# The Destruction of Anglo-Saxon Civilization?



## MAJOR_Baker (8 Jul 2004)

> Meanwhile, MEMRI reports a statement by an Iranian official in Tehran that his organization is mapping 29 sensitive sites in America as a list of targets.
> 
> This same official has publicly stated: "We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization."



I was wondering if this could be true?   I have read a lot of stuff as of late from "fundamentalist" websites that say their goal is to destroy western civilization (from subversion within-through legal and illegal immigration) and through attacks on the US.   Could this be true and are we asleep at the wheel?   Now, I don't want to start a flame war, but could something like this actually be happening or is it just bombastic talk?


----------



## tabernac (8 Jul 2004)

"We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization."
That would also mean Europe would be targeted also? This is not looking up...


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Jul 2004)

Just to be clear, 

In Europe the "progressive" side of society defines the "right wing" libertarian free-market agenda as the "Anglo-Saxon" agenda.

It is considered the opposition to "Old Europe".

Putting names to it, it means the US/Britain vs France/Germany in the EU context with the smaller nations choosing up sides. Generally the old Warsaw Pact countries are lining up on "Anglo-Saxon" side while the long-standing members of the EU are wobbling between the "Anglo-Saxon" agenda and the "Old Europe" agenda, depending on how "progessive" or "reactionary" the government of the day is.

For example 

Belgium and Luxembourg - generally "Old Europe"
Ireland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Holland - generally "Anglo-Saxon"
Portugal and Italy - currently "Anglo-Saxon"  but subject to change
Spain - was "Anglo-Saxon" but is now more "Old Europe" since the socialists got in
Greece - was "Old Europe" but unclear now since their last election.

You get the drift.

It is probably this divide that the folks posting that quote are addressing.  

We know where Australia stands in the scale of things.  Currently having difficulty assessing Canada's position. :-\ :-[

China, Russia are outliers at this time.

Iran seems to be internally split.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Jul 2004)

By the way it seems to have been the French Press or perhaps it was Chirac/de Villepin that have coined this usage.

It is the way the discussions were framed during the recent disputes over the new EU constitution.

Any takers on how long that talking-shop will last?


----------



## Slim (9 Jul 2004)

Gents

To be honest, it sounds more like hardliner Muslin fundamentalist dogma that Sherwood was trying to address...Unless I really missed something along the way there?

Scarey stuff either way!

Slim


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Jul 2004)

I think you are right Slim and Sherwood was referring to the hardliners ideology.

I was pointing out that the term "Anglo-Saxon" civilization represents a narrowing of focus.  Up until now most references of which I am aware, both from the US and Bin Laden et al have tended to use the expression "Western" civilization.

"Anglo-Saxon" has a very particular meaning in current European political discourse.  It is used to refer in general to a Thatcherite-Reagan view of society, economics and world view.  These days it also refers specifically to the "Bush-Blair Agenda".  It is used that way by the left wing in all European countries, including Britain.

I just found it interesting that the hardliners should now start referring to the enemy as "Anglo-Saxons".  Especially in light of the fact that since before the crusades, since the Battle of Poitiers in 732,  and up until some of Bin Ladens recent "press releases" the "West" has been synonymous with the "Franks" or the original bunch of Germans that came to dominate the area now known as France.

The change of terminology is interesting.

It could just reflect the fundamentalists clueing into the way that the Europeans use the term and is considered interchangeable in their minds with "West" and "Franks".  On the other hand it could also be an attempt to "divide and conquer" by appealing to Europeans by telling them the fight is not with them but only "Bush and Blair, those nasty Anglo-Saxons".  

Either way Chirac's position seems to be that all of the world's problems are a result of those "unenlightened Anglo-Saxons" and the only thing I can't make my mind up about is whether he sees himself as a neutral in the "clash of civilizations" or whether he has taken up sides.

