<B>Hmmm, nothing of real note? It is a fact that Islamic extremists are recruiting in 'the West,' so suggesting that a universal consensus exists on the subject is false.</B> I would say that a huge majority (95%+) of Americans would agree with the fact that Muslim moderates shouldn't tolerate extremism. Similarly, I would believe the same about ANY group of moderates not tolerating ANY group of extremists. Personally, my reaction when reading that original article, my initial reaction was "duh". <B>But Major would rather rail on US action that allow for a discussion about resposibility for someone other than the US. </B> Interesting. In another thread, I made it clear that I don't mind the US unilaterally taking action, particularly against Iraq. I don't like the way we've gone about it, and I explained the tact I would have used. Accepting that people in the Muslim world hate us is not "railing against US action". It's explaining why many parts of the world don't see things the same as we do when we talk about "helping the world". Maybe other countries' views aren't important to you, but I believe they are extremely important when developing foreign policy. If the rest of the world thinks we are trying to oppress them (rightly or wrongly), more hate groups and more terrorist groups will spawn. Killing them is not going to solve the problem if you don't deal with the root of the issue. And if, in killing the current terrorists, you spawn more hatred, you're going backwards.
He asked if you read PAST the first seven words of the sentence. It was obvious that you read the first seven words because that's all you care about.
As I'll repeat below, this is a discussion about foreign policy, which is the context of my definition of a US basher. It does not mean there is no chance they like McDonalds or that they dislike everything American. If a poster repeatedly focuses their posts on the negatives in US foreign policy, and *seemingly* never on a positive, then the preponderance of their opinions *bash* US foreign policy. Hmmm, do you think it was meant literally. I was making an observation based on the balance of posts from some members. I can say 'on balance' instead of 'always' if the semantics are important to you. I didn't claim you did. In fact I distinguished 'always' from 'some' with you in mind . Again the context of my statement was within the foreign policy confines. If someone 'on balance' writes scathing (yes I know that is subjective - sue me) critiques of US foreign policy then why is it a reach to say they are on balance negative about US foreign policy? Yes, my point is that your first reaction was to minimize the original post. There is plenty of discussion about how US foreign policy can be adapted or changed to alter the real or imagined perception of the US in the Muslim world. THIS thread was an attempt to discuss the other half of the equation - what other entities aside from the US foreign policy leaders can/should do. You've proven my point. The reason NCStateFan labeled the thread the way he did (and of course this is only my perception) was that EVERY (sorry Jeff) thread is immediately co-opted and redirected back to a discussion of the negative aspects of US foreign policy. Just as you did. 'Why should we discuss this? Duh!' The fact that this author WROTE the piece should testify to the necessity of it being discussed. The fact that recruits ARE coming from the West into these organizations testifies to the necessity of it being discussed, and denies your assertion that it is so obvious discussion is unwarranted. Writing to the point on other people's perceptions of the US is not 'US bashing' if it is not the totality of your argument. In this case it appears it is not. I must have missed you saying that and so do appropriately apologize. Hopefully my intent should be clear and normally (just being honest here) I would have included Glynch in my grouping of US bashers but I do remember him saying he supported some US interventions under specific circumstances, and his post in this thread was supporting the examination of BOTH what the US could do to change the perception currently held by people of the US AND what other peoples could do to address this issue. Never said that they weren't important. But it is not the ONLY important part of this discussion. You so readily dismissed half of the discussion: the part about Islam NOT justifying terrorism and war on civilians, which I believe is the justification used by these particular groups. Seems a little relevant to me and you crowd out discussion about it with your belittling 'duh,' and your redirection of this discussion back to the same points as in "Axis of Evil" and "Is the US too dominant" and every other Treeman post. Certainly you CAN post where you like. But what is the point of making every thread converge on the same topic at the expense of other aspects that need to be considered?
