Miliant Islamists really DO hate freedom...

[Darth Wong]

Admiral_K, if you honestly don't understand the difference between "They hate one particular kind of freedom" and "They hate freedom", you're either unbelievably stupid or you are 100% the mindless Bush apologist that I've accused you of being.

[Durandal]

Partial-birth abortions are a convenient method of birth control? That's rich. Find me a woman who thinks that having labor forcibly induced is "convenient."

[tharkûn]

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,

As Coyote has already noted there is precedence within the Islamic world for democracy independent of the west. The democratic western governments have no longer track record of sending their troops in than the non-democratic governments. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan and furnished proxy troops in Syria and Egypt; a quite sickening proxy war arose in Yemen. Each German Reich sent its troops into the Islamic world. The Italian facists ran amok in East Africa and if we go back far enough we can include the Mongols and Persians. Just about every governmental system the west has come up has ended up dicking around in the Islamic world.

In Iran, the theocracy wants at least the trappings of democracy, but they are piss scared of real democracy because they know the general populace will vote against their particular form of Islam. Hence why they ban individuals from running, rather than dispense with their farce of a democracy altogethor.

[Darth Wong]

The democratic western governments have no longer track record of sending their troops in than the non-democratic governments. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan and furnished proxy troops in Syria and Egypt; a quite sickening proxy war arose in Yemen. Each German Reich sent its troops into the Islamic world. The Italian facists ran amok in East Africa and if we go back far enough we can include the Mongols and Persians. Just about every governmental system the west has come up has ended up dicking around in the Islamic world.

It should be noted, however, that at the time these things were happening, the Islamic militants' anger was appropriately directed against these foreign agents you mention, not America. No doubt the ideology of communism did not benefit in popularity among Muslims as a result of the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan. Now America is the one pissing in their pot, so they're naturally angry at America and everything it stands for.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

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?

Again, you've made yourself look more of a thick skulled moron. You contend that the Islamic militants are primarily against the democratic elections because their philosophy are contrary to "democracy" as you put it disregarding all other factors including aggressive American foreign policies in the middle east as well as their incursion into Iraq. You're painting yourself into the corner faster than you realize.

[tharkûn]

It should be noted, however, that at the time these things were happening, the Islamic militants' anger was appropriately directed against these foreign agents you mention, not America. No doubt the ideology of communism did not benefit in popularity among Muslims as a result of the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan. Now America is the one pissing in their pot, so they're naturally angry at America and everything it stands for.

When the communist were in Afghanistan, Syria was still a Soviet client, as were Libya, Somalia and South Yemen. At the same time you had the disco bombing in Germany, Pan Am 73, Lockerbie, and EgyptAir 648.

Somewhat surprisingly the communists in the 80's got a great deal of support among Muslims while the US appeared to get jack didly squat.

While I do beleive you are correct that invading Afghanistan didn't help the USSR, the "Death to America" crowd was vocal and gaining support throughout that period in time. When you are a despot in the middle east, and your military is a proxy Soviet force you can hardly use the USSR as a scapegoat for all the problems your country is going through. The hardcore Islamicists have been angry at the west in general for centuries and the US has been the face of the west since WWII, it really isn't a new phenomena.

Democracy was no better tolerated then by the Islamic fanatics than it is today.

[Darth Wong]

While I do beleive you are correct that invading Afghanistan didn't help the USSR, the "Death to America" crowd was vocal and gaining support throughout that period in time.

How does that disprove anything? Are you suggesting that America was doing nothing in the Middle East at the time? The fact remains that when you mess around in someone else's house, he's likely to get pissed at you. The number one target of their hostility during the Afghanistan occupation was the USSR; I never said it was their only target, nor does it have to be in order for my argument to work.

[tharkûn]

How does that disprove anything? Are you suggesting that America was doing nothing in the Middle East at the time? The fact remains that when you mess around in someone else's house, he's likely to get pissed at you. The number one target of their hostility during the Afghanistan occupation was the USSR; I never said it was their only target, nor does it have to be in order for my argument to work.