As to the Iranian position being that of the hardliners, that gives limited comfort.  While the moderates seem to be trying to work with the US and Britain and their friends, arranging the release of the Brit Marines and Sailors recently and intervening with Al-Sadr, it is the hardliners that captured those Brits and paraded them blindfolded.  It is the hardliners that sent a couple of self-confessed intelligence officers into Iraq where they were captured recently by the Iraqis with explosives in their possession.  It is the hardliners that control the Revolutionary Guard that put down the student protests against the wishes of the government and Majlis, and it is the hardliners that have the keys to nuclear sites that they won't let the IAEA see.

While, just as I may be "starting at shadows" the hardliners may be "dreaming in techni-colour" about their capabilities.  However just because they have a faulty appraisal of their capabilities that doesn't preclude them having a plan, which would demonstrate their intentions.

In any event, as you say Slim, scary stuff either way.

The world isn't getting any simpler. ???


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Jul 2004)

This is what I was referring to above



> Tuesday, July 06, 2004
> 
> STORIES  BACKGROUND
> "¢U.S. Seeks U.N. Response to Iran Nuke Plan"¢Iran Vows to Resume Building Centrifuges"¢Wolfowitz Puzzled by Chalabi Actions"¢Kennedy Speech Focuses on Nuke Threat"¢Powell Hints at Sanctions for Iran"¢Libya to Cut Trade With Terror Nations"¢Bush Renews Criticism of Iran
> ...


----------



## winchable (9 Jul 2004)

Not that it isn't scary to hear someone say that and quite frankly I wouldn't doubt that there is no shortage of Iranians in official government circles who spout this off, so I don't question it's legitemacy at all.

I have issue with the way MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute) displays the information that it translates as being THE definitive source of news for people in the middle east.

The best example I can come up with is, the average Russian during the Soviet Era, did NOT find his news from PRAVDA or any state-run television. That's not to say they didn't watch and read these sources, it just means that they didn't find their "average Russian" news in these. The *only* news that MEMRi translates is official state-run news. 

You have to ask yourself when you take anything that MEMRI prints at face value, would you have picked up a Soviet newspaper, would you pick up a copy of GRANMA, would you pick up a copy of the People's Republic News and assume that it is the most accurate depiction of reality????

So I don't question the legitimacy of this source, and I don't question whether or not it was said. I just ask that before we take this as definitive proof that the end of the world is around the corner, people consider this.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Jul 2004)

No, not an "accurate depiction of reality" Che, but just like Pravda, TASS, Granma and PRN a combination of the truth, what the people that pay their salaries want to believe is the truth and what they want others to believe.

In short an effort to influence the external debate.

I don't believe that "the end of the world is nigh".   The world has gone through this many times before as have we as a species. It happens with regularity.

Every now and then the pieces are rearranged.

One of our more desirable traits is to try to find ways to talk ourselves out of problems.   To get people around a table and hash out those things that cause conflict.   However two problems invariably arise: who gets to sit around the table and who do they represent, and the problems of reaching a decision when more than two people meet at that table.

Think Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accord and the rise of the Bloc and the Reform parties, not to mention Native activism.   Think of the loss of Polish sovereignty because their parliament couldn't reach a decision because every landowner in the parliament demanded a veto.   Think of any planning meeting you have ever attended where the department was invited to sit around the table and decide what the programme for the next year was going to be.   I have attended a number where we spent half the day just trying to define a "vision".

The instincts to avoid physical conflict are not new to this generation.   They are well entrenched and have much precedence.   Unfortunately despite those instincts conflict often progresses from the verbal to the physical.

While I don't foresee a general conflagration, and I hope I am right, I do see a world in which a number of players have divergent interests and common interests.   And some of those players' interests have more in common with each other than they have with us.   And that is concerning.

I do think that we can be in for a very long period of instability, much like the Cold War or the Hundred Years War or the 30 Years War or the Era of the Warring States in China or... I could give a depressingly long list, including the 200 year Franco-English struggle for empire.   These struggles were characterised by long periods of quiet, either with or without truces, interspersed with occasional violent outbursts. And as much as conspiracy theories are derided there was central planning involved in all of these conflicts.   Alliances may have been formed and reformed but each participant in the conflict had a longterm goal.

