How many bombs has Coulter set off?

I won't defend her, but you mentioned one side of something and I mentioned another and pointed out that there is history to both. You are simply hiding behind someone we all like to hate.

[bluesoul]

20. Ideology matters just as much

Hitler didn't personally kill anyone as far as I know but he was behind it all. Ann Coulter surely has an enourmous fan base in the USA as far as I have read being the conservative media darling

[Muddleoftheroad]

21. Hitler, lol

So Coulter who writes a stupid ass column is like Hitler? Hitler ORDERED millions of deaths and personally commanded the armed forces of Germany. Coulter couldn't command a navy in a bathtub.

You are using the strawman/woman debate.

[bluesoul]

22. Words and mentality

can lead to concrete actions. Hitler also started as a nobody. If the neocons and their supporters in the media continue to dominate the political scene (winning elections) and the media scene god knows what could happen to many other Arab/Muslim countries...

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. Trying to spot Hitler in 1920

Is like looking for a needle in a galaxy.

And identifying anyone who is a scumbag as a potential Hitler is just silly.

[edzontar]

26. Muddle-your curious defense of bigots like Coulter is most ineffective...

I suggest you take another tack.

Hitler had to start somewhere, and to sugest that Coulter and her ilk--Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc., do not pose a potential threat to civil liberties in this country is unadulterated poop.

If you want to trivialize these people--that is your perogative,

But I will remind you that DU is a DEMOCRATIC site, and is dedicated above all to the notion that these people need to answered and hopefully, discredited and defeated at every opportunity.

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. You are most humorous today

It is quite obvious I am not defending Coulter or what she stands for. So go ahead and try that smear, it won't stick.

Every zealot in this nation is a threat to civil liberties, including some probably at DU. So what? This is not new. America has survived 200+ years of such threats and we are still here.

Yes, DU is a DEMOCRATIC site which is why I am here. Your smears just don't work today. Perhaps you should work on improving your personal attacks.

[edzontar]

28. I'm not attacking you--I'm pointing out that by....

Characterizing Coulter et al as unimportant or insignificant--as part of an effort, as I see it, to "dodge" the questions posed to you--you have--perhaps inadvertently--come very close to trivializing or dismissing an issue--the Right Wing hate-mongering dominance of our media and culture--that has drawn many of us to this site in the first place.

What I was suggesting, in other words, was that your defense was hurting your case more than it was helping it.

Of course, what can any of us expect, in the end, from a thread whose clear intent was to incite disagrement and yet another round of pointless flaming?

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. Characterizing Coulter as similar to Hitler

Is a waste of time and effort. As I have said, all such zealots of the right AND the left pose threats to our society. As a radical moderate, I fear both equally.

And, for the record, there was no defense of her. She is a pebble in a pond and barely makes a ripple.

[edzontar]

31. Coulter is a right-wing hate-mongering fanatic & constantly in the media

The comparison might more precisely be made to certain Nazi-oriented journalists and editorialists of the period, of course, since Ann is not a politician.

Finally, I would argue that Coulter is not a pebble, but a menace, and that Limbaugh is even more dangerous, thaks to his huge audience.

The main service these creeps provide to would-be Nazis of the present and future is to LEGITIMATE that sort of discourse.

I don't know where YOU live, Mr. Muddle, but I live in the USA, where these guys and gals are becoming VERY powerful and their influence is increasingly pervasive.

If things continue to move this way, it may become ever harder for you hide out in the oxymoronic "Radical Middle" . . . but that is another argument.

[Muddleoftheroad]

32. The middle

is where most Americans are. I am there on many issues not so on others, hence my term.

Again, I see fanatics of all sorts to be threats -- radical Islam, Nazis, fascists, etc. Clearly, you take Coulter far more seriously than I.

[edzontar]

33. So the middle is good because "Most Americans" are there?

According to many polls, "most Americans" believe that Bush is doing a good job as president?

Do you agree?

PS--I always heard that the middle of the road is where the yellow line is.

But hey, again, that is another topic.

[Muddleoftheroad]

Most Americans

So, do you believe polls now?

