US Ambassador killed in Libya
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Using the FBI statistics, Franklin Lamb points out that between 1980 and 2005 only six percent of terrorist incidents in the US were committed by Muslims while 94% were committed by non-Muslims. “The FBI claims that of the 83 terrorist attacks in the United States between 9/11 and the end of 2009, only three were clearly connected with the jihadist cause (3.6% of total).” Lamb further points out that “The picture is similar in Europe. Of a total of 1,571 terrorist attacks in the E.U. from 2006-2008 only 6 were committed by Islamist terrorists which translates to less than 0.4% of all attacks, which means 99.6% of all attacks were committed by Non-Muslims.”
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South of England
Age: 74
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
No, SASless it wasn't the PLO that started it. They didn't even exist until after 1948 when the returning Jews dispossed them.
Well before that there were organized political groups who chose terrorism as their primary instrument: The early IRA, the Bosnian Serbs who ignited WW1 and centuries ago the Indian Thugees - to name but a few.
I could guess that "terrorism" began when small bands of early Homo Sapiens first encountered small bands of Homo Erectus and probably butchered and ate them and raped their females - this is pure conjecture but traces of the interbreeding still exist in the modern human genome.
But in "modern" times it could be argued that religious terrorism started when most of the states in so called Christendom, on several occasions, amassed huge armies and set out to drive the (then peaceful) Muslims from their native lands by violence and pillage. They called them Crusades and they consisted of "Christian" armies inflicting gratuitous violence and butchery on innocent, peace loving, muslims. What a wonderful example we set them.
Rgds SOS
Well before that there were organized political groups who chose terrorism as their primary instrument: The early IRA, the Bosnian Serbs who ignited WW1 and centuries ago the Indian Thugees - to name but a few.
I could guess that "terrorism" began when small bands of early Homo Sapiens first encountered small bands of Homo Erectus and probably butchered and ate them and raped their females - this is pure conjecture but traces of the interbreeding still exist in the modern human genome.
But in "modern" times it could be argued that religious terrorism started when most of the states in so called Christendom, on several occasions, amassed huge armies and set out to drive the (then peaceful) Muslims from their native lands by violence and pillage. They called them Crusades and they consisted of "Christian" armies inflicting gratuitous violence and butchery on innocent, peace loving, muslims. What a wonderful example we set them.
Rgds SOS
Last edited by SOSL; 20th Sep 2012 at 13:47.
Thread Starter
Well before that there were organized political groups who chose terrorism as their primary instrument:
Is Viking raping and pillaging terrorism or economic theft ?
Was William a terrorist at Hastings or not ?
Easy to pick out specific groups but isn't Govts sending out armies to take over territory terrorism or does it just apply to those who fight back.
Was Judean Peoples Front terrorists or splitters ?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South of England
Age: 74
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
racedo
"Define Terrorism"
If there is anyone on this thread who can define terrorism I know it's not me and I suspect it's not you either, because if you can define it, why ask me?.
"Is Viking raping and pillaging terrorism or economic theft ?"
Or just expansionism. I don't know - what do you think?
"Was William a terrorist at Hastings or not ?"
Well, I guess it depends which side you were on.
"Easy to pick out specific groups but isn't Govts sending out armies to take over territory terrorism or does it just apply to those who fight back."
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. In my post I used the Crusades as an early example of modern terrorism. In that case the Govts (sic) of the then Christian world sent out armies to take over territory from the muslim countries with no declaration of war and no threat from the muslims countries - in my view that was certainly terrorism. Those who fought back against the crusaders were not terrorists - they were just trying to hold onto their homes.
"Was Judean Peoples Front terrorists or splitters ?"
I've never heard of the Judean Peoples Front and I don't believe I know what splitters are. Maybe you could help me out with this one.
Rgds SOS
If there is anyone on this thread who can define terrorism I know it's not me and I suspect it's not you either, because if you can define it, why ask me?.