The Cold War is often described as the war won without a shot being fired.   Tell that to the millions, tens of millions that died between 1945 and 1990.   Find a period when somebody that self-identified with one side or the other wasn't killing somebody else.   Famously, during this period of "peace and stability", and perhaps apocryphally, there was only one day when the British Army did not hear a shot fired in anger.   And many other armies were in the same boat.

As I said earlier, I don't expect the end of the world, but this is a time when the pieces are realigning and governments that we used to be able to rely on because we had some common interests are finding that their interests are now elsewhere.   And in common with people that used to be threats.

Also in some instances it is not so much that the threat has gone, it is that the threat has morphed.   Russia is a case in point.

Russia used a multi-prong approach to try and destabilize and bring down the "West", America in particular. Tie up resources through fomenting "proxy" wars, remove national support through propaganda and covert direct action and Tanks, Tanks, Tanks, in the immortal words of Slim.

The military command in Russia saw the first two exercises as setting the ground for the main event which was the required, desireable and inevitable conflict which would see the Tanks roll over the Inter-German Border and then "Tomorrow, the World".

I believe that a number of things have changed now that suggest that only some folks in the Pentagon, and an increasingly small number, see the future conflict in those terms. 

I believe that a number of people have come to the conclusion that it is not how many battles you win that gives you victory, but how many battles you avoid.   This has been a longstanding view of the Chinese military, it is the view that drove Britsh diplomacy and "The Great Game", it may be what Chirac is referring to with Sherwood's tag line of "I believe war is always represents failure" (sorry if I mangled the quote Sherwood).   

It would also be in line with Vladimir Putin's training and observations.   As noted by many Putin was trained in disinformation and propaganda and saw first hand the value of friendship societies and the influence they could exert.   He had a ringside seat to the Greenham Common Cruise Missile and Pershing Missile deployment demonstrations.   Anybody remember the Cruise Missile test demonstrations here?

I believe it is a safe bet that Putin believed that the Tanks and Afghanistan were a waste of resources.   That the small scale, under the radar type of actions typified by the KGB were the potential War Winners.   Now that they don't have the resources for either Tanks or foreign adventures, those KGB tactics are the only ones available to him. Thus he has the opportunity to resort to tactics he is likely to believe in and little opposition from the traditionalists because they can't afford to do it their way.   And he has an entrenched base of supporters and "fellow-travellers" who see the world in the same terms as they did when they were demonstrating against those missiles.

Admittedly this all presupposes that Vladimir isn't a nice guy who really has the best interests of the West at heart rather than those of Mother Russia.

And it could be that Bin Laden, and China and Britain and France and Holland don't have vested interests whose corner they are fighting.

I am prepared to be accused of being a conspiracy theorist.   But the way I see it, the world is a very unstable place right now, predicting the future is a mug's game.   The world may turn out to be on the cusp of the second coming.   But I don't think we should be counting on it.

Do you know why revolutions occur?  Because everybody agrees the people in charge are screwing up.

Do you know why revolutions fail? Because nobody can agree what to do next.


----------



## winchable (9 Jul 2004)

Well said, I honestly wasn't trying to start a debate.

I just find that people are sometimes more willing to take things at face value when it comes to Arab media and are more willing to say "well that's only one side" when it comes to CNN or Fox News.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Jul 2004)

Sorry about that comment about the Pentagon, that was an unnecessary dig.   The attitude I described most likely exists within all military establishments.

The Pentagon is likely to be further ahead in its thinking than most.

I guess even I have to guard myself against a latent anti-americanism.   Its been there most of my life having been raised a Brit.   There was always and underlying tendency not to thank the "rescuer" but a combination of resentment that we had to be rescued and especially by this bunch of upstarts that didn't know how to do the job as well as us and didn't do it as well.  (That may be instructive when viewing both Jacques Chirac and the current situation in Iraq.)

Well it is time for this Brit to say that, despite the pride I have in being British, and thus vicariously associating with the many great things the Brits have done for the world, and for Canada, this world would not be the place it is if it weren't for the Americans.   And for that I thank them.   I may not agree with everything they espouse and all of the things they do, just as I am aware of the many failings of Britain over the centuries.   But on balance this Brit, this Scot, is happy to associate with the "Anglo-Saxons".

