Miliant Islamists really DO hate freedom...

[Plekhanov]

Complete red herring the barbary pirates weren't “Muslim pirates” but pirates who happened to be muslims, they attacked shipping not because they hated freedom (wouldn't have mattered if they did as most of their victims didn't come from “free” societies anyway) or for any other political reason but because the liked money (there's kind of a clue about this in the fact that we call them Pirates) their violence was of a totally different nature to that of the current Jihadis.

The Barbary corsairs were privateers of the Ottoman Empire rather than pirates. While their exploits sometimes bordered on piracy and some naval captains and admirals had once been pirates, the objective of their raids altered from one of pure plundering and enslavement to a holy war waged against Rome and Christianity. The leading corsairs were Saracens or renegadoes--Christians who converted to Islam, either to legally plunder Mediterranean ships or to gain their freedom from slavery. Christendom deemed the Barbary corsairs pirates and terrorists, and treated them accordingly. In 1584 Venetians captured a galley bound for Tripoli. They killed everyone aboard--fifty Moors, seventy-five Turks, 174 renegadoes, and forty-five women."
http://www.cindyvallar.com/barbarycorsairs.html

If you can prove otherwise, please do so, but in a quick search I found dozens of web sites which all essentially restated the above in different manners. The Barbary Corsairs attacked Christian shipping throughout the Mediterranean. Your simple statement to the contrary is not sufficient to contradict accepted history.

If you took the trouble to read your own damn source you would have already found that your reading of history is sadly misguided

After 1581 the Barbary corsairs no longer participated in massive naval operations at the behest of the sultan. It marked an end of an era for them, for rather than waging war they simply raided and robbed merchant ships.

Comparisons are often made between the Barbary corsairs and the Buccaneers (Caribbean pirates of the mid-seventeenth century), but there are more differences than similarities between these two groups. The corsairs preyed in packs whereas Buccaneers preferred to hunt alone. While both groups attacked targets at sea and on land, Buccaneers favored stealth and surprise. The corsairs wanted everyone to see and know what they did. They openly operated out of major seaports like Tunis and Algiers, but Buccaneers sheltered only in safe havens where laws didn’t exist or their piracy was ignored. The corsairs sold their treasure in marketplaces, but the Buccaneers had to rely on intermediaries to unload their ill-gotten gain. The Ottoman Empire backed the Barbary corsairs and incorporated them into its navy. The Buccaneers received no state support, and were hunted and hanged for their nefarious deeds.

To the Shores of Tripoli

In exchange for letting Europeans trade in peace throughout the Mediterranean, the rulers of the Barbary States negotiated a peace treaty whereby each European nation paid them a ransom, an annual tribute, or a combination of both to insure their ships traveled in safety. How long the treaty lasted was never set in stone. If the ruler decided he needed additional monies or tribute, he sent messengers to chop down the flagpole outside a particular embassy, and thus declared war on that country, thereby necessitating a reopening of negotiations to reestablish free trade. This warned those countries still at peace that their turn would soon follow. Sometimes, the European powers--especially England, France, and the Netherlands--influenced the negotiations of lesser nations through rumors and misinformation so their enemy failed to achieve what they wanted or were forced to pay a more severe tribute.

Until the United States won its independence from Britain, the country was covered under the British treaties with the Barbary rulers. After 1783, however, America no longer had that safety net. They either had to pay like everyone else, cease trading in the Mediterranean, or run the risk of falling prey to corsairs. Americans, particularly Thomas Jefferson, came up with an alternative--build a navy and fight! By the time Jefferson became President, the United States had paid two million dollars in tribute--money the treasury didn’t really have. To Jefferson how to deal with the Barbary States became a matter of honor and justice, for if Americans didn’t or wouldn’t defend their economy and themselves, then how would any other nation take the new country seriously?

Your location is given as Seattle so I assume you're American odd then that you see fit to lecture others about history but don't know that one of the reasons Jefferson chose to build your countries navy and go to war with the pirates was because he calculated that it would be cheaper than paying them tribute.

It's an odd kind of holy warrior who only fights those who fail to pay protection money isn't it? The reason the pirates did so is because they weren't “holy warriors” but PIRATES who were in it for the money, sure they killed Christians but they did so for MONEY not for political reasons or for Allah.

So please explain to me again what the fuck the Barbary pirates of 1800 (the date you originally cited) have to do with the Iraqi resistance?

In any case, the point of this thread has been lost long ago. The Iraqi insurgents explicitly stated their opposition to democracy,

“The Iraqi insurgents explicitly stated” no such thing all a quote in an article on Fox News citing some web site or other does not an explicit statement of position make. What even makes you think that there is a such a thing as an “insurgent opinion on democracy” anyway since when was the resistance to occupation a unified movement with unified clearly set out positions?

[Big Phil]

You again missed the entire point - they robbed and raided Christian merchant ships, or was that point too obvious for you? Nowhere in that entire site does the article say that the Barbary Pirates preyed on non-Christian shipping.

And they did so, in the case of the US specifically, without provocation. Or are you trying to say that America had already pissed off the Muslim world in 1800?