You notice I don't disagree with your arguement. I merely pointed out that in spite of the USSR's invasion the Muslim world, and certainly Muslim terrorist organizations outside of the Mujhadeen, still supported the communist bloc.

Even when the US was sending Patton tanks to Jordan, abonding treaty obligations to Israel, and getting their own ship shot to hell by the Israelis ... the Muslim world doesn't give a bloody damn. Yes messing around in "their house" pissed off the Islamicists more, but it was only aggravating an already hostile situation.

[Rogue 9]

You contend that the Islamic militants are primarily against the democratic elections because their philosophy are contrary to "democracy"

The militants themselves contend that. When you were arguing that there was more to them being against the United States than just democracy, I agreed with you. But they stated that they were against elections in Iraq because said elections are un-Islamic. Right there in the OP. From that grew this ridiculous tangent about how "OMG, they hate us because we're a republic," but the original statement is still there and unchanged. Just because a point was used as the starting place for a slippery slope doesn't mean that the original point is false.

[Darth Wong]

You contend that the Islamic militants are primarily against the democratic elections because their philosophy are contrary to "democracy"

The militants themselves contend that. When you were arguing that there was more to them being against the United States than just democracy, I agreed with you. But they stated that they were against elections in Iraq because said elections are un-Islamic. Right there in the OP.

No, three specific groups stated that. From this it was inferred that the Bush Administration's sweeping and ridiculously one-dimensional generalizations were true.

From that grew this ridiculous tangent about how "OMG, they hate us because we're a republic," but the original statement is still there and unchanged. Just because a point was used as the starting place for a slippery slope doesn't mean that the original point is false.

No, considerable other evidence exists to show that the original point is false, including the fact that democracy != freedom. But if we were to adopt Admiral_K's idiotic belief that "against one type of freedom" = "against freedom", then by his own logic, George W. Bush hates freedom too.

[The Third Man]

Just about every governmental system the west has come up has ended up dicking around in the Islamic world.

Right. I didn't mean to imply it was solely democracy that the Islamists are opposed to. I imagine their mindset is that, as you say, the Islamic world has suffered at the hands of all Western government systems, and that therefore the suffering Muslims would do best to reject all types of Western ideas (democracy included) in favour of their own, Islam-based system.

I daresay they (by which I mean specifically the Islamists as neither Islam or the Middle East are a monolithic entity) feel the same way about Communism too.

[Darth Wong]

I daresay they (by which I mean specifically the Islamists as neither Islam or the Middle East are a monolithic entity) feel the same way about Communism too.

Actually, Tharkun had the audacity to act as though the Islamists like the USSR because they accepted Soviet military support in the past, even though Soviet Communism actually outlaws religion. Methinks he's working too hard to try and support his claim.

[tharkûn]

Actually, Tharkun had the audacity to act as though the Islamists like the USSR because they accepted Soviet military support in the past, even though Soviet Communism actually outlaws religion. Methinks he's working too hard to try and support his claim.

No I don't think they liked the USSR, I know they supported the USSR. Much the same way the US didn't like the PRC but supported them against the USSR. Despite all the crap the USSR had against the Islamic world, they enjoyed a wide amount of support from the Muslim world.

For a while the Islamicists were backing a theistic version if communism; Libya is a "people's republic" that has no constitution except Islamic sharia. Likewise when party official in Syria suggest Allah was a myth there was a huge hue and cry; other party officials ran massive damage control and went to pains to assert that the state was not anti-Islamic. I think the Islamicists really wanted a theocracy and would just call it communist for real politik reasons. Much the same way Iran is a theocratic "democracy". The Islamicists care far less about what you label the thing and far more about ensuring that their particular beleifs become law.

[Plekhanov]

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.

And you base this judgement of whats going on in Iraq on what outside of the Bush administrations rhetoric?

