« caught on tape: authority behaving badly | Main | a discourse on new wave and punk (because I can't let anything go) »

notes from the democratic underground

I can always count on someone at DU to give me something to bitch about in the morning. I found this comment on a thread about the Saudi bombings last night.

I think we can safely blame the bush admin for this. Without the latest crusades against Islam by bush this would not have happened. Once Dean or whomever gets in this kind of crap will just stop.

First of all, it's not a crusade against Islam. It's a fight against Islamic terrorists. In fact, Bush is the one who keeps calling Islam a "religion of peace."

Need I remind anyone that it was Islamic terrorists who attacked the U.S. on 9/11? And why? Because they think the entire world should subscribe to their religion, that we should all be militant Muslims and bow to allah.

If Bush had not started his "crusade" against these people, he would have left us open for another September 11th. What kind of leader would not fight those who killed 3,000 citizens of his country?

So this idiot from DU proposes that we vote in Dean for president so this "kind of crap," meaning terrorist bombings, will stop. How does he think Dean will stop these militants? By asking nicely?

Pacifists and appeasers have no place in the White House, especially during times when militant Islamists are running all over the place setting off bombs. You think things are bad now? I imagine that with Dean or Clark or any of the notorious nine in the White House, things would go from here to worse pretty damn quick.

Also, the poster from DU should note that this current terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia was one perpetrated on Muslims by Muslims. They are fighting amongs themselves now; those who want to live in peace are being killed by those who want to rule by force.

Comments

DU Poster: I think we can safely blame the bush admin for this. Without the latest crusades against Islam by bush this would not have happened. Once Dean or whomever gets in this kind of crap will just stop.

Were there Crusades by the Clinton Administration that led to the U.S.S. Cole attack, the '93 World Trade Center Bombing, the Khobar Towers bombings, or the al Qaeda/Aideed attacks in Somalia?

Some folks' memories only go back as far as President Bush registering 70 percent in the approval ratings. We're lucky that most people live in the real world and understand what the U.S. is really up against.

I thought the stated reason the terrorists carried out the 9/11 attacks was not to convert the world to Islam, but was Bin Laden's way of punishing the US for having troops near what he though was a holy place in Saudi Arabia. At least that is how it all may have started.

Still doesn't justify the attacks, but it is probably better not to propage some of the mis-information of the loony right.

Depends on which of bin Laden's "fatwas" you're talking about. He's varied his reaasons for blowing up American civilians, and allies, from time to time.

He issued a fatwa when the U.S. took military action against Iraq. He issued a fatwa when the U.S. ended military action, and imposed sanctions.

He issued a fatwa when the U.S. placed troops in Saudi Arabia to stop Saddam's blitzkrieg through the Persian Gulf. And he declared a fatwa against the U.S. for - his words - "serv(ing) the Jews' petty state and divert(ing) attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there."

So take your pick.

O, Ken, let's ignore Bin Laden's history with Paleostinian terrorists, and the repeated statements, by Islamist Terror groups, that US support of Israel is the original source of their hatred for us, for the moment. Let's say that Islamist terrorist attacks began because of US troops in Holy Saudi Arabia. Then the blame for EVERY US death at the hands of Al-Qaeda and co. is Saddam Hussein's. US troops did not get stationed in Saudi Arabia until he invaded Kuwait and threatened the House of Saud.

Next in the blame chain would the "esteemed' United Nations, who refused to consider removing a Weapon of Mass Destruction using, Mass Murdering Dictator. And then demanded that the US foot the bill, and assume the risks, of ensuring the embargo, and maintaining the no-fly zones. Those tasks, AND the House of Saud's request that US troops stay in Saudi Arabia, are why US troops STAYED in Saudi Arabia after '91.

Should I even mention that Bin Laden says Clinton's spineless 'leadership' in Somalia inspired Al-Qaeda to try more aggressive tactics?

Oh, and were the attacks on US troops in Beirut ordered by Iranian precognitives, who predicted US troops would be stationed 'near' Mecca and Medina? Or because we supported Israel, and the idea of democracy in Lebanon?

Ken, you might also note that many Islamist Terror groups, aside from Al-Qaeda, have stated that they will continue the 'jihad' until all the world bows to Islam and shar'ia law. And we are supposed to fighting ALL Islamist Terror groups, not just Al-Qaeda, right?

Sorry for the long post Michele.

Yikes, M., why even read DU? I'm a hard-core liberal partisan dem, and I have zero interest in that site. (I steer clear for Freeperland as well, for similar reasons -- there's just nothing to be learned there, and it's not good for my blood pressure.)

And we are supposed to fighting ALL Islamist Terror groups, not just Al-Qaeda, right?

Right!

"I imagine that with Dean or Clark or any of the notorious nine in the White House, things would go from here to worse pretty damn quick."

Joe Lieberman may not have much chance of getting the Democratic nomination, but I don't see how you can call him a pacifist or appeaser. And for the other Democratic candidates who supported undertaking the Iraq war, questioning our lack of a cohesive post-war strategy doesn't ipso-facto make them appeasers either.

What about 'the other Democratic candidates who supported undertaking the Iraq war' (Kerry) who have flip-flopped on the issue. Can we call them appeasers?

I think we can safely blame the bush admin for this. Without the latest crusades against Islam by bush this would not have happened. Once Dean or whomever gets in this kind of crap will just stop.

Riiiiiight, because terrorism didn't exist before Bush was elected.

Kerry is an appeaser, but it's really the left wing of the party that he's trying to appease. I won't try to justify his back-pedaling, except to point out that appeasing the extreme is far from unheard of in primary races. I recall George Bush doing some pretty egregious appeasing of the far-right when John McCain was giving him trouble during the last election.

Let's test the DU theory:

1979: Islamofascists capture the US Embassy (an act of war) and hold embassy employees hostage for 444 days. US response: Negotiation.

1983: Islamofascists blow up a Marine barracks in Lebanon, killing 243 Marines. US response: withdrawal from Lebanon.

1980s: Islamofascists kidnap several Americans in Lebanon, holding them for years, and in at least one case, murder him. US response: negotiations with Iran and military materiel sales.

1993: Islamofascists attack the World Trade Center in New York, killing 6. US response: criminal investigation by FBI, eventually imprisoning several of the planners and actors in the event.

2000: Islamofascists kill 17 US sailors on USS Cole, and bomb two US embassies in Africa. US response: FBI investigations.

Yeah, I can see how Bush's response to 9/11 is the root of the whole problem.

puts on tin-foil hat

Gee, maybe DU set off those bombs so they could write about it. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

*takes off tin-foil hat+

Hey, that was fun!

What a bunch of luddites.

Nothing justifies a terrorist attack. But Islamist terrorism has always been about Saudi Arabia. Islamist groups around the world receive Saudi funding. Al Qaeda has been called a Saudi operation by terrorism experts. Despite the fact that it has had members from Yemen, Egypt and Marin county, itís always been a Saudi-funded paramilitary group. According to ex-CIA agent Robert Baer, the 9/11 attacks, carried out by wealthy Saudis and funded by wealthy Saudis was an extension of the civil war that has been brewing in Saudi Arabia.

Attacks by Saudi-funded paramilitary groups around the world will continue as long as the Saudis have billions to play games with. Bush may not be doing a great job when it comes to dealing with the Saudis, but none of the Democrats (other than Lieberman) have shown that they could do a better job. Lefties will blame everything, from hot flashes to terrorism attacks, on Bush.