Rant Ends, Shot over...


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Jul 2004)

Che

Thanks for the comment, not a personal thing just some issues these days to seem to me to be getting the attention the deserve in the "popular" press and every now and then my frustration gets the better of me.

Cheers.


----------



## nbk (9 Jul 2004)

Oh jesus...

Do you think people in the Mideast are trembling in fear when some inbred fatass from Alabama says "We have plans drawn up to create a white supremist chrstian state in the mideast, and will succeed in destroying their inferior society"? You can bet that the muslim radicals will cite examples such as the KKK to justify how brutal and radical all westerners are and get support from all the naive members of the public to support their jihad. Westerners who tremble in fear every time Johhny Taliban opens his mouth, and believe what he says to be the voice of all brown people are just as bad.

Stop trying to find reasons to hate people different from yourselves. The world is not going to end anytime soon unless you let the ignorant people on both sides run the show. As long as one side has level headed people, then the world will not be destroyed. No one is trying to take over our society, and indeed if you think for yourself, no one could take over our society unless they had the complete support of our governments and lots of support from the people. Just as we could not completely take over their society without support from their governments and people.

So unless westerners get brainwashed into thinking that the evil brown people are always going to try to kill them, and easterners get brainwashed into thinking the evil white people are going to destroy them, no one will attack anyone, and everyone will just go about their happy lives in their corners of the planet. There will be radicals on each side, but they will be such small groupings that they will have no opportunity to inflict any damage upon what they think is their "enemy" unless their "enemy" government lets them attack, for their own purposes of furthering their ignorant beliefs that they were sent to destory and crusade against everyone different from themselves...And I don't think the Persian government is going to let a bunch of KKK members attack their country so they can start a war with the US that they would end up loosing.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Jul 2004)

Could this be true and are we asleep at the wheel? 


Lets ask the CIA.


----------



## muskrat89 (9 Jul 2004)

When was the last time a bunch of bumbling inbreeds from Alabama killed 3000 people in a morning? Or drove a boatload of explosives into the side of a destroyer? Or bombed an African embassy? Or pushed an invalid in a wheelchair over the side of a cruise ship?

Now, before you get you FTLs in a knot, nbk - I must say that in essence, I agree with you (shudder). That being said, the people that were are talking about have demonstrated their willingness to act upon their crazy plans - more than once. I think that's what gives this more credibility - not hate.....


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Jul 2004)

Could this be true?

Short answer - who the heck knows.  

Anybody taking bets? 

Cheers, from your friendly neighbourhood raving loonie.


----------



## nbk (10 Jul 2004)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> When was the last time a bunch of bumbling inbreeds from Alabama killed 3000 people in a morning? Or drove a boatload of explosives into the side of a destroyer? Or bombed an African embassy? Or pushed an invalid in a wheelchair over the side of a cruise ship?



The governments of the countries that would get attacked by white supremists have no reason to allow an attack to happen, they would not benefit from it at all. As well, extremists living in america can live comfortably, whereas extremists living in the third world do not live comfortably, and are more likely to have a "what have I got to loose" mentality. Reverse the situation, Bubba living in a cave eating scorpion meat and having access to weapons and like minded individuals, and Ali Baba living in a trailer park eating chicken fingers and drinking beer, with his biggest concern being keeping his cousin's hands off his sister, and see who wants to attack the people that he thinks are keeping him down. 



> Now, before you get you FTLs in a knot, nbk - I must say that in essence, I agree with you (shudder). That being said, the people that were are talking about have demonstrated their willingness to act upon their crazy plans - more than once. I think that's what gives this more credibility - not hate.....



Aww I love you too sweetpea.  :-*


----------



## muskrat89 (10 Jul 2004)

Bin Laden is poor? I also recall that some of the 9/11 terrorists also came from wealthy families. The poor and oppressed thing only works so much....


Anyway, to reiterate my point (which I'm not sure you got) - for whatever reasons, Islamic extremeists have demonstrated their willingness to act, as opposed to (Timothy McVeigh an exception) the white supremicists/anti-govt/black panthers, and whatever othe homegrown groups we have running around here.