The US isn't acquiring territory, outside of military leases

That's a pretty big exception especially when you consider the circumstances in which the US normally “asks” for military leases, I do wonder if the Iraqis are allowed to elect a nationalist gov which tells the US to get the hell off it's land will they go? I doubt it.

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.

Alternatively maybe they aren't living in your dream world where the US has spent the last 100 years selflessly fighting for freedom but in the real world where the US has been acting as an imperial power for well over 100 years. Maybe unlike you they were paying attention to what the US has got up to in South America, Asia or failing that Iran (you know the whole toppling the constitutional gov and installing a brutal puppet thing) not to mention the rest of the middle east and so understandably don't trust Bush's democratic rhetoric after all why should they? What has the US gov done to gain the trust of the Iraqi people specifically or Arabs more generally?

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.

A few corrupt individuals is one thing an entire governmental system and finance system built around systematic extortion is quite another.

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.

Congratulations that last post surpassed even your usual standards of idiocy, please do explain how you can possibly argue that the West “left the Middle East alone” prior to any of the atrocities you so readily real off?

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.

Ok let me get this straight, when Fox News cites some website which claims to speak for some militant groups that's certifiable proof of why Iraqis are fighting the occupation, when the head of the Iraqi intelligence services makes on on the record statement about the insurgency that's an “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.

And you rebut my “Unsubstantiated appeal to authority” with that? Do you honestly think that you have to be the numerically inferior force to be able to do any infiltrating? Why would that be? I, along with everyone else who's being trying to make you see some semblance of sense, am clearly wasting my time with you in this thread.

[tharkûn]

And you base this judgement of whats going on in Iraq on what outside of the Bush administrations rhetoric?

What the BBC and CBC have been reporting in the way of direct quotes from Iraqis. Do you have any evidence that these elections are anti-democratic?

Frankly the big worry most political correspondants are yapping about is that the Shia majority will use their majority at the polls to get a stranglehold on the levers of power.

That's a pretty big exception especially when you consider the circumstances in which the US normally “asks” for military leases, I do wonder if the Iraqis are allowed to elect a nationalist gov which tells the US to get the hell off it's land will they go? I doubt it.

Oh please exactly how many countries want the US to pull out and the US refuses? Germany bloody cries when Bush talks about removing armored divisions that do jack didly squat since the fall of the USSR. South Korea likes having an American "tripwire" in the country and even the current executive declines to call for complete withdrawal. Japan? Last I checked they not only supported the basing but had a friggen treaty for the US to handle their defense. Qatar, Quwait? Doesn't seem to be a huge issue. Djibouti? They'd beg on their knees to keep foreign bases. The major hot button bases happen to be Gauntanamo and Saudi Arabia; the former being a legacy from the 1800's and the latter being drawn down.

Wonderful as it may be that you doubt the US wouldn't leave if asked by a democratically elected government, given a total lack of hard evidence one can only wait and see. Frankly if I was an Iraqi I'd keep the US military there until a unified Iraqi army and national gaurd can manage internal and external security on its own. Many Iraqis may dislike the Americans, but they may view the prospect of civil war as the greater of evils.

Maybe unlike you they were paying attention to what the US has got up to in South America, Asia or failing that Iran (you know the whole toppling the constitutional gov and installing a brutal puppet thing)

I'm sorry what US troops were fighting in South America? Oh that's right a pittance of anti-narcotics forces, Panama, and the CIA. Asia? Yes trying to rectify the utter crap left behind by the French was a steaming pile of bovine fecal matter. Iran? You have got to be kidding me. Mossadeq won the last election with 99.9% of the vote After that stellar success at the ballot box parliament was suspended indefinately and Mossadeq took on yet more "emergency powers".

Despite all the above argueing where I'm sure you will go on to paint the US actions as imperialist; the fact of the matter is thus: There are no American bases in South America. There are no American bases in Southeast Asia. There are no American bases in Iran. At worst America was overzelous defending capitalism and opposing communism and reaped ill gotten gains in the process.

so understandably don't trust Bush's democratic rhetoric after all why should they?