"Is Viking raping and pillaging terrorism or economic theft ?"
Or just expansionism. I don't know - what do you think?
"Was William a terrorist at Hastings or not ?"
Well, I guess it depends which side you were on.
"Easy to pick out specific groups but isn't Govts sending out armies to take over territory terrorism or does it just apply to those who fight back."
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. In my post I used the Crusades as an early example of modern terrorism. In that case the Govts (sic) of the then Christian world sent out armies to take over territory from the muslim countries with no declaration of war and no threat from the muslims countries - in my view that was certainly terrorism. Those who fought back against the crusaders were not terrorists - they were just trying to hold onto their homes.
"Was Judean Peoples Front terrorists or splitters ?"
I've never heard of the Judean Peoples Front and I don't believe I know what splitters are. Maybe you could help me out with this one.
Rgds SOS
Last edited by SOSL; 20th Sep 2012 at 16:28. Reason: Removal of errors
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Over the hill (and far away)
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOS
If you've ever done Q, or waited between waves at APC Deci for your turn to strafe the horses at Frasca, or any other location/acitivity when you needed to mindlessly fill the time, you might have seen "The Life of Brian", in toto or in segments (other vids of all genres were also available).
You could then join in exchanging the multitude of one-liners, including knowing about the JPF (and its alternatives); "blessed are the cheesemakers", "Oi big nose" "he's a very naughty boy" etc.
Mister B
If you've ever done Q, or waited between waves at APC Deci for your turn to strafe the horses at Frasca, or any other location/acitivity when you needed to mindlessly fill the time, you might have seen "The Life of Brian", in toto or in segments (other vids of all genres were also available).
You could then join in exchanging the multitude of one-liners, including knowing about the JPF (and its alternatives); "blessed are the cheesemakers", "Oi big nose" "he's a very naughty boy" etc.
Mister B
PTT.....the one thing that is constant about the FBI and its statistics is they are as about as accurate as my guessing at what the stock market is going to do next week.
If you knew anything about the methodology they use in their Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), then you would take anything they put out with a huge grain of salt.
Remember we are dealing with the same outfit that saw fit to murder Americans at Waco and Ruby Ridge, then destroy evidence and perpetrate a cover-up of what really happened at those places.
Do you think the FBI is going to report accurately information that would destroy Presidents and Administrations?
You see how the current administration is making like Cats coveriing Poop over "Fast and Furious"?
Also....remember they do not get to brag about the plots that are prevented....or used to not do so because of Security concerns. Thus if you take failed plots into consideration you will see a change in that data.
Also...what are defining a "Terrorist Act" to be?
Statisitcs are fine....but you have to consider the agenda they are going to support and the motives behind the organization puttiing them out.
I have explained the fallacies of the UCR's here several times.
The key problem is the criteria used to list crimes.....which really mean when they list a crime....they are actually saying "incident".
Example....Burglar breaks into a house at night, rapes the daughter, sodomizes Mom, maims the Son, shoots Dad dead, burns the house down, steals TV, steals the family car, uses the Debit Card at an ATM, runs over a Cop, and kidnaps a hostage......total crime count in all that.....ONE....Murder (the most serious offense).
So....you hang your hat on the great FBI and their Stats.....not me thank you!
Do remember I was a Federal Law Enforcement Officer....I know what I am talking about here.
If you knew anything about the methodology they use in their Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), then you would take anything they put out with a huge grain of salt.
Remember we are dealing with the same outfit that saw fit to murder Americans at Waco and Ruby Ridge, then destroy evidence and perpetrate a cover-up of what really happened at those places.
Do you think the FBI is going to report accurately information that would destroy Presidents and Administrations?
You see how the current administration is making like Cats coveriing Poop over "Fast and Furious"?
Also....remember they do not get to brag about the plots that are prevented....or used to not do so because of Security concerns. Thus if you take failed plots into consideration you will see a change in that data.