Glad to see you love me


----------



## Slim (24 Jul 2004)

_So unless westerners get brainwashed into thinking that the evil brown people are always going to try to kill them, and easterners get brainwashed into thinking the evil white people are going to destroy them, no one will attack anyone, and everyone will just go about their happy lives in their corners of the planet. There will be radicals on each side, but they will be such small groupings that they will have no opportunity to inflict any damage upon what they think is their "enemy" unless their "enemy" government lets them attack, for their own purposes of furthering their ignorant beliefs that they were sent to destroy and crusade against everyone different from themselves_

I understand what you're trying to say, however the "perfect world" we all dream about will never happen and we must deal with the realities of what is...Not what we wish it could be.

And terrorists almost always come from rich or wealthy families...Poor people are too busy just trying to survive to start revolts and terrorize people.

Slim


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Jul 2004)

Amen Slim


----------



## Guardian (28 Jul 2004)

nbk, could you just clarify what you mean by this part of your statement:



			
				nbk said:
			
		

> The governments of the countries that would get attacked by white supremists have no reason to allow an attack to happen, they would not benefit from it at all.



Given the context of your statement, you appear to be implying that the reason the KKK hasn't attacked Iran is because the Iranians don't have incentive to allow it. Ergo, the reason 9/11 and the other attacks described by muskrat89 happened is because the US and other western governments had incentive to allow it... 

If I'm misreading your statement, I sincerely apologize.  :-\


----------



## nbk (28 Jul 2004)

All I am saying is that I was not on those planes that crashed into those towers. I do not know exactly what happened on board, who was on board, etc.

I am not inside the minds of all the people in the US government and the other powers that be which supercede the US government.

I am not in Osama bin Laden's head. I cannot say for sure why he did what he allegedly did and if anyone above him provided instruction to him on exactly what he should do and when, and gave him assurance he would get away with it, and it would be for their mutual benefit.

All I know about what he allegedly did is what he has said on recorded tapes that have been translated by the US government. I haven't any way of verifying anything he said, and neither does any of you.

I will not claim I know the whole picture, but I also realize that not a single person else knows the whole picture, except for bin Laden and likely other high ranking al Queda members, the US government and the ones who control the US government.

I do not trust the US government's propaganda any more then I would trust Al Queda's propaganda.

If you take a few steps back, curb your emotions and look at all of the facts that the official story holds, it really doesn't add up, which leads some non afraid people to think for themselves and wonder what exactly really happened. If the official accounts are obviously flawed why are they still being portrayed as 100% factual information?

If you look at the entire situation the people who have benefitted most since 9/11 were the US government (and its superiors) and Osama bin Laden, and other very badly known middle eastern aristocrats. Everyone under these people has lost out.

We constantly see evidence trickling out about how much the US government knew about the attacks in the months and years leading up to 9/11, however it is conveniently leaked out in such a slow fashion that the masses forget about it by the time the next bit is exposed. It is also never given the amount of press it deserves due to the US governments control over the media. The ignorant public does not step back and look at all of the evidence as one big picture. After all, as long as they remain ignorant they have an enemy which they can hate, and luckily they dont have to deal firsthand with this enemy since he lives on the other side of the world. It is such a distressing thought for some that the enemy may be in your neighbourhood, on your tv, collecting your taxes, that they gladly remain ignorant to the possibility because it would tear down their entire lives should facts get exposed.

Now let me make it clear, these are my views that I have come to by myself from simply looking at the facts with an objective eye, and choosing not to dismiss the flaws in the official story which are apparent to anyone who is not afraid to look for them. I don't really want to debate this with you guys because your arguments will be so perdictable that I could write out the whole debate in my own head. I cannot and will not change your mind about anything, because this is one of the instances where you have to *want* to know the truth to find the truth. If you want to stay comfortable in your life and comfortable with your government, no amount of evidence I give to you will change your mind because you are not comfortable with the idea of living in an uncertian atmosphere. If you are comfortable living in the world as you see it today nothing is going to shake that sense of comfort and your natural defence mechanisms will kick in to automatically assume anything I say is incorrect because you cannot comprehend or live with it if it were true. It would be the death of your conscience and belief system, so naturally you conscience is going to step up and save itself.