The point I originally made, which you so obviously missed in your haste to contradict me, is that there was no reason for the Barbary Pirates to prey on European shipping, other than that they were Christian rather than Muslim. The US had not waged military or economic warfare against them, but the Barbary States viewed the US as a good target because it had no navy and was Christian.

You've still failed to prove that the Barbary Pirates chose to attack European shipping for any reason other than that they were Christian and not Muslim. Why don't you try to address that point rather than nitpicking?

[Big Phil]

Oh yeah, and this quote:
"After 1581 the Barbary corsairs no longer participated in massive naval operations at the behest of the sultan. It marked an end of an era for them, for rather than waging war they simply raided and robbed merchant ships."

You seem to think this means that they turned into pirates and attacked anyone and everyone, but where in the rest of the article does it ever say they attacked Muslim ships? If you can't prove that the Barbary Pirates attacked European and American ships BECAUSE they were Christian, then perhaps you should re-evaluate your position.

[Plekhanov]

It gets tiring to hear the litany of "that doesn't count" the Barbary Corsairs were mercenaries (but let's ignore the cash bounties offered in Iraq) they don't count, the Philippines were an independence movement they don't count, the Palestine riots in the 30's they don't count, bloody Passover that doesn't count, the Algerian Dreyfus riots they don't count either ...

What doesn't count as what? What the hell are you venting about here?

The Muslim world has always had more than its fair share of violent Jihadis who try to force policy change through violence. They did it to the French, the Ottomans, the British ... is it really a surprise that they are doing it to the Americans?

No it's not in the least bit surprising that after having violently resisted imperialism by “the French, the Ottomans, the British” Muslims in the middle east are now violently resisting American imperialism what is surprising is that you see their doing so as in some way proof of their degeneracy.

[Big Phil]

No it's not in the least bit surprising that after having violently resisted imperialism by “the French, the Ottomans, the British” Muslims in the middle east are now violently resisting American imperialism what is surprising is that you see their doing so as in some way proof of their degeneracy.

Does that mean that the Crusades were okay? Because remember, Islam started in Arabia and expanded as a result of military conquest, and Palestine was conquered by Muslims in the 8th or 9th century. Prior to that there were lots of Christians and local religions in Palestine. So one could argue that the Crusades were simply resistance against Muslim imperialism.

The Islamic disdain for Christianity goes back much further than French, British, or American colonialism. Islamic obtained most of its converts by the sword, and if not for defeats in Spain and Serbia, may have forced the conversion of most of Europe. Don't try to pretend that Islam grew peacefully until it started getting abused by the big bad western democracies.[/img]

[Imperial Overlord]

The crusades started in 1095 if you want to start with the first one. The Turks, being new converts to Islam, were showing their zeal by harassing (sometimes fatally) Christian pilgrims who had gone been traveling to Palestine. The level persecution was a new thing, Islamic control was not.

There were additional factors that made the idea of an armed pilgrimage (the word crusade came latter) attractive.

[Plekhanov]

You again missed the entire point - they robbed and raided Christian merchant ships, or was that point too obvious for you? Nowhere in that entire site does the article say that the Barbary Pirates preyed on non-Christian shipping.

I didn't miss the point, I caught it examined it and dismissed it because it was a ridiculous point badly made. I'm well aware that the pirates specifically targeted non-muslim shipping both for reasons of political necessity and also because they believed that non-believers had fewer rights than believers, so what please explain what the hell this has to do with the resistance in Iraq?

And they did so, in the case of the US specifically, without provocation. Or are you trying to say that America had already pissed off the Muslim world in 1800?

They were PIRATES you dumbass they were “provoked” by all the valuable stuff in the American ships and by the US's reluctance to pay tribute.

The point I originally made, which you so obviously missed in your haste to contradict me, is that there was no reason for the Barbary Pirates to prey on European shipping, other than that they were Christian rather than Muslim.

Of course they had a reason to prey on European shipping other than the religion of those on board, it's pretty much the same reasoning all reward driven criminals use which is that they wanted to nick the stuff on the European ships.

The US had not waged military or economic warfare against them, but the Barbary States viewed the US as a good target because it had no navy and was Christian.

How many times the fact that the US hadn't “ waged military or economic warfare against them” was irrelevant to them BECAUSE THEY WERE PIRATES OUT TO MAKE MONEY NOT WAGE HOLY WAR.

You've still failed to prove that the Barbary Pirates chose to attack European shipping for any reason other than that they were Christian and not Muslim. Why don't you try to address that point rather than nitpicking?

Wrong you dumb fuck I've shown using your own damn source that the Barbary Pirates attacked European shipping because there was a lot of money in it and because they could, what better reason could a bunch of Pirates have?

You seem to have real difficulty with the concept of acquisitive crime on a large scale Whaler so here's a more commonplace example for you, a friend of mine was mugged recently now do you suppose this was because:

a. He had in some way offended the muggers and they were exacting their vengeance upon him.

b. He didn't share the muggers ideology/religion and this offended them.

c. He was walking alone and drunk through the park in the early morning and they wanted his mobile and the contents of his wallet?

Go on give it a little thought I'm sure you'll figure it out if you really put your mind to it.

No it's not in the least bit surprising that after having violently resisted imperialism by “the French, the Ottomans, the British” Muslims in the middle east are now violently resisting American imperialism what is surprising is that you see their doing so as in some way proof of their degeneracy.

