A little bit on the terrorists state of mind.


PDA






Dmack_901
February 4, 2006, 09:17 PM
Last summer I decided to do a little research a figure out exactly what I thought about the Islamic Extremists, and Iraq. And I ended up writing a few pages to help me think it through. After reading through it recently, and doing (limited) editing, I figured I might post it up on teh web. Heck, worst case everyone disagrees. Best case, I change a liberal's mind.

http://www.terror.such.info

It's a bit of a read if you're not in the mood, but what do you think?

If you enjoyed reading about "A little bit on the terrorists state of mind." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Gun_nut
February 6, 2006, 04:39 PM
that was ineresting:scrutiny:

TequilaMockingbird
February 6, 2006, 05:17 PM
It's a bit of a read if you're not in the mood, but what do you think?

Dmack, you asked me, so I will tell you, and I ain't gonna sugar-coat it for ya.

It stinks.

Your section on Iran leaves much to be desired.

In 1951, the Iran nationalized their oil industry. Without compensation, they then seized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, a British-owned company.

False. The Iranian government did offer compensation.

Since the current Prime Minister opposed the unjust seizure, he was assassinated by a group called Fadayan-e Islam.

Prime minister General Haji-Ali Razmara, elected in June 1950, had opposed the nationalization bill on technical grounds.

The parliament then voted to elect Mohammed Mossadeq as Prime Minister. Once in power, Mossadeq connected to the Tudeh Party, a pro-Communist revolutionary group,

No, that simply is not true. The Tudeah Party had been banned in 1949, and Mossadegh did not lift the ban and he did not appoint any Tudeh party members to his cabinet. The Tudeh Party bitterly attacked Mossadegh. In return, Mossadegh violently suppressed one of their demonstrations on July 15, 1951, resulting in some 100 deaths and 500 injured. That was three months after Mossadegh came to power.

and began implementing a series of “Socialist” reforms.

Iran nationalized its oil industry soon after the UK government nationalized its oil industry. Besides, the UK government never really held clear title to the properties it was claiming in Iran.

Having lost Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Albania, Czechoslovakia, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba to Communism, The United States had no choice but to begin a series of tactics aimed at removing Mohammed Mossadeq from power. In 1979, these actions succeeded and the Shah returned.

Totally wrong. First, you have your timeline wrong. Second, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Albania, etc., were never OURS to lose.

In 1953 - NOT 1979 - the US and UK governments violently overthrew the constitutionally-elected government of Iran and replaced it with the Shah, a bloody dicatorship. Our CIA created the SAVAK, the hated Iranian secret police. We supplied them with weapons, intelligence, and even instructed them in the finer arts of torture. In 1976 Amnesty International summed up the situation by noting that Iran had "the highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian courts and a history if torture which is beyond belief. No country in the world has a worse record in human rights than Iran."

The widespread repression of the Iranian people under the Shah led to a popular (at first) revolution against him in 1979. The new theocratic government and much of the population were understandably bitterly anti-American.

The US could have extended the hand of friendship to Iran in 1953. Instead, Washington toppled a democratic government, and today it appears that we and the Iranians could be on a crash course towards war.

Read All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror by Stephen Kinzer (2004).

Dmack_901
February 6, 2006, 05:36 PM
Oops! Wow, I guess I got a lot of the history wrong. :banghead:

I really wish they would teach this stuff at school(HS). Well, anyway, thanks for the corrections/civility.

AJ Dual
February 6, 2006, 06:16 PM
What TequilaMockingbird points out about what "we did" in Iran is true.

I also feel that Iran and Vietnam have similar parallels.

After the end of WWII and the defeat of the Japanese, it was decided that Vietnam was to be "returned" to it's status as a French colony. Ho Chi Minh had petitioned the U.S. to force the French to give Vietnam it's independence, and we declined to intervene. It's possible that could have turned them from civil war, and the north turning communist.

I do feel that overall, in an international sense, the U.S. is largely a "good country". Leaving out nations that are not major international players, like Canada, Sweden, and Iceland etc., we're possibly the "best" out of all the ones that have ever had such global reach and power. Overall, we've done far more good than harm, IMO. (Just ask a Nazi or the Imperial Japanese :) )

However, I do think that our "Win at all costs" strategy when it comes to pulling the puppet strings in other lands is our greatest "external" sin as a nation. We only seem to support true democracy, human rights, and freedom when we're reasonably sure of the outcome. A U.S. apologist could say that it was driven out of fear of losing to the Sino/Soviet Communist machine (a.k.a. "Domino Theory"), but one can easily see that it extended much further back to the "Banana Republic" era in South America well before the October Revolution in 1917 put Communism on the map.