Because when Bush the elder liberated Kuwait he broke up OPEC, denationalized the Kuwaiti oil industry, and plundered the country into poverty for the benefit of American industry Or perhaps we might look at the BILLIONS of dollars successive American governments have sunk into Egypt and the paltry things asked in return. Or perhaps because every damn example you have sighted happen 30 years ago during an aggressive phase of the cold war and a huge portion of the populace wasn't even ALIVE then?

What has the US gov done to gain the trust of the Iraqi people specifically or Arabs more generally?

1. Dropped billions into rebuilding Iraq infrastructure.
2. Actually proposed elections.
3. Did exactly jack didly squat towards imperializing Kuwait.
4. Has dumped billions in foreign aid into the Arab world.

A few corrupt individuals is one thing an entire governmental system and finance system built around systematic extortion is quite another.

The Knights of St. John (AKA Knights of Rhodes, Knights of Malta, Knights Hospitallers). After being expelled from the holy land in the early 14th century the Knights set up a piracy outfit on Rhodes where they preyed upon Muslim trade and Barbary Corsairs. After being expelled from Rhodes in the early 16th century the order moved the Malta were they resumed their piracy. Like the their Barbary counterparts the Knights would sack slave ships, free Christians and sell off infidel slaves. Extortion was a time honored tradition, at one point they held a cardinal hostage for ransom.

Really do you think the Christians would be left out such a lucrative racket as piracy on the inner sea? While the the parrellels are not exact they do exist. The Knights were a holy order dedicated to plundering infidel trade.

[Big Phil]

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.

Congratulations that last post surpassed even your usual standards of idiocy, please do explain how you can possibly argue that the West “left the Middle East alone” prior to any of the atrocities you so readily real off?

Good Christ, you are annoying. Either you can't read, or you deliberately misinterpret my posts. First you think you start off with insults, then you misread the post. How in the fuck do you read that I said the West "left the Middle East alone?" You have the reading comprehension of an ADHD-ridden six year old. You are an absolute waste of time to be arguing with Plekhanov.

[Admiral_K]

Admiral_K, if you honestly don't understand the difference between "They hate one particular kind of freedom" and "They hate freedom", you're either unbelievably stupid or you are 100% the mindless Bush apologist that I've accused you of being.

Nitpick

I guess I see now... You are saying that because they hate only some freedoms such as Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to elect government officials, then I have no right to say they "hate freedom" because they don't hate all freedom.

Sorry, NO. The freedoms outlined above are among those most dear to us here in the U.S. And these are the freedoms they would be denying to the general muslim populace, to speak nothing of how the women would be treated.

Honestly, if the type of government these extremsists want were implemented what freedoms do you think would be left? Freedom from fear? No... Freedom to live your own live as you see fit? No, not if it is contrary in anyway to the extremists view of the Koran. Come on, tell me what sorts of "freedom" you would have under this sort of government.

I find it rather funny that left wingers feel persecuted if they are called "traitors" etc for disagreeing with the Bush administration. And if I disagree with you in anyway, then I'm a bush apologist. Gee isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

[Admiral_K]

Partial-birth abortions are a convenient method of birth control? That's rich. Find me a woman who thinks that having labor forcibly induced is "convenient."

Convenience is a relative term. Obviously women who have partial birth abortions (other than those in cases where the woman's life is threatened) consider the short term inconvenience and pain of the surgery to be more appealing to the alternative of giving birth and raising the child. In truth, adoption would probably be the "most convenient" means for someone with an unwanted pregnancy.

[Darth Wong]

Admiral_K, if you honestly don't understand the difference between "They hate one particular kind of freedom" and "They hate freedom", you're either unbelievably stupid or you are 100% the mindless Bush apologist that I've accused you of being.

Nitpick

No, it's the core of your idiotic argument.

I guess I see now... You are saying that because they hate only some freedoms such as Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to elect government officials, then I have no right to say they "hate freedom" because they don't hate all freedom.