Does that mean that the Crusades were okay?

How the hell do you figure that? No where did I make a statement about the morality of the resistance to the occupation of Iraq I simply stated that it was to be expected, I'd have thought that a keen student of history such as yourself would have noticed that it's not exactly unusual for people who've been invaded to resistance violently

Because remember, Islam started in Arabia and expanded as a result of military conquest, and Palestine was conquered by Muslims in the 8th or 9th century. Prior to that there were lots of Christians and local religions in Palestine. So one could argue that the Crusades were simply resistance against Muslim imperialism.

Right so let me get this straight the Catholic invasion of lands which they had never controlled which was then held by Muslims and had in the previously been held by Orthodox Christians (who the Catholics were of course non too keen on) is totally equivalent to Iraqi's violently resisting the occupation of Iraq

The Islamic disdain for Christianity goes back much further than French, British, or American colonialism. Islamic obtained most of its converts by the sword, and if not for defeats in Spain and Serbia, may have forced the conversion of most of Europe.

Really so fundamentalist Muslims have been and are disdainful of non-believers and have been and are keen to spread Islam by any means they can? Say it isn't so and there was I thinking that Muslims unlike other nutty religious types were peace loving hippies with a deep respect for those of alternative or no faith, thank you so much for correcting my woefully misguided thinking

Don't try to pretend that Islam grew peacefully until it started getting abused by the big bad western democracies.[/img]

Please do remind me where was it that I claimed “Islam grew peacefully until it started getting abused by the big bad western democracies.” Oh that's right I never said that did I, so quit putting words in my mouth and please do explain, what the hell have the Barbary Pirates got to do with the Iraqi resistance?

[Justforfun000]

In my opinion, Islam AND Christianity if allowed to do so, would publicly condemn freedom of thought and action that violated their "morals" of religion. The only reason they play the political "tolerance through passive disapproval" game is because they have no choice.

Lets be realistic. Anywhere in the world when there were theocracies of any degree operating, democracy OR freedom was diminished. Theocracy is simply a holy form of dictatorship when put into practice.

As is stands today, I'm sure we have far more moderates of both religions that would NOT support many of the extremes in the religion if they were implemented, and in fact they would probably be unaware of them. But of course these are people that are raised in a much freer world (in most cases) and so they are able to think for themselves somewhat, and they KNOW that science has dispelled many myths and mysteries.

The most successful theocracies have no choice but to indoctrinate by brainwashing with belief. No critical thinking required, or wanted.

So the heart of these religions thrive on ignorance. Freedom of thought and action are tools to break out of ignorance and learn reality, and I have absolutely no doubts that if you presented the entire vatican with a choice to magically make the whole world accept without questioning the "truth" of Jesus Christ and the teachings of the church, they would say screw free will and do it for the good of humanity.

So as far as the entire point of this thread goes, I would say that the ones who put out the statement against democracy are simply the truest believers. They are saying what is normally kept hush hush by any highly placed Islamic Clerics, or "prophets". They want to appear compassionate and enlighted so they can infiltrate the world with enough muslims to eventually conquer by numbers. Hell, it worked for Christians in most cases, so I think they are simply following the same paradigm.

Make no mistake. If these religions TRULY had their way, freedom of speech and challenges to their dogma would be outlawed. All it takes is a look at the middle ages for Christianity's example, and the disturbingly recent Afghanistan Taliban regime.

Hopefully we'll never allow this world to backslide that far into such foolishness again. One country at a time....

[Admiral_K]

So “The militants themselves have comout and explicity stated that they are against democracy” have they?

How do you figure that, did all 200,000 of them sign a petition backing the websites position or something?

If not what evidence have you that the statements apparently posted on some web site or other (and we all know how difficult it is to set up a website) are in any way representative of the feelings many in the resistance have about democracy or their reasons for fighting the occupation?

First off, I don't think they are nearly that numerous. Secondly, since when does every member of an organization have to sign off on a statement before it becomes valid? Do you think every member of the NRA signs off on every statement that group issues?

Secondly, I assume you are trying to challenge the validity of the website. There has been no evidence that it is anything but genuine. And this isn't a submission by one rougue group...

"The radical Ansar al-Sunnah Army (search) and two other insurgent groups issued a statement Thursday warning that democracy was un-Islamic...

Thursday's joint statement — also signed by the Islamic Army in Iraq and the Mujahedeen Army (search) — reiterated the threat that "anyone who accepts to take part in this dirty farce will not be safe.""

[Big Phil]

Plekhanov, did you pay ANY attention to my original post, or what I was responding to? I don't for a second believe that you did, or you might have understood my point.

Durandal argued that terrorists, specifically Islamic terrorists, won't attack anyone who doesn't bother them. I do believe that the Barbary Corsairs depradations against Christian shipping make this statement untrue.

What are you even arguing, in any case? That terrorists would leave the US alone if the US left them alone? They've already proven by their actions and statements that this is bullshit. Militant Islam is waging a war against democracy and christianity/judaism. They've said this; do you not believe it even when they state it themselves?

One-- Durandal, there was terrorism before the state of Israel was founded. Much of the terrorism was not directed against the United States at the time, though, so it goes historically unnoticed by us.