Aside from slavery, it's going to be the single most greatest stain on our history.

Despite whatever historical details may be in error, I agree with the essence of Dmack_901's analysis.
While what we've done in Iran is certainly a major contribution to Islamic hatred of the West, and the U.S. in particular, the true roots of the conflict between radical Islam and the West date all the way back to the days when the Roman empire squared off against Persia, the Crusades in the middle-ages, followed by the defeat of the Ottoman Empire and subsequent British and European Colonialism, to the support for Israel in 1948, and up to our involvements in the regions in current times. The U.S. is an inheritor to that entire 2000 year long legacy. We view that litany as discreet events in distant history, and not as part in any larger pattern of conflict. The Islamists do not. To them it is all one epic struggle. It is impossible to make diplomatic amends for things that happened between other 1000 years ago or more. Even if we could, they would not care.

Understanding that fact is key.

If we waited another ten or twenty years for the Iranian hatred for our backing the Shah to fade, or even a hundred for our support of Israel to diminish in their minds, it would still be there. Look at France, and their recent riots. Even if we took the greatest "spread yer legs, and show yer (yellow) belly" diplomatic stance the world has ever seen toward the Islamists, they would not go away.

If you think I'm kidding, look for the statements by the leaders of our enemies to their public audiences. The word "Crusade" comes up quite often. To them it's a loaded, hot-button, term, even almost 1000 years later!

I believe that even if the U.S. had a time machine and managed to divorce itself from British colonialism, publicly opposed the creation of Israel, and had never meddled in Iran or Iraq, we would still be on the Islamist's "hit list". At best, I think such a revision of history would have only bought us a few decades of breathing room.

As the default "leader" of Western Civilization both economically, and culturally, and the last identifiable possessor of the Zeitgeist (currently up for grabs…), I believe that the U.S. would inevitably be a target for Islamo-Fascisim. And quite possibly, that would be a united Islamist front, in possession of a modern nuclear arsenal, bio-weapons, robotics, killer nanotechnology, or God knows what else.

cloudkiller
February 6, 2006, 10:28 PM
Another issue with Islamic Militancy is that it loves to "hijack" political causes just like we love to be able to portray opponents of our political and military activities as "radical" Islamism.

Iraq and Palestine, for example were, for the most part, secular populations (when compared to other Islamic states, for example). However, by virtue of BOTH our own government's attempts to tie Iraq into the "war on terror" and the Islamic Radical's efforts to associate any anti-US or anti-Israeli efforts as part of a larger Jihad, both of these conflicts have taken more and more religious overtones. Basically thse propagandist efforts become self-fulfilling because the participants become so alienated that they end up joining forces with radical elements. Until the US got there, Iraq was about as far away from being a hotbed of Islamism as one could find in that area of the world.

There was a great special on the BBC that pointed out that left to their own devices, Islamic radicals would eventually kill each other off. Their ideology is not self-sustaining, and requires an active antagonist to maintain an influx of angry revolutionaries. Given time, and a "hands off" approach, the economic pressures for peace might force an uneasy truce between Israel and Palestine. This would deflate one of the major sources of radical Islamic legitimacy, with ensuing economic growth putting additional pressure on neighboring states to ease their stances towards the Jewish state. This would also make it harder for democratic candidates in some of these countries to promote a rabble-rousing hardline agenda.

Coronach
February 7, 2006, 10:00 PM
1.) All topics and posts must be related to firearms or civil liberties issues.
2.) Multiple user registrations are prohibited.
3.) As a family-friendly board, we ask that you keep your language clean. If you wouldn't say it in front of your dear old Grandma, you probably don't want to say it here.
4.) Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.
5.) We cannot provide a comprehensive list of "Things Not To Say".Posts that are contrary to the above policies, or to the mission of The High Road, may be edited or deleted at our sole discretion. Membership may be revoked if such a step is deemed necessary by us. We're a private venture enabled by an all-volunteer staff. Please treat this venue as a polite discussion in a friend's home and respect the wishes of the hosts.We have noted that the civility of L&P has been plummeting of late. Correlated with this is yet another resurgence of political posts that do not meet the criteria as outlined in the rules of conduct. Just because a post is 'political' does not mean it belongs here. It must address firearms issues or civil liberties issues directly. "Civil liberties are in danger because Bush lied, people died!" and "we will lose all of our guns becuase Hillary has anger issues!" will not cut it. Post directly, not obliquely, about how a given topic has an impact on RKBA or civil liberties.

Thank you,

Staff at THR

If you enjoyed reading about "A little bit on the terrorists state of mind." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!