So don't bother telling me how wrong I am, you do not see things as I do, and neither of us will change eachother's mind. Just don't be afraid to think about what I've said. They can't monitor your thoughts (yet...).



> "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
> 
> 
> -- Reichsmarschall Herman GÃƒÂ¶ring at the Nuremberg trials


----------



## winchable (28 Jul 2004)

I've heard that theory before as well.
I don't dismiss it outright if it's presented well enough because there are things, be the coincidence or not I have NO idea, that would suggest there is some substance to such a theory.
Documents released many years ago stating that "barring an event with the magnitude of pearl harbour, the current attrition rate for the armed forces is likely to continue for many years." I probably shouldn't have used quotations since that is from memory, but you get the picture.
I tend to dismiss it as being an interesting coincidence rather than proof positive that the US government had no inclination to actually prevent the terrorist attacks, but it does open up a "outside the box way of thinking" that can be interesting to mull over in your spare time.


----------



## Guardian (28 Jul 2004)

I see. I can't agree with you, though, nbk - and here's why:



			
				nbk said:
			
		

> the other powers that be which supercede the US government.



Which powers are these? The oil companies that pay US taxes and which are regulated by them financially and environmentally? The Republican or Democratic parties, each of which regularly loses free and fair elections? Please tell us.



			
				nbk said:
			
		

> I am not in Osama bin Laden's head. I cannot say for sure why he did what he allegedly did



I'll try to, then. The man has called for the spilling of American blood and the slaughter of the infidels. Given that statements such as these have been reported in many independent information sources - such as non-US publications like Jane's and the Guardian, and of course Al-Jazeera, I'll assume Bin Laden thirsts for US and "Zionist" blood. It would certainly fit his pattern - his organization has claimed responsibility for smaller massacres and attacks (Madrid, Bali, the USS Cole, Khobar Towers, the African US embassy bombings, etc.) and so I fully believe that Bin Laden is both capable and inclined to pull off the 9/11 attacks. I agree that some shadowy US Government organization might have the capability, but to say the US gov't has the inclination / motive (considering the economic damage to the US both from the attacks and from the response afterward, not to mention 3000 innocent American lives) is MUCH harder to believe than Bin Laden.



			
				nbk said:
			
		

> All I know about what he allegedly did is what he has said on recorded tapes that have been translated by the US government. I haven't any way of verifying anything he said, and neither does any of you.



Again, you're ignoring Bin Laden's proven history of homicide, while ascribing untrustworthiness (yet unproven) to the US government. I'll take the Americans' word for this, because it fits with Bin Laden's past record.



			
				nbk said:
			
		

> I do not trust the US government's propaganda any more then I would trust Al Queda's propaganda.



As many mistakes as the US might have committed in its past, to denigrate a democratic country, its government, and its 280 million people by equating their trustworthiness to that of a proven homicidal terrorist organization is absolutely unbelievable.



			
				nbk said:
			
		

> If you look at the entire situation the people who have benefitted most since 9/11 were the US government (and its superiors) and Osama bin Laden, and other very badly known middle eastern aristocrats.



Although Bush gained in popularity since the attacks, he now stands an excellent chance of losing the election - albeit because of Iraq. And if the "truth" as you are implying it ever were to get out, I would hazard a guess that the US government would not benefit - the questionable benefits to the US gov't of launching / allowing such attacks are far outweighed by the potential consequences of having the conspiracy found out. Therefore, your implication is so fantastic as to deny itself credibility - I don't believe it for a minute, it makes no logical sense.

Bin Laden hardly benefited - his organization is under global attack, his Taliban hosts have been toppled, his Afghan hideouts blown apart, his training camps leveled, his top lieutenants either in hiding, in US custody or dead, and he personally is on the run with a debilitating kidney condition.