Also...what are defining a "Terrorist Act" to be?
Statisitcs are fine....but you have to consider the agenda they are going to support and the motives behind the organization puttiing them out.
I have explained the fallacies of the UCR's here several times.
The key problem is the criteria used to list crimes.....which really mean when they list a crime....they are actually saying "incident".
Example....Burglar breaks into a house at night, rapes the daughter, sodomizes Mom, maims the Son, shoots Dad dead, burns the house down, steals TV, steals the family car, uses the Debit Card at an ATM, runs over a Cop, and kidnaps a hostage......total crime count in all that.....ONE....Murder (the most serious offense).
So....you hang your hat on the great FBI and their Stats.....not me thank you!
Do remember I was a Federal Law Enforcement Officer....I know what I am talking about here.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
IMNSHO a terrorist is one who sets out to cause terror in the hearts of his victims.
The victims are usually civilians. If the villagers in Afghanistan are in terror of the Taliban then the Taliban are terrorists. If OTOH the villagers support the aims of the Taliban and are not in fear of them then the Taliban, when engaging the ISAF and Afg Forces are either freedom fighters or revolutionists but not terrorists.
Simples.
If the Taliban/AQ/Others attack targets in the west, 9/11 or 7/7 for instance, then they are not freedom fighters or revolutionaries but terrorists.
Simples.
It follows therefore that they may be terrorists or freedom fighters depending on where they choose to fight.
The victims are usually civilians. If the villagers in Afghanistan are in terror of the Taliban then the Taliban are terrorists. If OTOH the villagers support the aims of the Taliban and are not in fear of them then the Taliban, when engaging the ISAF and Afg Forces are either freedom fighters or revolutionists but not terrorists.
Simples.
If the Taliban/AQ/Others attack targets in the west, 9/11 or 7/7 for instance, then they are not freedom fighters or revolutionaries but terrorists.
Simples.
It follows therefore that they may be terrorists or freedom fighters depending on where they choose to fight.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Annapolis, MD
Age: 86
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOSL
Quote: "But in "modern" times it could be argued that religious terrorism started when most of the states in so called Christendom, on several occasions, amassed huge armies and set out to drive the (then peaceful) Muslims from their native lands by violence and pillage. They called them Crusades and they consisted of "Christian" armies inflicting gratuitous violence and butchery on innocent, peace loving, muslims. What a wonderful example we set them."
Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression — an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.
Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword.
The warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed's death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt — once the most heavily Christian areas in the world — quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of Western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.
That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.
Quote: "But in "modern" times it could be argued that religious terrorism started when most of the states in so called Christendom, on several occasions, amassed huge armies and set out to drive the (then peaceful) Muslims from their native lands by violence and pillage. They called them Crusades and they consisted of "Christian" armies inflicting gratuitous violence and butchery on innocent, peace loving, muslims. What a wonderful example we set them."
Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression — an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.
Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword.
The warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed's death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt — once the most heavily Christian areas in the world — quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of Western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.
That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ SASless
Some evidence, other than your anecdote, that FBI statistics are misleading would be useful here. Otherwise you're simply dismissing evidence on the basis of the say so of, well, you. And you're hardly unbiased in this debate
Your objections seem to be:
- The FBI is incompetent: most large organisations have a degree of incompetence. I fail to see how field errors translate to an inability to count, though.
- The real statistics would take down administrations/presidents: makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist. Unless you have some sort of evidence to back this up then I have no choice but to dismiss it as such or appear like one myself. I choose the former.
- They don't report prevented plots: au contraire. I'd suggest that in this day and age that to do so is the only way to secure further funding.
This isn't an attack on your credentials, btw - I'd expect you to ask me for evidence on something which you suggested and I denied was the case even if I were experienced in the field myself.