I sure don't. Nor do I believe most Americans think * is doing a good job. I think a good chunk are apathetic. A good chunk oppose him. A good chunk fall in the middle and a good chunk are on the right. Clearly, I don't think he is doing a good job. Duh.

[edzontar]

39. So-do you admit that Limbaugh and Faux are a serious threat?

Not as obviosuly bad as Hitler and the Nazis--YET--but obviously dangerous, and playing with REAL fire.

Do you agree?

[Muddleoftheroad]

35. Most Americans

So, do you believe polls now?

I sure don't. Nor do I believe most Americans think * is doing a good job. I think a good chunk are apathetic. A good chunk oppose him. A good chunk fall in the middle and a good chunk are on the right. Clearly, I don't think he is doing a good job. Duh.

[atreides1]

6. But Patience Is What's Needed

I have no problem with advocating freedomin the Muslim/Arabic world, but it will take time, you can't just shove it down their throats.

The other problem is that they resist because of fact that the governments of those countries already suspect that undermining them
is a major part of advocating freedom.

And after decades of allowing the Arabic world to do what it wanted, because it was in the interest of National Security, now they propose
advocating freedom.

Is it okay in order to destroy radical Islam, to kill innocents as well. In order to advocate freedom, do we deny freedom to individuals
who denounce us.

If we advocate freedom, then we must do it openly, and allow those who speak against it to air their views with no threat of arrest or
retaliation. We also must show patience, and introduce it slowly, if
you look at it not much has really changed in the Arab world.

Yes they drive cars, they watch TV, listen to radio, but they also still have tribal connections, and blood feuds, traditions that we in the Western world have very little understanding of.

They also have their history to show them that trusting the West has
resulted in betrayal. Let's not forget that it was Britain that created Iraq, and tried to advocate freedom, freedom in a Western understanding.

To many Arabs can see that the US is biased towards Israel, and that is part of the problem. And until we can gain the trust of the Arab street, all the advocation of freedom is in vain.

[bluesoul]

7. Very good point

Atreides!

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. Yes and no

You are right it will take time, but some of it can be done now. We can call out the Arab world about their freedoms and abuses. In the short term, this will harm us more than help us in fact.

No matter how you fight a war, innocents get killed. If you DON'T fight the war, innocents get killed because the other side continues to fight it. That means you do what you can to minimize the deaths of innocents, but that is all you can do.

Yes, I am OK if people speak against us. But when they advocate violence, they are our enemy and needed to treated as such.

As for the history, it's not exactly one-sided. The Muslim world hasn't treated the West any better than the West has treated the Muslim world, or need I remind you of Muslim invasion of Europe?

Yes, the U.S. is biased toward Israel. We are also biased toward Britain and other allies. That's what nations do.

[el_gato]

17. conveniently ignoring the real factors behind these conflicts

The bushite support of the neocon maggots like Perle and Wolfowitz is simply a matter of converging interest. Resource extraction is the goal of the bushites while a bloody holy war to stamp out islam is the neocon target. It's been so successful in Isreal, just look how peaceful it is there. :eyes:

[Jack Rabbit]

34. Commenting on the above

I won't say this too often, so listen up: Muddle has the better argument.

We're not talking about reasonable people. We're talking about al Qaida. Osama wants to kill us: you, me, Republican, Democrat, Green, rich, poor, what's left of the middle class, blacks, whites, Latinos, the Frat Boy, the radical leftist intellectual and the redneck bigot. We're all equal in Osama's eyes. Try to reason with him? He'll say "thank you for making this easier" and kill us anyway.

Just because all Muslims aren't like that doesn't mean some are. We have the example of Mr. bin Laden and his followers to show that, while it may be for many others, embracing the Islamic faith is not necessarily the path to love, wisdom and enlightenment. And we have the example of September 11 to show the evil of which they are capable.

I agree with those who say that the most effective way to stop an infestation of mosquitoes is by draining the swamp. Terrorism feeds on poverty and frustration as well as hate. More should be done to develop the economies of the Islamic world and to bring real social democracy to the region, not the pseudo-democracy that Mr. Bush would impose, starting with Iraq. However, no matter how well that works, some will still insist on projecting their own shadows onto Westerners and a few of them will seek to kill. That is, after all, a universal trait that is not unique to Arabs and Muslims nor from which they are exempt. Such people need to be put somewhere where they will do no harm.