Middle Eastern aristocrats - the Saudi regime, for instance, his facing a surge in terrorism. Al-Qaeda wants to topple the Saudi royals, and their activity in the country is increasing at the same time that the American presence is dwindling. Those Arab regimes who supported the Iraq war now have to contend with restive and hostile populations. I find it hard to believe that they "benefitted."



			
				nbk said:
			
		

> It is also never given the amount of press it deserves due to the US governments control over the media.



The US government has less control over its media than do most European countries (or even Canada). Furthermore, much of the media in the US has a decidedly liberal bent and is more inclined to be hostile to Bush personally and Republicans generally. Read the New York Times' editorial page sometime for evidence. So far from supporting and kowtowing to the current US administration, I would contend that the US media is generally hostile to it - and thus has a vested interest in publishing stories that might hurt the US government.



			
				nbk said:
			
		

> Now let me make it clear, these are my views that I have come to by myself from simply looking at the facts with an objective eye



This is just my opinion, but anyone who equates the trustwortiness of a Western democracy with that of a bloodthirsty terrorist group cannot honestly describe himself as "objective."



			
				nbk said:
			
		

> I cannot and will not change your mind about anything, because this is one of the instances where you have to *want* to know the truth to find the truth.



I would say that you "want" to believe that the US government, one of the oldest democatic institutions on earth, would be capable of such a horrific act. You want to believe it so badly you perform impressive leaps of logic that I daresay would be beyond the inclinations of the majority of those on this board.



			
				nbk said:
			
		

> If you want to stay comfortable in your life and comfortable with your government, no amount of evidence I give to you will change your mind because you are not comfortable with the idea of living in an uncertian atmosphere.



You're talking to a group of serving, retired, and aspiring soldiers. Please don't patronize us about wanting to stay "comfortable" in our lives or in an uncertain atmosphere.


----------



## RCA (28 Jul 2004)

The same things were said about Pearl Harbour.

However following the theory along, the US government need something to wake the populous up (for potentail invasion of Iraq? - this would echo Clarke), but as the 9/11 report says, lacked the imagination to think of the magnitude and horror of the actual wakeup call they got.

Interesting, but like Pearl Harbour, unprovable. Look at any event long enough, a conspiracy theory is bound to pop up.


----------



## Smoothbore (28 Jul 2004)

I see Islam is all the rage on these boards these days..Becoming very monotonous.
Here is basically what you need to know as a Westerner about Islam:

It only exists at this moment thanks to the low level of literacy and education in Arabic countries. This allows the few educated and worldly individuals (such as Osama) to gain power and a following by preaching the only thing familiar and to all Arabs - the Koran. It's a proven fact that the less people are educated the more narrow-minded and xenophobic they become, less tolerant to foreign influences such as a Western presence. Notice that before WWII (and after the Poles handed Muslims their a**** at Vienna in 1683) there wasn't any extremist dogma calling for the eradication of "infidels".

Osama doesn't hate freedom..He's just a narrow-minded racist trying to manifest a political message.

It's too bad Iranians sunk into this whole fundamentalist thing back in 1979, that inferior religion is just binding them, they could have been as successful as Turkey. Iran has a highly educated and skilled workforce unlike the vast majority of Arabs whose only knowledge of the world surrounding them is that Jews in America are bombing Palestinian schoolchildren. The Persians I know here in Canada are solid and productive individuals that will contribute society. Thanks to a new generation of talented and well-read people in Iran unrest is brewing, students are demanding reform, certain liberties, if we can somehow induce these reactions we would be able to eliminate a potential threat in the region. I put a lot of hope into Iran. Let's start being proactive instead of reactive. Democratic reforms in Iran will signal that extremism was just a seasonal fad.
BTW Jihad was a term introduced by the Germans in WWI as a way to encourage moderate Turks to take-up arms against Allied forces. So in fact, Fundamentalists are the product of the white mans political tool. We made the mess, we ought to clean it up.

My rant is now complete. I hope I didn't venture off topic too far...


----------



## winchable (28 Jul 2004)

I always had a hunch my religion was inferior, thanks for showing us all who the narrow minded people are.