Even if you do come up with some evidence that the FBI stats are misleading, then you are yet to come up with any evidence yourself that US terrorism is even mostly perpetrated by Muslims. Apart from the 150,000 murders carried out on the streets of the US, here are just a few of the more recent non-Muslim US terrorist incidents:
Unabomber (you knew I'd mention him, right? )
Jewish Defence League (killed a US congressman in 2001)
Oklahoma City
Centennial Olympic Park bombing
Anthrax attacks
Washington Sniper
Austing Inland Revenue building attack
Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting
Knoxville Unitarian Church shooting
All of which simply goes to prove my point: not all terrorists are Muslims. In fact, if we believe the statistics we have (which, until you provide evidence that they are incorrect or provide an alternative source), then not even most terrorists are Muslims.
@ Robert Cooper
Of course, the whole world was Christian before the evil Muslims came along and took it away, right? Talk about spin.
The background to the Crusades was set when the Seljuk Turks decisively defeated the Byzantine army in 1071 and cut off Christian access to Jerusalem. The Byzantine emperor, Alexis I feared that all Asia Minor would be overrun. He called on western Christian leaders and the papacy to come to the aid of Constantinople by undertaking a pilgrimage or a crusade that would free Jerusalem from Muslim rule. When this happened the Christians did not return the land to the Emperor, but set up latin states instead: it was a war of conquest, and it was the conquest of the Byzantine empire which was undertaken, with two sides - Christian and Muslim - eager to divide up the religiously rich spoils of a dying empire.
Some evidence, other than your anecdote, that FBI statistics are misleading would be useful here. Otherwise you're simply dismissing evidence on the basis of the say so of, well, you. And you're hardly unbiased in this debate
Your objections seem to be:
- The FBI is incompetent: most large organisations have a degree of incompetence. I fail to see how field errors translate to an inability to count, though.
- The real statistics would take down administrations/presidents: makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist. Unless you have some sort of evidence to back this up then I have no choice but to dismiss it as such or appear like one myself. I choose the former.
- They don't report prevented plots: au contraire. I'd suggest that in this day and age that to do so is the only way to secure further funding.
This isn't an attack on your credentials, btw - I'd expect you to ask me for evidence on something which you suggested and I denied was the case even if I were experienced in the field myself.
Even if you do come up with some evidence that the FBI stats are misleading, then you are yet to come up with any evidence yourself that US terrorism is even mostly perpetrated by Muslims. Apart from the 150,000 murders carried out on the streets of the US, here are just a few of the more recent non-Muslim US terrorist incidents:
Unabomber (you knew I'd mention him, right?
)Jewish Defence League (killed a US congressman in 2001)
Oklahoma City
Centennial Olympic Park bombing
Anthrax attacks
Washington Sniper
Austing Inland Revenue building attack
Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting
Knoxville Unitarian Church shooting
All of which simply goes to prove my point: not all terrorists are Muslims. In fact, if we believe the statistics we have (which, until you provide evidence that they are incorrect or provide an alternative source), then not even most terrorists are Muslims.
@ Robert Cooper
Of course, the whole world was Christian before the evil Muslims came along and took it away, right? Talk about spin.
The background to the Crusades was set when the Seljuk Turks decisively defeated the Byzantine army in 1071 and cut off Christian access to Jerusalem. The Byzantine emperor, Alexis I feared that all Asia Minor would be overrun. He called on western Christian leaders and the papacy to come to the aid of Constantinople by undertaking a pilgrimage or a crusade that would free Jerusalem from Muslim rule. When this happened the Christians did not return the land to the Emperor, but set up latin states instead: it was a war of conquest, and it was the conquest of the Byzantine empire which was undertaken, with two sides - Christian and Muslim - eager to divide up the religiously rich spoils of a dying empire.
PTT, it would be more accurate to say that the first Crusade, or even the first three, were the Eastward Reconquista. Re-establishing that part of the world into Christendom, which it had been for a few centuries before Islam took the effort to make it part of the Ummah. Mind you, the Westward Reconquista began a bit after Charles Martel stopped the Muslims/Umayyads at Tours/Poiters.
