Dispelling the ‘Few Extremists’ Myth – the Muslim World Is Overcome with Hate

[BehindBlueI's]

Do you suppose those Muslims in New Jersey that watched the Towers collapse and cheered (yes, the videos of them doing so are showing up on the internet now), do you suppose they got caught up in the emotion of the moment, or would you condemn them like you're condemning some of us? Don't forget, as far as we know, neither those New Jersey Muslims, nor any INGOers have gone out and killed any innocents yet.

Of course. Why would I not condemn anyone who celebrates the death of innocents? I can make allowances if one is misguided into wrongly believing the innocent was a valid target, etc, but once you learn your error you must try to make things right.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Of course. Why would I not condemn anyone who celebrates the death of innocents? I can make allowances if one is misguided into wrongly believing the innocent was a valid target, etc, but once you learn your error you must try to make things right.

We can agree about most of that, but how do you "make it right" in the middle of a war?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

We can agree about most of that, but how do you "make it right" in the middle of a war?

I was a Combat Engineer, not Psy Ops or a diplomat. Not my area of expertise. Denying, shrugging it off as inconsequential, it's not that, though.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I don't know if this is the proper thread to bring this up, but concerning the "islamohatred" we see in some posts concerning ISIS, Al-Qaeda, et.al., I think we should consider that all sides of a human-conducted war tend to use epithets as a means to dehumanize their enemy(ies). One of the reasons we do it, some have observed, is that it makes it much easier to kill "that bastard *****" if you can think of him that way rather than as a human being with a mother, a father, a wife, children. I've heard it said that the really elite "operators" learn to get past the slurs and look at the enemy as simply "targets to be serviced," which, perhaps is a more psychologically "sanitary" way to conduct warfare.

In the circles in which I travel these days, it would be very strange to hear someone using a racial slur like "polack," "spic," "gook," that "N" word that almost nobody uses anymore, "hymie," "dago," "jap," "jerry," "kraut." Those conflicts are in our past and the ethnic rivalries that spawned such terms (with a couple recent exceptions) are largely buried under assimilation into the American culture. I'd expect, if our current set of conflicts ends short of Armageddon, the current derogatory epithets will pass into history as well.

God help us if we ever run into extraterrestrial warmongers . . .

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Film by POW's Daughter Explores Reconciliation with Japanese | Military.com

Maybe some ideas on reconciliation, at least after the fact.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

BlackHawk - again - I agree with the point you are making. We ARE beginning down that road of "dehumanizing" our enemy. And there are various epithets being tossed around "raghead" , et al... I don't need to go down that road. The problem is that in this case we are NOT at war with every Muslim. We are not at war with every ARAB Muslim. Some of them are on our side. A large number - i.e. not inconsequential. So if we start down the road of "dehumanizing" an entire race (or God forbid an entire religion) we are on the road to HELL. Every time I can think of where folks were dehumanized for their religion - genocide followed closely thereafter.

Much like Vietnam - determining friend from foe is not as simple as all one race or all one religion in this case. And we don't want to live with some of the massacres on our conscience like happened in places like Vietnam - due to overgeneralizing. Mistakes - yes, they will happen. Genocide - no , we CAN avoid that.

Now as for ET - the Extra Testicle...

 

[jamil]

I didn't read the book but I watched this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKmvjbZN1E4 and it turned me around on President GW Bush.

I can't blame a man for his actions IF he isn't given the right information. I blame Cheney for misinforming the President!

Regards,

Doug

Looking back at that administration it's clear that Cheney had more influence on Bush than any other VP I can remember. Cheney was every bit an "executive" VP. In the second term, especially the last half, I think Bush lost confidence in Cheney and trusted him less, especially after the Scooter Libby thing.

But that doesn't absolve Bush. I remember seeing the determination on Bush's face in the months leading up to the Iraq invasion, when he kept saying "Regime change" when asked his policy on Iraq. I knew then. Nothing will stop this train. He's going to invade Iraq. The WMD, whether Saddam had it or not, was an excuse to do what he wanted to do. Cheney is partly to blame, but Bush owns every bit of it.