THAT'S THE GOD DAMN POINT. If the terrorists hate our freedom so damn much, then why were they not attacking us before we started supporting Israel? Christ all-fucking mighty. You don't actually believe this idiocy Bush is peddling do you? He's trying to oversimplify the situation for obvious reasons -- to give Americans a sense of righteousness. So instead of saying, "They're attacking us because we support Israel and are moving in on their culture," he says, "Duh, they hate our freedom." Do you not see a problem here?

I can't agree with you, Durandel. Let's start with the first fact we can all agree on here. Non-revised Islam is specifically authoritarian and opposed to the basic principles of democratic society. It rejects the concept of government as anything but a tool to administer Shariat and the Qur'anic concepts which are, due to the "uncreate" doctorine the literal direct will of God. These concepts are also the last, perfect words of God, never to be superceded (As Islam says to have done to Christianity and Judaism.)

At the base, we have this fact. Pure Islam is anti-democratic, and indeed can construe the concept of democracy as being heretical and opposed to God's will.

I've already acknowledged that Islam doesn't like democracy. Try reading my god damn post. The fact that Muslims do not like democracy does not mean that they will attack every state that practices it. What the fuck is so hard to grasp about this concept?

I seem to recall a period in time when Israel didn't exist, oh say around 1800 or so, when Muslim pirates, also known as the Barbary Corsairs, attacked any European and American merchant vessel they could find. The US fought multiple wars against them to stop them from doing this. I don't believe you can blame this on Israel. Westerners were fair targets because they were not Muslim.

[Plekhanov]

So “The militants themselves have comout and explicity stated that they are against democracy” have they?

How do you figure that, did all 200,000 of them sign a petition backing the websites position or something?

If not what evidence have you that the statements apparently posted on some web site or other (and we all know how difficult it is to set up a website) are in any way representative of the feelings many in the resistance have about democracy or their reasons for fighting the occupation?

First off, I don't think they are nearly that numerous.

I really wouldn't know how numerous they are but the current head of the Iraqi Intelligence services seems to think there are 200,000 linkof them and I'm willing to take his word over yours.

Secondly, since when does every member of an organization have to sign off on a statement before it becomes valid?

Since around the time you started to make claims about the entirety of “an organisation” like the Iraqi resistance, which just shows how clueless you are because it isn't “an organisation” at all but a diffuse and varied movement made up of a large number of groupings some of which are competing against each other. In the bullshit post of yours that I was responding to you claimed:

That is incorrect. It is no longer just Bush's "view on Islamic militants". The militants themselves have comout and explicity stated that they are against democracy because it would give people the freedom to pass laws that might be considered "un-islamic". As a matter of course, I would go so far as to say that this particular part of Bush's views is no longer simple rhetoric, but FACT admitted by the militants themselves.

That is an extremely strong claim to make and you did so solely upon one news story about one website.

You stated that not “some of” but “the militants” that is to say all of them had declared their opposition to democracy rather than their opposition to foreign occupation. If you are going to make such strong claims I want some real evidence that the statements on the website are representative of a significant proportion of the 200,000 strong resistance, I requested it in my last post you have failed to provide any will you please do so when you reply.

Do you think every member of the NRA signs off on every statement that group issues?

No I don't but then again the NRA is a single unified organisation with clearly a defined organisational structure, national policies, membership cards and so forth if the NRA issues a statement we have some idea as to who it represents and we'll get to hear about it if the membership disagrees. The same absolutely cannot be said for the Iraqi resistance so please explain to me why I should take this website you're so keen on as definitive proof of anything of significance?

Secondly, I assume you are trying to challenge the validity of the website. There has been no evidence that it is anything but genuine. And this isn't a submission by one rougue group...

"The radical Ansar al-Sunnah Army (search) and two other insurgent groups issued a statement Thursday warning that democracy was un-Islamic...

Thursday's joint statement — also signed by the Islamic Army in Iraq and the Mujahedeen Army (search) — reiterated the threat that "anyone who accepts to take part in this dirty farce will not be safe.""

I certainly am challenging the validity of the website as a definitive proof as to the attitiudes of “the militants” in the way you claim it to be, for all we know it could be the perfectly “valid” view of a single overexcited teenage fundamentalist who googled the names of a few resistance groups. If you are going to make such absurdly grand claims based upon a few quotes from this website which you haven't even linked to then the burden of proof in on you to show why we should take this website seriously and just what proportion of the resistance, if any, it represents.

[Big Phil]

I certainly am challenging the validity of the website as a definitive proof as to the attitiudes of “the militants” in the way you claim it to be, for all we know it could be the perfectly “valid” view of a single overexcited teenage fundamentalist who googled the names of a few resistance groups. If you are going to make such absurdly grand claims based upon a few quotes from this website which you haven't even linked to then the burden of proof in on you to show why we should take this website seriously and just what proportion of the resistance, if any, it represents.

Okay, now I understand what you were trying to say. Why didn't you just say so in the beginning? So if Osama bin-Laden, or one of his representatives, says that Al-Qaeda believes that democracy is evil and that anyone attempting to form a democratic government should watch out, would you accept that?

[Plekhanov]

Plekhanov, did you pay ANY attention to my original post, or what I was responding to? I don't for a second believe that you did, or you might have understood my point.