The Mohammadens had began in the 7th century to spread their culture and faith by the sword, and by a bit of subterfuge, and by commerce, both east and west. (A find digression into how Islam morphed a bit when it went east and into Persia is fascinating history, by the way).
By the time of the crusades, you can see that for three hundred years the West and Christendom had already been fighting to take back parts of Christendom from the Muslims. (France and Spain) Seems logical to do that in the East as well, given that the cradle of Christendom is in the Levant: Jerusalem, and for that matter, Alexandria, one of the most important cities of Rome, and then for Christians, during the formative centuries of Christianity.
Take a look at the Roman Empire, Circa 320 AD. About the time of Constantine, about 10% of that part of the World was Christian. Fifty years later, Theodosius established Christianity as the official Roman Empire Religion. For the next three centuries, give or take some Vandals and the general breakdown of Occidental Imperial coherence, Christendom could be associated with what you demark as the boundaries of the Roman Empire.
The Western Reconquista took Seven Hundred bloody years to complete, when at long last Granada was rid of the last emir.
The Turk run Caliphate tried to expand and conquer West over the sea yet again, less than a hundred years later, to be snubbed a Lepanto, thanks once again to a King of Spain and HRE at the time.
The Turk Caliphate got as far as Vienna in the 16th and 17 centuries ... or hadn't you remembered that? The Caliphate as run by the Turks was a plundering, invading, murderous empire, among other things.
Your cherry picking "who came after who" makes you come off as a bit of an Islamic apologist, which I don't think you intended.
Cooper is more right than you allow for.
The Mohammadens had began in the 7th century to spread their culture and faith by the sword, and by a bit of subterfuge, and by commerce, both east and west. (A find digression into how Islam morphed a bit when it went east and into Persia is fascinating history, by the way).
By the time of the crusades, you can see that for three hundred years the West and Christendom had already been fighting to take back parts of Christendom from the Muslims. (France and Spain) Seems logical to do that in the East as well, given that the cradle of Christendom is in the Levant: Jerusalem, and for that matter, Alexandria, one of the most important cities of Rome, and then for Christians, during the formative centuries of Christianity.
Take a look at the Roman Empire, Circa 320 AD. About the time of Constantine, about 10% of that part of the World was Christian. Fifty years later, Theodosius established Christianity as the official Roman Empire Religion. For the next three centuries, give or take some Vandals and the general breakdown of Occidental Imperial coherence, Christendom could be associated with what you demark as the boundaries of the Roman Empire.
The Western Reconquista took Seven Hundred bloody years to complete, when at long last Granada was rid of the last emir.
The Turk run Caliphate tried to expand and conquer West over the sea yet again, less than a hundred years later, to be snubbed a Lepanto, thanks once again to a King of Spain and HRE at the time.
The Turk Caliphate got as far as Vienna in the 16th and 17 centuries ... or hadn't you remembered that? The Caliphate as run by the Turks was a plundering, invading, murderous empire, among other things.
Your cherry picking "who came after who" makes you come off as a bit of an Islamic apologist, which I don't think you intended.
Cooper is more right than you allow for.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robert started with the Crusades, so it seemed logical. I agree that the "who came before who" argument is fruitless, although my intent was to point out that the Crusades were hardly the justified defensive war Robert tried to make them out as: the armies of Christendom conquered former Byzantine lands: the lands of the very empire which had asked them for help against the conquering Muslim armies!