But that's not all that makes me view Bush's administration negatively. Among other things, he was too compassionate with other people's money.

 

[LPMan59]

Bush and Obama have been the same awful president on many issues- but I think their motivations were completely different.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/1...arf.html?_r=0&referer=https://news.google.com

Huh. I didn't realize the "same God" was in dispute. I guess that clarrifies why GFGT asked.

 

[BugI02]

Looking back at that administration it's clear that Cheney had more influence on Bush than any other VP I can remember. Cheney was every bit an "executive" VP. In the second term, especially the last half, I think Bush lost confidence in Cheney and trusted him less, especially after the Scooter Libby thing.

But that doesn't absolve Bush. I remember seeing the determination on Bush's face in the months leading up to the Iraq invasion, when he kept saying "Regime change" when asked his policy on Iraq. I knew then. Nothing will stop this train. He's going to invade Iraq. The WMD, whether Saddam had it or not, was an excuse to do what he wanted to do. Cheney is partly to blame, but Bush owns every bit of it.

But that's not all that makes me view Bush's administration negatively. Among other things, he was too compassionate with other people's money.

Rule of Two

 

[IndyDave1776]

Looking back at that administration it's clear that Cheney had more influence on Bush than any other VP I can remember. Cheney was every bit an "executive" VP. In the second term, especially the last half, I think Bush lost confidence in Cheney and trusted him less, especially after the Scooter Libby thing.

But that doesn't absolve Bush. I remember seeing the determination on Bush's face in the months leading up to the Iraq invasion, when he kept saying "Regime change" when asked his policy on Iraq. I knew then. Nothing will stop this train. He's going to invade Iraq. The WMD, whether Saddam had it or not, was an excuse to do what he wanted to do. Cheney is partly to blame, but Bush owns every bit of it.

But that's not all that makes me view Bush's administration negatively. Among other things, he was too compassionate with other people's money.

I have a lot of mixed feelings on the retroactive reviews and condemnation of motives, and accusations of lying in some cases. That damned Joe Wilson (Mr. Valerie, not the congressman Joe Wilson) needs hanged for what he did. Basically, with a complicit media, he convinced us that, based on Corona talk accumulated hanging out in the hotel bar, the WMD issue was a falsehood, specifically that Saddam never acquired nor tried to acquire yellowcake uranium. First, Saddam had used other WMDs in the past, and second, we captured and sold to a Canadian energy producer a large quantity of yellowcake uranium, as reported by that bastion of hard right propaganda ABC News.

All said and done, so far as I am concerned, we needed to do two things. Since the taliban was harboring bin-Laden and thumbing their noses, and already lived in the stone age, we needed to demonstrate to them that they can be bombed into the dust age, and if there never was such a thing, we could invent it.

If Saddam required immediate attention, we needed an approach more similar to that given Libya under Reagan which yielded a more compliant and trouble-free relationship based on fear of the consequences. This worked very well until that moronic Kenyan did everything he could to facilitate his overthrow leaving us with yet another unstable free-for-all.

 

[mammynun]

I was recently made aware of this thread (I typically avoid this area of INGO), and read the entire thread over the last few days. My question is this:

To whom do I owe tuition?

 

[indiucky]

To whom do I owe tuition?

Me...Payable in 5.56....

 

[historian]

Me...Payable in 5.56....

I didn't think you had any guns that modern.

 

[mammynun]

I didn't think you had any guns that modern.

I built it for him...

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I was recently made aware of this thread (I typically avoid this area of INGO), and read the entire thread over the last few days. My question is this:

To whom do I owe tuition?

Nice to meet you at Indiucky's clubhouse / museum / BS emporium, BTW.

 

[indiucky]

I didn't think you had any guns that modern.

I have three AR's, one pistol with a Bushnell holosight , one standard A2 Carbine and one flat top kind of gussied up with an Eotech and one Arsenal AK...All in 5.56...I do not "love" them...They are tools in the event of bad events...