I read, fully comprehended and fundamentally disagreed with it because as I have previously stated your initial post consisted of an idiotic argument, poorly argued.

Durandal argued that terrorists, specifically Islamic terrorists, won't attack anyone who doesn't bother them.

Your gross over simplification of Durandal's arguments aside if he had argued that he'd have a point about the Iraqi resistance as they weren't attacking us until we invaded their country. Also has it really escaped your attention that the targets these terrorists pick are from people who are in fact “bothering them” if they “hate freedom” so much why aren't they attacking all those Nordic nations which are significantly more free and more democratic than the US which seems to be their target of choice?

I do believe that the Barbary Corsairs depradations against Christian shipping make this statement untrue.

Which just shows how much of a dipshit you are because for the last time the Barbary Pirates weren't terrorists but THIEVES, SLAVERS AND PROTECTION RACKETEERS who were in it for the huge sums of money their piracy generated for them, once again if they were mounting a Holy War then why the hell did they refrain from attacking infidels who's governments paid them off?

What are you even arguing, in any case?

I'm arguing that the Barbary Pirates have chuff all to do with the Iraqi resistance or Al-Qaeda haven't you figured that out yet?

That terrorists would leave the US alone if the US left them alone? They've already proven by their actions and statements that this is bullshit.

Really when did they prove this? Which “actions and statements” were these?

Militant Islam is waging a war against democracy and christianity/judaism. They've said this; do you not believe it even when they state it themselves?

Look at the context in which these statements were made, odd isn't that the people who apparently made this statement that you feel to be so significant are currently not attempting to violently bring down democracy in say Switzerland or Belgium but fighting those who have invaded and occupied their own fucking country.

I certainly am challenging the validity of the website as a definitive proof as to the attitiudes of “the militants” in the way you claim it to be, for all we know it could be the perfectly “valid” view of a single overexcited teenage fundamentalist who googled the names of a few resistance groups. If you are going to make such absurdly grand claims based upon a few quotes from this website which you haven't even linked to then the burden of proof in on you to show why we should take this website seriously and just what proportion of the resistance, if any, it represents.

Okay, now I understand what you were trying to say. Why didn't you just say so in the beginning? So if Osama bin-Laden, or one of his representatives, says that Al-Qaeda believes that democracy is evil and that anyone attempting to form a democratic government should watch out, would you accept that?

I'd certainly accept that as evidence of Bin Laden or Al-Queada's attitude to democracy what I wouldn't do is accept it as proof of the beliefs of say for example Hezbollah, the Iraqi resistance or other groups of Muslims opposed to “the west” in one way or another.

[tharkûn]

No it's not in the least bit surprising that after having violently resisted imperialism by “the French, the Ottomans, the British” Muslims in the middle east are now violently resisting American imperialism what is surprising is that you see their doing so as in some way proof of their degeneracy.

First let us begin with a dictionary definition of imperialism: The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

Democratic elections in Iraq are the antithesis of the US establishing political hegemony over Iraq. Real democratic elections mean that political power lies with the people of Iraq, not the US congress. The US isn't acquiring territory, outside of military leases the only ground the US has asked for in the last 100 years of combat has been for burying the dead. Economic hegemony one could piss about, but the US is restoring political control to whomever votes in the elections. The reason these morons oppose free and fair elections is exactly what they stated: the voters might go against their version of Islam.

It's an odd kind of holy warrior who only fights those who fail to pay protection money isn't it?

Not really. The Spanish reconquista had numerous examples of conquistadors being bought off. Likewise the crusaders as well as the muslims bought each other off constantly. The Knights of St John ran a much similar piracy racket out of Rhodes and later Malta.

[Big Phil]

That terrorists would leave the US alone if the US left them alone? They've already proven by their actions and statements that this is bullshit.

Really when did they prove this? Which “actions and statements” were these?

The first World Trade Center bombing? The airplanes flown into the World Trade center? The attack on the USS Cole? Pan-Am Flight that blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland? The murders of Iraqis who are supporting the elections? The murders of Iraqi police candidates? The attacks on American embassies in Africa? The attempt to smuggle bombs into Washington State by Ahmed Ressam in 2000? The murder of a 25 year Iraqi citizen of British descent?

Osama bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda are not defending their own country against America. Osama is Saudi, his guy in Iraq is Jordanian or Syrian.

The fact is, there are Iraqis/Muslims/terrorists who decide they dislike America or democracy or Christianity and attempt to attack it, wherever it may be found. Pulling all American soldiers out of the Middle East and withdrawing support of Israel will not result in a termination of terrorism against Americans or Europeans.

You can bitch about my post being poorly worded all you like, but you clearly were looking to nitpick and be difficult, rather than attempt to understand my point. I can see that your argument is heading down a very naive road - that if the US/Britain/Europe leave the Middle East alone, we won't ever be attacked or threatened. History has proven you wrong many times over; don't bitch and whine because you don't like my response to someone else.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

By the way, that would be a false analogy fallacy. 2+2=4 isn't doctrine. It's an arithmetic statement. You are defending Bush's view on Islamic militants, which makes you a Bush apologist.