Do you agree, then, that since the Bush Administration opposes some kinds of freedom, then they "hate freedom"? Because that's where your logic leads. If you intend to have consistent logic, then you MUST agree. If you do not agree, then you do not have a logically consistent position.

Sorry, NO. The freedoms outlined above are among those most dear to us here in the U.S. And these are the freedoms they would be denying to the general muslim populace, to speak nothing of how the women would be treated.

Red-herring. You claimed that a Muslim statement about how they oppose democracy means they "hate freedom". I showed how that logic was fallacious. You had no response other than to repeat your statement without even trying to address the logical criticism, and then to appeal to a lot of emotionally laden rhetoric.

Honestly, if the type of government these extremsists want were implemented what freedoms do you think would be left? Freedom from fear? No... Freedom to live your own live as you see fit? No, not if it is contrary in anyway to the extremists view of the Koran. Come on, tell me what sorts of "freedom" you would have under this sort of government.

You dumbshit, that is what people over there think is right. Do you think it's governments doing all of that killing of women in Jordan? It's the fucking Will of the People, moron.

I find it rather funny that left wingers feel persecuted if they are called "traitors" etc for disagreeing with the Bush administration. And if I disagree with you in anyway, then I'm a bush apologist. Gee isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

Nice strawman, fucktard. You're not being called a Bush apologist for "disagreeing in any way"; you're being called a Bush apologist for defending his bullshit.

[Admiral_K]

You contend that the Islamic militants are primarily against the democratic elections because their philosophy are contrary to "democracy"

The militants themselves contend that. When you were arguing that there was more to them being against the United States than just democracy, I agreed with you. But they stated that they were against elections in Iraq because said elections are un-Islamic. Right there in the OP.

No, three specific groups stated that. From this it was inferred that the Bush Administration's sweeping and ridiculously one-dimensional generalizations were true.

I'd like to see a list of what sorts of "freedoms" you think would exist under a muslim extremist government.

From that grew this ridiculous tangent about how "OMG, they hate us because we're a republic," but the original statement is still there and unchanged. Just because a point was used as the starting place for a slippery slope doesn't mean that the original point is false.

No, considerable other evidence exists to show that the original point is false, including the fact that democracy != freedom. But if we were to adopt Admiral_K's idiotic belief that "against one type of freedom" = "against freedom", then by his own logic, George W. Bush hates freedom too.

Thats funny because it seems like everyday I hear a liberal commentator infer just that: that Bush Hates freedom. But those people are patriots right?

Bush is the real criminal! ITs all Bush's fault!

BUSH BUSH BUSH BUSH

I realize your incessant need to Bush bash, but this is not about Bush.

Heard the phrase that a broken clock is right twice a day? Well, to hear you people if anyone pointed out the fact that a clock broken at two was correct, would then start a mad campaign trying to paint that person as believing a broken clock is completely accurate.

[Darth Wong]

Yet again, you ignore the point that your logic "hate one particular kind of freedom" = "hate freedom" is only consistent if you agree that it applies equally to Bush. This is not an attempt to change the subject, no matter how desperately you may wish it were. It is an attempt to show, by example, that you would consider your own logic ludicrous if you tried to apply it elsewhere.

[Admiral_K]

No, it's the core of your idiotic argument.

Since the concept of freedom is so broad and undefined, you choose to attack on the basis that I couldn't possibly prove that the muslim extremists hate every single last freedom. OJ Simpson defense anyone?

I guess I see now... You are saying that because they hate only some freedoms such as Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to elect government officials, then I have no right to say they "hate freedom" because they don't hate all freedom.

Do you agree, then, that since the Bush Administration opposes some kinds of freedom, then they "hate freedom"? Because that's where your logic leads. If you intend to have consistent logic, then you MUST agree. If you do not agree, then you do not have a logically consistent position.

I hear everyday some new piece about how Bush "hates freedom" from one liberal or another. I'm not here to defend Bush.