My passion is older firearms...Especially older Smith's and flintlocks...These I love...The others are tools I have that I shoot every now and again....I am not "in" to fire extinguishers but I still have a few around the house....

Mammynun got me to appreciate a well built AR and I got him to appreciate a fine revolver......BBI got me to appreciate the beauty and culture of the Middle east...

We all three appreciate an ice cold Dr. Pepper....

 

[jamil]

I have three AR's, one pistol with a Bushnell holosight , one standard A2 Carbine and one flat top kind of gussied up with an Eotech and one Arsenal AK...All in 5.56...I do not "love" them...They are tools in the event of bad events...

My passion is older firearms...Especially older Smith's and flintlocks...These I love...The others are tools I have that I shoot every now and again....I am not "in" to fire extinguishers but I still have a few around the house....

Mammynun got me to appreciate a well built AR and I got him to appreciate a fine revolver......BBI got me to appreciate the beauty and culture of the Middle east...

We all three appreciate an ice cold Dr. Pepper....

Damn the blood sugar. Some things are just more important.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

BlackHawk - again - I agree with the point you are making. We ARE beginning down that road of "dehumanizing" our enemy. And there are various epithets being tossed around "raghead" , et al... I don't need to go down that road. The problem is that in this case we are NOT at war with every Muslim. We are not at war with every ARAB Muslim. Some of them are on our side. A large number - i.e. not inconsequential. So if we start down the road of "dehumanizing" an entire race (or God forbid an entire religion) we are on the road to HELL. Every time I can think of where folks were dehumanized for their religion - genocide followed closely thereafter.

Much like Vietnam - determining friend from foe is not as simple as all one race or all one religion in this case. And we don't want to live with some of the massacres on our conscience like happened in places like Vietnam - due to overgeneralizing. Mistakes - yes, they will happen. Genocide - no , we CAN avoid that.

Now as for ET - the Extra Testicle...

I understand what you're saying (I think) and I'm not talking about or advocating "genocide;" however, that doesn't mean I don't think massive B-52 raids on known ISIS strongholds should be ruled out. In the context of winning a difficult war, I'm okay with the unfortunate noncombatants in the bad guys' territory suffering in order for us to destroy his ability to make war or threaten us and OUR noncombatants over here.

The one guaranteed way to lose a war is to piddle away at the enemies in a half-assed way. If nothing else, Vietnam AND our military adventures in Iraq Post-Saddam and in Afghanistan Post-Taliban ouster should have told us that. Yet here we are, with bad guys actually holding territory over there and infiltrating our own country and promising us they are going to kill us and our children, and we worry about pissing them off?

The rest of the world's Muslims can learn to live with hating us quietly and from a safe distance if they wish; they can live in the 7th century and bow down to a theocracy if they wish, as long as they don't try to change OUR government and society to match theirs. That's MY version of "Live and let live."

 

[BugI02]

I understand what you're saying (I think) and I'm not talking about or advocating "genocide;" however, that doesn't mean I don't think massive B-52 raids on known ISIS strongholds should be ruled out. In the context of winning a difficult war, I'm okay with the unfortunate noncombatants in the bad guys' territory suffering in order for us to destroy his ability to make war or threaten us and OUR noncombatants over here.

The one guaranteed way to lose a war is to piddle away at the enemies in a half-assed way. If nothing else, Vietnam AND our military adventures in Iraq Post-Saddam and in Afghanistan Post-Taliban ouster should have told us that. Yet here we are, with bad guys actually holding territory over there and infiltrating our own country and promising us they are going to kill us and our children, and we worry about pissing them off?

The rest of the world's Muslims can learn to live with hating us quietly and from a safe distance if they wish; they can live in the 7th century and bow down to a theocracy if they wish, as long as they don't try to change OUR government and society to match theirs. That's MY version of "Live and let live."

Absolutely! +1

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Blackhawk2001 again. Aww for cryin' out loud