That is incorrect. It is no longer just Bush's "view on Islamic militants". The militants themselves have comout and explicity stated that they are against democracy because it would give people the freedom to pass laws that might be considered "un-islamic". As a matter of course, I would go so far as to say that this particular part of Bush's views is no longer simple rhetoric, but FACT admitted by the militants themselves.

NOPE.

"They aren't against democratic elections because of the American occuption. They are against democratic elections because they believe democracy is a crime against God."

That was your ill-founded conclusion that Bush rhetorical barks. That is not established fact but rather Republican propaganda.

[Admiral_K]

I really wouldn't know how numerous they are but the current head of the Iraqi Intelligence services seems to think there are 200,000 linkof them and I'm willing to take his word over yours.

Unsubstantiated appeal to authority. If there really were that many of them, then it would be our people infiltrating them as oppose to theirs infilitrating the iraqi national guard.

Since around the time you started to make claims about the entirety of “an organisation” like the Iraqi resistance, which just shows how clueless you are because it isn't “an organisation” at all but a diffuse and varied movement made up of a large number of groupings some of which are competing against each other. In the bullshit post of yours that I was responding to you claimed:

The Organizations I was referring to were the 3 iraqi militant groups who signed off on the statement. And while we don't have explicit statements from many of the other groups, the apples don't fall far from the tree.

That is incorrect. It is no longer just Bush's "view on Islamic militants". The militants themselves have comout and explicity stated that they are against democracy because it would give people the freedom to pass laws that might be considered "un-islamic". As a matter of course, I would go so far as to say that this particular part of Bush's views is no longer simple rhetoric, but FACT admitted by the militants themselves.

That is an extremely strong claim to make and you did so solely upon one news story about one website.

It is hardly one story on one website. The fox story is simply the most explicit statement of how these groups feel. And while I'm sure there may be individuals in these groups who disagree with their party line, I believe that by and large the statements made ARE representative of the feelings of the members of the "resistence".

You stated that not “some of” but “the militants” that is to say all of them had declared their opposition to democracy rather than their opposition to foreign occupation. If you are going to make such strong claims I want some real evidence that the statements on the website are representative of a significant proportion of the 200,000 strong resistance, I requested it in my last post you have failed to provide any will you please do so when you reply.

Um yeah I'll get right on that

Do you think every member of the NRA signs off on every statement that group issues?

No I don't but then again the NRA is a single unified organisation with clearly a defined organisational structure, national policies, membership cards and so forth if the NRA issues a statement we have some idea as to who it represents and we'll get to hear about it if the membership disagrees. The same absolutely cannot be said for the Iraqi resistance so please explain to me why I should take this website you're so keen on as definitive proof of anything of significance?

WEBSITE WEBSITE WEBSITE. Why are you assuming that there is some mythical website out there smearing the good reputations of the Iraqi militants?
p
In fact the news article doesn't mention anything about the statement being issued through its website. The only time a website is mentioned is that the Ansar Al Sunna army had posted a manifesto on it speaking out against democracy prior to the release of the statement which was signed by 3 groups.

I certainly am challenging the validity of the website as a definitive proof as to the attitiudes of “the militants” in the way you claim it to be, for all we know it could be the perfectly “valid” view of a single overexcited teenage fundamentalist who googled the names of a few resistance groups. If you are going to make such absurdly grand claims based upon a few quotes from this website which you haven't even linked to then the burden of proof in on you to show why we should take this website seriously and just what proportion of the resistance, if any, it represents.

The story has been out for some time now. None of the groups depicted has issued any statement denying them as being true. There is absolutely no evidence to believe that the statements are not true.

The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that the statement is not genuine as all evidence currently points to its being completely credible.

[Admiral_K]

By the way, that would be a false analogy fallacy. 2+2=4 isn't doctrine. It's an arithmetic statement. You are defending Bush's view on Islamic militants, which makes you a Bush apologist.

That is incorrect. It is no longer just Bush's "view on Islamic militants". The militants themselves have comout and explicity stated that they are against democracy because it would give people the freedom to pass laws that might be considered "un-islamic". As a matter of course, I would go so far as to say that this particular part of Bush's views is no longer simple rhetoric, but FACT admitted by the militants themselves.

NOPE.

"They aren't against democratic elections because of the American occuption. They are against democratic elections because they believe democracy is a crime against God."

That was your ill-founded conclusion that Bush rhetorical barks. That is not established fact but rather Republican propaganda.

Are you that thick skulled moron? It was established fact by the terrorist militants themselves.

To paraphrase the terrorists:

"We oppose democracy because it could lead to un-islamic laws"
"Anyone who partakes in the election will be a target of our group".

What more do you want? Does it take the statement "We Hate Democracy" to be carved into your forehead for you to see the truth?

[Justforfun000]

Are you that thick skulled moron? It was established fact by the terrorist militants themselves.

To paraphrase the terrorists:

"We oppose democracy because it could lead to un-islamic laws"
"Anyone who partakes in the election will be a target of our group".

What more do you want? Does it take the statement "We Hate Democracy" to be carved into your forehead for you to see the truth?