<B>Certainly you CAN post where you like. But what is the point of making every thread converge on the same topic at the expense of other aspects that need to be considered?</B> Fair enough. My thinking was that there wasn't really a discussion occurring on the original article (just a bunch of "wow"s and "I agree"s ) and that the second article (same author) was much more interesting relative to the discussions we've had here. I will try to keep policy-discussions, though, out of this thread and in the others. The reason the policy-side is more interesting to me is that really reflects what WE need to do and what we (as a country) can control. Yes, the Muslim world needs to take action & responsibility as well, but we can't really force that to occur, so I guess it just didn't interest me as much. This is just conjecture, but I don't think a significant portion of the US Muslim community agrees with extremism, and if there's was some impact they could really have on the Middle Eastern extremism, they would be happy to. However, as Americans (even Muslim Americans), they also are hated by extremists in those countries. I think any religious change has to come from within those ME countries.
I can see what you're saying. And it does seem kind of absurd to be picky about the crossover since its all part of the same topic. I just didn't want to assume that (a) those wow's - the first of which was mine have no effect on readers perceptions or that (b) there are no posters or lurker here who might BE muslim, and might be undecided whether the US is 100% to blame, and whether or not there is justification under Islam to join in. Even a smilie can have an effect (as Det the Threat's victory over me in the poster tournament must prove - doh!)... And I found it ironic that the turn in discussion from the original post is exactly what NCStateFan was envisioning, and why he titled the thread what he did.
I'm a Christian (love the Lord Jesus - He made new and I will ALWAYS be eternally grateful). But, I don't own a SUV (never have), don't believe in the UN sanctions (note that they are UN sanctions not US sanctions) though I do vote. Why am I guilty of your blind statement? It's a shame to take a tread that quotes such a great, thought provoking article and slam a group like that. Trying to restart the jihad of bin Laden which is faultering?
Please spare me the lecture Jeff. I post a title and you insuate its directed at yourself... your mistake number one. If I am directing anything towards you, I will name you personally Jeff, you got that?? Second, you direct a tone towards my post with a childish like sentiment,sure you might get TEAZED with being a Rudy lover, thats a joke, you attempting to belittle my thoughts, thats unjust. This is my equalivant to name calling. So if you wish to hear my perverted responses to your thoughts, proceed on to attempt to demoralize my posts. If you missed the intention of my titled, then thats your problem. You seemed more concern with being dogmatic then enjoying the article.
Damn, you sure are touchy. You jumped all over me for saying that I went to Christian schools and had people there tell me that other religions were invented by the devil. Now, you're all pissed about me making comments about your title. You know, all you had to do was say, "I just used this title so that I wouldn't piss off people who might not agree with this," but you didn't. You flew off the handle and got all bent out of shape instead. Sorry I bruised your delicate ego. But, I'm not going to stop saying what I think or feel just because you find it demoralizing. That's <i>your</i> problem. You got <i>that</i>?
Sheesh... What's happening to the threads lately? Everyone's so grouchy you'd think we were in the offseason...BBall withdrawals.
You just go from one extreme to other. First were talking titles, now were tallking about past threads, whats next, I said you saw Elvis? Wait, more fairy tales. D@mn man, can you stop taking everything and swinging it to the extreme to support your defense? But wait, really what is this all about, its about your pursuit to prove I am wrong. About what? I F--ing title of a thread. Can you please get a life? And yeah, I think if you were so understanding, you could have intrepreted the meaning behind that title if you werent so gungho about starting a flame war. I would think you were maturer than that. And look at my very first response to your question. Thats flying off the handle? You are the one to accuse me of calling you a US Basher. Personally I felt anyone that enjoyed the article did not fit the mold. But whats the use when Mr. Liberal displays aggression, EVEN AFTER i typed a submissive post, you continued to go after me. Its one thing to type your thoughts and feelings, its another thing to pick petty fights and nit picks another post.
This is just getting ridiculous. I don't want to fight about any of this anymore. I take it all back and I'm sorry for interrupting your post. The last thing I need right now is a fight with a total stranger. If I want a fight, I'll just pick on my friends. Carry on.