However, I was sick and tired of seeing these militants labeled as "Freedom fighters" by radical left wingers when "freedom" is what they are fighting to prevent.

I don't see things in the "black and white" shade you seem to. I don't equate someone pushing domestic policies, with someone blowing up those of their countryment who don't bow to their will.

Sorry, NO. The freedoms outlined above are among those most dear to us here in the U.S. And these are the freedoms they would be denying to the general muslim populace, to speak nothing of how the women would be treated.

Red-herring. You claimed that a Muslim statement about how they oppose democracy means they "hate freedom". I showed how that logic was fallacious. You had no response other than to repeat your statement without even trying to address the logical criticism, and then to appeal to a lot of emotionally laden rhetoric.

You still don't get it do you mike? They don't hate freedom because they oppose democracy. They oppose democracy because they hate the freedom it would instill in the people. Go back and read what their statement actually says.

Remember the Taliban Mike? Thats the type of government these extremists want. And we all heard about what tremendous "freedom" the afghans had under them...

Honestly, if the type of government these extremsists want were implemented what freedoms do you think would be left? Freedom from fear? No... Freedom to live your own live as you see fit? No, not if it is contrary in anyway to the extremists view of the Koran. Come on, tell me what sorts of "freedom" you would have under this sort of government.

You dumbshit, that is what people over there think is right. Do you think it's governments doing all of that killing of women in Jordan? It's the fucking Will of the People, moron.
[/quote]

They think it is right because that is what has been drilled into them by their government and religious leaders. And thats what will continue to be drilled into them if these extremists succeed. Part of what comes with the freedom to change, is the freedom to do nothing. However, without the freedom to change, then there will never be any reform in the middle east.

I find it rather funny that left wingers feel persecuted if they are called "traitors" etc for disagreeing with the Bush administration. And if I disagree with you in anyway, then I'm a bush apologist. Gee isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

Nice strawman, fucktard. You're not being called a Bush apologist for "disagreeing in any way"; you're being called a Bush apologist for defending his bullshit.[/quote]

Pot, Kettle, Black.

[Admiral_K]

Yet again, you ignore the point that your logic "hate one particular kind of freedom" = "hate freedom" is only consistent if you agree that it applies equally to Bush. This is not an attempt to change the subject, no matter how desperately you may wish it were. It is an attempt to show, by example, that you would consider your own logic ludicrous if you tried to apply it elsewhere.

Bush may oppose certain "freedoms" but he isn't out there killing those gays and lesbians who are getting married in defiance of his views. He isn't sending abortion doctors to Guantanamo Bay.

The Militants in Iraq aren't out there campaigning for issues they feel to be important. They are saying flat our "oppose us and we will fucking kill you".

IF you want to go by the true anarchist definition of freedom, then yes I guess you could say "Bush hates freedom". And as I've said before, this label is in fact placed on him by many left wingers.

But as I said, you can't look at it in simple black and white where black=black and white=white terms. You have to view things in variations if hatred of freedom were a disease, then Bush's hate is a mild sore throat with a stuffy nose, and the Militants hate is full blown Ebola.

[Alan Bolte]

I'm not entirely confident in this, but by my reading it would seem that the two of you are sort of stepping arround the point in these most recent posts.

Darth Wong is arguing that, because it is illogical to conclude that if a1, a2, and a7 are true, then an is true, it is innaccurate to say that Muslim extremists hate all freedoms. The core of this arguement is the concept that "hate freedom" implies "hates all freedoms".

Admiral_K is arguing that, because the values (especially viz. freedom) of Muslim extremists are so different from those of the American constitution that there can be no compromize between the two views,* it is reasonable to say they "hate freedom" in a generalized, good-for-soundbites sense.

Essentially the argument is whether it is reasonable to say something that is potentially misleading to the layman when speaking in general terms rather than specifics, not anything specifically to do with Muslim extremists.

*I'm not sure if I worded this well, I mean to refer to a point that seems to be accepted by all parties.