It is amazing isn't it? I guess that it's simply fear of the dark that makes all of these superstitious fools (regardless of which franchise of gobbledegook mumbo-jumbo they've bought into) feel the need for an invisible friend. What I find astounding is how so many apparently rational people appear to believe in things that simply won't stand an ounce of scrutiny. I mean, exactly how do Creationists explain away the Dinosaurs? And - even more importantly - what do Creationists and Dinosaurs have to do with military aviation?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't think you'd need a degree, and to spend 40 years studying the history of the radical Islamic religion, to understand that it has dedicated itself to the killing of infidels (i.e. - Christians), and to the subjugation of as many "lesser religions" as it can manage, by militaristic aggression and murder, over the last 1350 or so years. Not much has changed in that time, just the methods have modernised.
The Crusades were a reaction to the brutality of the Muslims against Christians - in reaction to large numbers of Christians being murdered - and the overthrow of Christian lands, and the defiling of Christian places of worship.
The Islamics still feel keenly about violent Christian reactions to Muslim expansion by force and fear - but anyone with more than two working brain cells understands that the Muslims were the first "religion" to subjugate people by force, fear, and murder - and that they targetted Christians, in particular.
Any war action by Christian countries against Islam, is not about conquering Islam overall - it's about conquering radical, terrorism-based, Islamic expansion.
The Crusades were a reaction to the brutality of the Muslims against Christians - in reaction to large numbers of Christians being murdered - and the overthrow of Christian lands, and the defiling of Christian places of worship.
The Islamics still feel keenly about violent Christian reactions to Muslim expansion by force and fear - but anyone with more than two working brain cells understands that the Muslims were the first "religion" to subjugate people by force, fear, and murder - and that they targetted Christians, in particular.
Any war action by Christian countries against Islam, is not about conquering Islam overall - it's about conquering radical, terrorism-based, Islamic expansion.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
anyone with more than two working brain cells understands that the Muslims were the first "religion" to subjugate people by force, fear, and murder
History of Religion
Personally I'm astonished at the number of people who want to make this a war on a specific religion. War on terror I (kind of, given the stupidity of the concept) understand; war on militant dissidents makes even more sense, and war on militants of a certain religion is at least a comprehensible policy, but war on a religion based on revisionist history and biased reporting is a nonsense. Perhaps that degree and 40 years of study is necessary, or a least reading a few books.
Last edited by PTT; 21st Sep 2012 at 09:12.
PTT.....how do you square the Saudi Officers comment in this email by General Curry? I will assume you shall take issue that it cannot be valid for some reason....but at least others will read it and understand exactly what was said.
y Major General Jerry Curry,
USA, Ret. Published:
7:12 AM 01/28/2012
The great British poet Rudyard Kipling, understanding todays situation in
Afghanistan better than our State Department wrote, I have eaten your bread
and salt. I have drunk your water and wine. The deaths ye died I have
watched beside. And the lives ye led were mine.
There are two points the President and the Secretaries of State and Defense
may want to keep in mind as they evaluate future problems in the Middle East
and how to successfully address them. Both are easiest illustrated by real
life happenings.
Many years ago I attended the Infantry officer Advanced Course at Fort
Benning, Georgia. Probably ten percent of the students attending that ten
month course of instruction were from foreign countries. For about half of
the course my table mate was an Arab. We studied together, completed
homework assignments together, got to know each others families and
generally enjoyed each others company. ****
Part of that time we students were immersed in reading about, researching
and discussing wars and problems of the Middle East. By this time my Arab
classmate and I had, I thought, become close friends. A question popped into
my mind and without evaluating it I said, I have a question to ask you, but
you may find it a little impertinent . or, perhaps, offensive.
Thats quite alright, he replied. We know each other well enough to be honest
with each other. So go ahead and ask your question.
Well, I began. Each time you Arabs start a war with Israel, they beat your
socks off. Why dont you learn your lesson and quit making war on them?
The words hadnt passed my lips before I knew that I shouldnt have asked that
particular question. But I was wrong. My Arab officer friend didnt get
angry. He didnt even think before replying.
My dear friend, he said in his British accent, You are absolutely right.
Each time we attack the Israelis they whip our asses. But have you noticed
that with each loss we get better. We get whipped not as badly as in the war
before.