Guys, I really have to agree with this one basic point. I mean you can argue particulars of certain groups, or rightfully point out that there is no evidence that MOST muslims feel this way, but if you're going to discuss the fanatic muslim militants that are showing quite clearly that they believe democracy to be a blatant contradiction to living a good Islamic faith, then it's a fair point to put across isn't it?

Isn't there a little bit too much jumping on our own soldiers here? The basic point seems to be simple. This thread was started with a news piece quoting a vocal portion of islamic fundamentalists that stated quite clearly that democracy was a threat to Islam. Therefore the countries espousing such beliefs were enemies. Surely we can agree that this specific fundie group is the equivalent of our nuttie evangelicals on the North American continent....

[The Third Man]

The basic point seems to be simple. This thread was started with a news piece quoting a vocal portion of islamic fundamentalists that stated quite clearly that democracy was a threat to Islam.

Quite right, all very simple.

Where it goes pear-shaped though, is when we introduce this "freedom" term. If we don't do this fallacious blurring of "freedom" and "democracy" then the thread title becomes "Militant Islamicists hate democracy" which is an utter and pointless statement of the obvious, since an "Islamicist" is defined as someone who prefers a theocratic to a democratic government.

So we have to ask why Admiral_K feels it necessary to play what Darth Wong aptly calls a "shell game" with these terms. If you want to engage in a bit of fallacy-spotting, I'd suggest that the OP effectively strawmans what these Islamicist guys are saying. This is, incidentally, standard procedure for support-seeking politicians - invent a nebulous, ill-defined concept (in this case "freedom"), create a perception of a threat to it, and then use emotional arguments to rally support for the real agenda in the name of defending your non-existent concept.

[Coyote]

That the Jihadist movement hates democracy is not challenged.

Thinking that that is the sole reason the Jihadis fight us is the problem.

In Bush's rhetoric, the Jihadis fight because they hate Democracy, which Bush equates with Freedom.

It ignores a lot of other reasons why the Jihadis fight: some are legitimate, such as the US propping up corrupt leaders for oil. Some are arguable, like US support for Israel. Some are flat-out stupid, like the idea that we are trying to forcibly convert Muslims to Christianity (Although I am sure Bush and others would like to see that happen, they know it is unrealistic).

Further compounding the fallacy is accepting Bush's sales pitch that Democray = Freedom.

Recent elections being the example: Bush believes that, because of the democracy in America and the votes he received, that he has a mandate to carry out his religious views into American law.

Those who do not share or support his religious views will be SOL. Hence, "Democracy" does not equal "Freedom". See the difference?

This "oppression" is not on the same scale as the "oppressive" speed limit. That is a minor oppresion done for obvious public safety benefits. Telling two people they cannot marry because he does not like their idea of "marriage", even though it harms no one, is a law borne of scorn and serves no public good.

[Admiral_K]

Quite right, all very simple.

Where it goes pear-shaped though, is when we introduce this "freedom" term. If we don't do this fallacious blurring of "freedom" and "democracy" then the thread title becomes "Militant Islamicists hate democracy" which is an utter and pointless statement of the obvious, since an "Islamicist" is defined as someone who prefers a theocratic to a democratic government.

The thing you have to ask yourself is this: WHY do they hate democracy? Is it the simple act of "choosing" leaders? The answer is a resounding no.

By analyzing the statement we see that their reason for hating democracy is because of the potential for it to give people the freedom to choose unislamc laws, or practice unislamic beleifs.

So we have to ask why Admiral_K feels it necessary to play what Darth Wong aptly calls a "shell game" with these terms. If you want to engage in a bit of fallacy-spotting, I'd suggest that the OP effectively strawmans what these Islamicist guys are saying. This is, incidentally, standard procedure for support-seeking politicians - invent a nebulous, ill-defined concept (in this case "freedom"), create a perception of a threat to it, and then use emotional arguments to rally support for the real agenda in the name of defending your non-existent concept.

I've clearly defined in othe posts what I've meant by the term "freedom". Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to elect leaders who will pursue issues important to the people they represent. And I have no agenda other than exposing the truth as I see it.

[Admiral_K]

That the Jihadist movement hates democracy is not challenged.

Thinking that that is the sole reason the Jihadis fight us is the problem.

No one has suggested it is the sole reason.

In Bush's rhetoric, the Jihadis fight because they hate Democracy, which Bush equates with Freedom.

The American ideal of freedom cannot exist without Democracy.

It ignores a lot of other reasons why the Jihadis fight: some are legitimate, such as the US propping up corrupt leaders for oil. Some are arguable, like US support for Israel. Some are flat-out stupid, like the idea that we are trying to forcibly convert Muslims to Christianity (Although I am sure Bush and others would like to see that happen, they know it is unrealistic).

None of which are relevant to this discussion which specifically exposes these groups as being opposed to democracy. To hear some, if we were to pull out than everything would be hunky dory and democracy would just spring up from the ground.

Further compounding the fallacy is accepting Bush's sales pitch that Democray = Freedom.

Recent elections being the example: Bush believes that, because of the democracy in America and the votes he received, that he has a mandate to carry out his religious views into American law.

Give an example of a law that has passed under the Bush administration which is strictly a "Religous" issue (as opposed to a moral issue). Bush doesn't have the power to create laws, only the power to enact ones passed by congress. Its called checks and balances that prevent one person, or a small group of people from imposing their view on others. This is something the people of Iraq will not have if the militants are successful.