[Darth Wong]

Since the concept of freedom is so broad and undefined, you choose to attack on the basis that I couldn't possibly prove that the muslim extremists hate every single last freedom. OJ Simpson defense anyone?

Hey dumb-fuck, the ambiguous definition of freedom is one of the very things wrong with the idiotic Bush rhetoric that you keep defending!

I hear everyday some new piece about how Bush "hates freedom" from one liberal or another. I'm not here to defend Bush.

Yes you are. You stated that very clearly in your first post: that the Bush administration's idiotic explanation for the motives of the terror groups was correct.

However, I was sick and tired of seeing these militants labeled as "Freedom fighters" by radical left wingers when "freedom" is what they are fighting to prevent.

I don't see things in the "black and white" shade you seem to. I don't equate someone pushing domestic policies, with someone blowing up those of their countryment who don't bow to their will.

And how does this refute my point about how Bush's rhetoric is bullshit, and your defense of it is also bullshit?

Red-herring. You claimed that a Muslim statement about how they oppose democracy means they "hate freedom". I showed how that logic was fallacious. You had no response other than to repeat your statement without even trying to address the logical criticism, and then to appeal to a lot of emotionally laden rhetoric.

You still don't get it do you mike? They don't hate freedom because they oppose democracy. They oppose democracy because they hate the freedom it would instill in the people. Go back and read what their statement actually says.

The freedom to do things which offend their "traditional values". Forgive me if I don't see how this principle of yours is not just as applicable to Bush as it is to them. A difference of degree is not a difference of principle.

Remember the Taliban Mike? Thats the type of government these extremists want. And we all heard about what tremendous "freedom" the afghans had under them...

See above.

They think it is right because that is what has been drilled into them by their government and religious leaders. And thats what will continue to be drilled into them if these extremists succeed. Part of what comes with the freedom to change, is the freedom to do nothing. However, without the freedom to change, then there will never be any reform in the middle east.

Nice pie-in-the-sky reasoning. You honestly believe that the people of that region would gladly stampede into the modern era if left "free" to do so, even though the use of force has been necessary several times in order to keep Turkey from sliding into one of those Islamic fundie states? I would have thought that the Iraq war clusterfuck would have eliminated the kind of childish naivete that we heard from neo-cons before the invasion, but it appears that this is not the case.

Nice strawman, fucktard. You're not being called a Bush apologist for "disagreeing in any way"; you're being called a Bush apologist for defending his bullshit.

Pot, Kettle, Black.

You honestly think that's a workable rebuttal?

Bush may oppose certain "freedoms" but he isn't out there killing those gays and lesbians who are getting married in defiance of his views. He isn't sending abortion doctors to Guantanamo Bay.

Irrelevant to the question of whether he can be said to "hate freedom" based on your own logic, hence making his rhetoric about the terrorists' motivations completely meaningless as well as grossly oversimplified.

The Militants in Iraq aren't out there campaigning for issues they feel to be important. They are saying flat our "oppose us and we will fucking kill you".

How is that different from "you are either with us or you are with the terrorists"?

IF you want to go by the true anarchist definition of freedom, then yes I guess you could say "Bush hates freedom". And as I've said before, this label is in fact placed on him by many left wingers.

Bush has been ignoring the Supreme Court's rulings on what he can and can't do with suspects. It hardly takes an "anarchist" definition of freedom to say that he sees it as an obstacle.

But as I said, you can't look at it in simple black and white where black=black and white=white terms. You have to view things in variations if hatred of freedom were a disease, then Bush's hate is a mild sore throat with a stuffy nose, and the Militants hate is full blown Ebola.

As before, differences of degree do not equate to differences of principle. And your principle is bullshit: you claim that the Bush Administration's idiotically simple-minded characterization of Islamic terrorist motives is actually correct based on this "we don't like democracy" line; such a wildly gesticulated non sequitur that it is difficult to even see how you ever argued for the connecting logic except to simply say it is so.