Then he got a faraway look in his eyes, pounded on the table and said,
Sometime in the next thousand years . we will win!
Up until then I had never thought in terms of a thousand years, and I dont
think Im very good at it today. But for those formulating foreign and
defense policy for the nation, it is worth making the effort. For it is
difficult to think in terms of the immediate future while negotiating with a
nation whose leaders are thinking in terms of hundreds or thousands of
years.
Point two: during the first Gulf War U.S. and Arab forces fought side by
side and some of the officers became close friends. When the war ended in
victory there was a celebration in the officers club with everyone
congratulating each other. A lot of handshaking and hugging was going on. It
was a time of displaying real brotherly love. Seeing this, one of the senior
Arab generals felt the need to set the record straight. Look, he said to a
small cluster of American generals. We have fought together and some of us
have died together. I know you feel that makes us brothers. But that is not
the way it is in my world.
He looked around the circle making eye contact with all of them. I dont want
to see you hurt so I need to share this with you. There will be no tomorrow
for us jointly. No matter how much you have helped my country and you came
and helped us when we desperately needed your help and no matter how
friendly you feel toward us, we are still Muslims and you are still
Christians. That means that in our eyes, we can never be brothers. Im sorry
but to us, you will always be Infidels!
And so we Infidels have liberated Iraq and Afghanistan, but we have not made
their countries nor their people depositories of freedom and liberty. No
matter how hard we work to rebuild their governments, infrastructure,
educational and medical institutions, and no matter how desperately they
need our help as the Arab general pointedly noted we can never be brothers
to each other.
Also, I learned what Kipling meant when he wrote,
East is East, and West is West,
and never the twain shall meet.
He was pointing out to the western world that to Muslims,
we Christians will always be infidels!
USA, Ret. Published:
7:12 AM 01/28/2012
The great British poet Rudyard Kipling, understanding todays situation in
Afghanistan better than our State Department wrote, I have eaten your bread
and salt. I have drunk your water and wine. The deaths ye died I have
watched beside. And the lives ye led were mine.
There are two points the President and the Secretaries of State and Defense
may want to keep in mind as they evaluate future problems in the Middle East
and how to successfully address them. Both are easiest illustrated by real
life happenings.
Many years ago I attended the Infantry officer Advanced Course at Fort
Benning, Georgia. Probably ten percent of the students attending that ten
month course of instruction were from foreign countries. For about half of
the course my table mate was an Arab. We studied together, completed
homework assignments together, got to know each others families and
generally enjoyed each others company. ****
Part of that time we students were immersed in reading about, researching
and discussing wars and problems of the Middle East. By this time my Arab
classmate and I had, I thought, become close friends. A question popped into
my mind and without evaluating it I said, I have a question to ask you, but
you may find it a little impertinent . or, perhaps, offensive.
Thats quite alright, he replied. We know each other well enough to be honest
with each other. So go ahead and ask your question.
Well, I began. Each time you Arabs start a war with Israel, they beat your
socks off. Why dont you learn your lesson and quit making war on them?
The words hadnt passed my lips before I knew that I shouldnt have asked that
particular question. But I was wrong. My Arab officer friend didnt get
angry. He didnt even think before replying.
My dear friend, he said in his British accent, You are absolutely right.
Each time we attack the Israelis they whip our asses. But have you noticed
that with each loss we get better. We get whipped not as badly as in the war
before.
Then he got a faraway look in his eyes, pounded on the table and said,
Sometime in the next thousand years . we will win!
Up until then I had never thought in terms of a thousand years, and I dont
think Im very good at it today. But for those formulating foreign and
defense policy for the nation, it is worth making the effort. For it is
difficult to think in terms of the immediate future while negotiating with a
nation whose leaders are thinking in terms of hundreds or thousands of
years.