Those who do not share or support his religious views will be SOL. Hence, "Democracy" does not equal "Freedom". See the difference?

Again, no one is saying that Democracy in and of itself equals freedom. However, democracy must certainly enables freedom more so than any other government.

As far as the militants themselves "hating freedom", its pretty clear that they do based on their statements. It is because they hate freedom that they oppose democracy, not the other way around.

This "oppression" is not on the same scale as the "oppressive" speed limit. That is a minor oppresion done for obvious public safety benefits. Telling two people they cannot marry because he does not like their idea of "marriage", even though it harms no one, is a law borne of scorn and serves no public good.

The entire issue is about semantics. Its not as if Bush is forbidding gays to join together, he simply wishes to define same sex joinings as something other than marriage i.e. Civil Unions, which will have all the same rights and benefits as their man/woman couterparts. Personally, I don't see how it really makes a big difference either way. I wouldn't really consider this to be "oppresive" as more of a clarifying a definition.

And, as I said, seeking to narrow the definition of marriage is a far cry from attacking and killing your own countrymen because they vote in an election for their country.

[The Third Man]

The thing you have to ask yourself is this: WHY do they hate democracy? Is it the simple act of "choosing" leaders? The answer is a resounding no.

I'd suggest that the Islamist movement is anti-democracy because democracy is seen as an artifact of the West. Remember that democratic western governments (French, British, US) have a long track record of sending either their own or proxy troops into assorted muslim-populated countries and wreaking havoc. This does not exactly endear all things Western to the locals,

I've clearly defined in othe posts what I've meant by the term "freedom". Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to elect leaders who will pursue issues important to the people they represent. And I have no agenda other than exposing the truth as I see it.

Why must the Islamists in question share your subjective view of "freedom"? For them the most important subjective "freedom" might well be "freedom from the West and all of its works."

[Coyote]

That the Jihadist movement hates democracy is not challenged.

Thinking that that is the sole reason the Jihadis fight us is the problem.

No one has suggested it is the sole reason.

George Bush did, when he asserted that the Jihadist movement fights us for that reason as a sound-bite sales pitch. This war is far larger than that, with far more perspective both across the contemporary political spectrum and with roots deep in the past.

You may know this, but your endorsement of Bush's reasoning implies tacit support of the simplicity behind the argument. Like a dog who has wrapped his chain around and around a pole, you have chosen a very limiting view of the war to trumpet. There is much more space to maneuver, and consciously you know that that maneuver room is vital to see this conflict through.

The American ideal of freedom cannot exist without Democracy.

Actually, the current, common-use definition of "American Freedom" could exist very well in a benevolent dictatorship. Common [mis]understanding of what "Freedom" entails in the USA today revolves around the ability to buy what consumer goods you want to make yourself feel better for a moment or two.

Actual democratic freedom as envisioned by the Founding fathers involves a great deal of vigilance, pro-active action on the part of citizens, and a great deal of personal responsibility. But our society is actually more inclined to insist on ways and means to be lazy and collect material goods, which could be carried out under a number of potential systems.

But, yes, the original idea of American Freedom would involve some sort of democratic participation. But I'm just throwing a bucket of water on your campfire, sorry.

[quote="Coyote]
It ignores a lot of other reasons why the Jihadis fight...

None of which are relevant to this discussion which specifically exposes these groups as being opposed to democracy. [/quote]

Hence the reason you are seen as a one-dimensional supporter of a sound-bite policy that negates the importance of the whole Middle East perspective.

Give an example of a law that has passed under the Bush administration which is strictly a "Religous" issue (as opposed to a moral issue)....

Partial-birth or "Late Term" abortion: a very rare procedure that was typically only done when the mother's life was in danger or the baby was determined to be hopelessly disabled. There was no reason to ban it; it was not used as "convenient birth control".

You are correct that Bush himself does not pass laws, but he can rally for them, and veto or sign them in. His election is taken as a signal to enact more conservative legislation that is favorable to the Religious Right.

As far as the militants themselves "hating freedom", its pretty clear that they do based on their statements. It is because they hate freedom that they oppose democracy, not the other way around.

In a way, this does support some of your original points... in the era of the Rashidun, the first 4 righteous Caliphs, the time period that Jihadis proclaim to want to return to in spirit, the Caliph was chosen by election of the ulama, the religious movers and shakers. This backs up some of what you saidf about them dissing their own religion for the sake of personal power.

In fact, the failure of Ali to be voted into the Caliphate after the death of Mohommed was what eventually led to the Sunni-Shia'a split.

But now they hate Democracy among so many other things. Following Bush's rhetoric that they hate democracy and saying "that's it" is to miss the target by a wide margin.

And, as I said, seeking to narrow the definition of marriage is a far cry from attacking and killing your own countrymen because they vote in an election for their country.

[/quote]

At the risk of making a slippery-slope fallacy, I'd hazard a guess that once it becomes acceptable to start limiting one group's rights, then the slow erosion of others becomes more acceptable as well. If "civil union" is the same thing in all things as marriage, why not call it marriage... or why not call a pairing between a man and woman a civil union?

What about inheritance rights, adoption, hospital visitation, etc?