[Muddleoftheroad]

41. Thanks

nt

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. Enemies

And if you don't see radical Islam as your enemy, I laugh at you as well.

[edzontar]

25. In the same post: A more reasonable view

U.S. Ambassador Dan Kurtzer, while agreeing with (too much) of Lapid's talking points, actually says something sort of reasonable:

"I do not disagree that we have a
serious and abiding confrontation with radical
Islam - but we cannot allow this to become a
war of civilizations. We must not. We must find
ways to reach out to people."

What do you think of a statement like that, my dear friend?

He seems to be actually dsuggesting a dialogue with peopl on the other side!

Could these be the very same "Arabs" and Palestinians you so casually and sweepingly dismiss as an undifferentiated pack of terrorists and fanatics?

[Muddleoftheroad]

29. No one tactic will work

A war is both a war in the military terms and a war for support among the Arab and Muslim people. That is why I advocate calling for democratic reforms in the region.

But there are limits. The monsters of the Palestinian terror infrastructure are largely beyond hope and negotiation. They can be marginalized, but they still need to be stopped militarily.

I don't sweepingly condemn Arabs and Palestinians. I condemn those who support terror, which is a huge percentage of the Palestinian world according to surveys.

[edzontar]

36. So what are the consequences of your "condemnation"?

What, in your opinion, should happen to these people?

Does it matter to you that many of them "support terror" because they are bitterly and cruelly oppressed? Because their homes have been destroyed or taken away, because family members have been killed, or their towns decimated?

Blame who you will for the present disaster--Israel, the PA, etc. I think they are ALL culpable.

But the point is that these people have no hope.

If you really do want to "stop terror," you have to begin to build institutions to replace it.

Economies, schools, a state apparatus.

You need to reach out, in other words (and as the man said), and that goal cannot be served by a rhetoric about "clashes of civilizations," which is racist and imperialist in both its origins and its intent.

[Muddleoftheroad]

37. Personally, I support a Palestinian state

The consequences of their current actions is they don't get one until they change.

I think the list of the culpable is larger than yours -- including the UN, EU, U.S., Arab world, Palestinians, Israelis, etc.

You can't just do one thing to stop terror. It needs to be a combined effort -- carrots and sticks. But to start somewhere you have to know that it is worth the trouble. Right now, it is not. The Palestinians are NOT offering peace in any form. Till they do, they get none in return.

[edzontar]

38. We almost agree here.....

I would only add that there are countless Palestinains who have actively worked for peace--some prominenelty, others on the local or even personal level.

Just as so many Israelis have done.

It is not as cut and dry or "Good/Bad" as you have characeterized it, in other words.

And admit, won't you, that there are many in Israel who also oppose peace, who want to push the Palestinains out of the lands they call "Greater Israel"-Judea and Samaria, etc.

These are the leaders of the Settler movement, and they pose an obstacle too--just as Hamas and the others do on the other side.

[Muddleoftheroad]

40. Not quite the same numbers

Yes, there are people in every nation who oppose peace. But the stats on how many Palstinians support terror are staggering.

[edzontar]

42. You just said above that you don't trust polls!!!!!

Also, let us remember that any poll is a snapshot--and whatever the real, unmeasurable "balance" of opinion might be, the hope is to improve attitudes as conditions improve--this is only logical.

[el_gato]

43. I didn't spend the last century supporting dictators muddle

now did I?

I guess you did since islam is your enemy now.

I guess you personally escorted Rumsfeld over to Iraq shake hands with Saddam.


Can't you tell the difference between a governments actions and the people of a country?

I find your comment simply astounding: "And if you don't see radical Islam as your enemy, I laugh at you as well."

How can you even possibly hold this view. How can someone I don't even know be my enemy? Truly amazing.

[Paschall]

23. Given that Mr. Lapid says:

"The only place that Jews are not safe is in Israel," I'd take any claims he makes about knowing anything about a "war of civilizations" with a huge grain of salt.