Point two: during the first Gulf War U.S. and Arab forces fought side by
side and some of the officers became close friends. When the war ended in
victory there was a celebration in the officers club with everyone
congratulating each other. A lot of handshaking and hugging was going on. It
was a time of displaying real brotherly love. Seeing this, one of the senior
Arab generals felt the need to set the record straight. Look, he said to a
small cluster of American generals. We have fought together and some of us
have died together. I know you feel that makes us brothers. But that is not
the way it is in my world.
He looked around the circle making eye contact with all of them. I dont want
to see you hurt so I need to share this with you. There will be no tomorrow
for us jointly. No matter how much you have helped my country and you came
and helped us when we desperately needed your help and no matter how
friendly you feel toward us, we are still Muslims and you are still
Christians. That means that in our eyes, we can never be brothers. Im sorry
but to us, you will always be Infidels!
And so we Infidels have liberated Iraq and Afghanistan, but we have not made
their countries nor their people depositories of freedom and liberty. No
matter how hard we work to rebuild their governments, infrastructure,
educational and medical institutions, and no matter how desperately they
need our help as the Arab general pointedly noted we can never be brothers
to each other.
Also, I learned what Kipling meant when he wrote,
East is East, and West is West,
and never the twain shall meet.
He was pointing out to the western world that to Muslims,
we Christians will always be infidels!
PTT, the "conquest" you allude to is a bit more aligned with the Fourth Crusade (there were nearly a dozen when all was said and done) and of course included the Venetian backed sack and takeover of Constantinople.
You might want to refer to your own notes in that request for succor came to Rome from the Byzantines as they were being attacked and their territory conquered by the Mohammadens.
There is no question that no small amount of opportunism was underway during the early crusades, as various crusaders established their own fiefs in the Holy Land. More to this than purely religion, of course.
That said, I'll ask you to try to be a bit more precise in your criticisms.
You might want to refer to your own notes in that request for succor came to Rome from the Byzantines as they were being attacked and their territory conquered by the Mohammadens.
There is no question that no small amount of opportunism was underway during the early crusades, as various crusaders established their own fiefs in the Holy Land. More to this than purely religion, of course.
That said, I'll ask you to try to be a bit more precise in your criticisms.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ SASless
I would say that we in the West need to stop assuming that everyone lives by our values, or that they want to.
That said, without knowing (or really caring to know) a bit more about Maj Gen Curry, I have no idea what agenda he is trying to push.
@ Lonewolf
That's what I said:
"the armies of Christendom conquered former Byzantine lands: the lands of the very empire which had asked them for help against the conquering Muslim armies!"
Or am I misunderstanding your comment?
As to what is or is not "purely religion," who is to say, even nowadays?
I would say that we in the West need to stop assuming that everyone lives by our values, or that they want to.
That said, without knowing (or really caring to know) a bit more about Maj Gen Curry, I have no idea what agenda he is trying to push.
@ Lonewolf
You might want to refer to your own notes in that request for succor came to Rome from the Byzantines as they were being attacked and their territory conquered by the Mohammadens.
"the armies of Christendom conquered former Byzantine lands: the lands of the very empire which had asked them for help against the conquering Muslim armies!"
Or am I misunderstanding your comment?
As to what is or is not "purely religion," who is to say, even nowadays?
Last edited by PTT; 21st Sep 2012 at 14:01.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
A western, ergo Christian, goal is universal democracy. Is democracy the right way to Govern? We try an impose democracy on land areas deliniated by lines western maps.
Is it possible to impose real democracy or will it always be the rule of a very small and very powerful clique?
Are benevolent dictatorships more honest?
Would western deliniated countries be better managed as tribal lands?
Is it right that we should export democratic values against the will of a peoples?
Is it possible to impose real democracy or will it always be the rule of a very small and very powerful clique?
Are benevolent dictatorships more honest?
Would western deliniated countries be better managed as tribal lands?
Is it right that we should export democratic values against the will of a peoples?