I should ask though which religion you're referring to when you are speaking of inferiority. Turkey is a Muslim state as well (Take a look at the flag)
Unless you are referring to fundementalist Islam as the inferior and secular Islam as the superior.
In which case it's a fairly relative argument. To many Muslims a secular society is an impossibility as religion is built into everyday life (any country where people stop 5 times a day to get on a mat and prostrate is less the secular) so a secular Islam is impossible. To a "secular" Muslim, fundemental Islam is seen as barbaric, to the barbarian, even the educated one, it is simply a return to the fundementals (The Pillars of the Islamic faith is enough for the majority of us, but to some the fundementals mean something entirely different)

I don't know if you're trying to say that Islam in general exists right now because many Muslims are too illiterate and uneducated to know any better. Or if extremist groups exist because people are too illiterate and uneducated.

Edit(again) I'm actually not trying to go on the defenisve here, I'm just trying to understand if you think I'm an illiterate uneducated arab.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Jul 2004)

Don't take it too personally Che. 

My ancestors spent a great deal of time burning each other at the stake because some knelt to pray and others didn't.

We have always had our fair share of moderates.


----------



## Guardian (29 Jul 2004)

Smoothbore said:
			
		

> Islam... only exists at this moment thanks to the low level of literacy and education in Arabic countries.



Smoothbore, you're not only denigrating an entire religion and ethnic group by means of a stereotypical generalization, you're managing at the same type to denigrate anyone with religious beliefs. I've got a degree, I consider myself a fairly smart guy, and I'm strongly religious (Christian) - how does that work? How do you explain the presence of educated Muslims in Canada, or the fact that Islam is one of our fastest-growing religions here? Is it because of our "low level of literacy and education?" 

Now, I don't feel an urge to go blowing up people, but that's because such inclinations are not the product of religion - although some sick people try to use it as a justification. People are murderers and terrorists because they are insane, or they are socially maladjusted, or they have pathological / psychological problems. 

Case in point:



			
				Smoothbore said:
			
		

> It's a proven fact that the less people are educated the more narrow-minded and xenophobic they become, less tolerant to foreign influences such as a Western presence.



Did you know Bin Laden has a degree in civil engineering? Or that many of the 9/11 attackers were Western-educated?



			
				Smoothbore said:
			
		

> Osama doesn't hate freedom..He's just a narrow-minded racist trying to manifest a political message.



I agree with you here. However, one doesn't have to be religious to be racist - look at Nazi Germany.

The tone of your comments - _religion is a byproduct of poor education_ - deeply disturbs me. Sounds like something written by Karl Marx, or Lenin, or Mao. And we all know where that led.

I think you owe Che an apology, for starters. Your comment was thoughtless, unnecessary, and reflects badly on everyone on this board.


----------



## Smoothbore (29 Jul 2004)

Che said:
			
		

> I don't know if you're trying to say that Islam in general exists right now because many Muslims are too illiterate and uneducated to know any better. Or if extremist groups exist because people are too illiterate and uneducated.



Within that second sentence lies the point to my entire argument.




			
				Guardian said:
			
		

> People are murderers and terrorists because they are insane, or they are socially maladjusted, or they have pathological / psychological problems.



Then why didn't some insane Chinese or Belgian psychopath fly into the World Trade Towers?


----------



## Guardian (29 Jul 2004)

Smoothbore said:
			
		

> Then why didn't some insane Chinese or Belgian psychopath fly into the World Trade Towers?



Who says in the future that won't happen? Look at Tim McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing- up till 9/11 the deadliest terror attack in US history. He wasn't religiously motivated - he was nuts.

Why did Pol Pot kill 2 million Cambodians? It certainly wasn't because of religion. Taking innocent lives is against the tenets of every mainstream religion I am aware of - including Islam - and so blaming religious beliefs for 9/11 misses the point that I was making, which is that these terrorists are psychopaths. That's why they kill people.

I offer as rebuttal evidence the Red Brigades, the FLQ, and the Japanese Red Army - all terrorist groups who killed people. Marxist groups all, who had no religious affiliation - they stood against religion, as a matter of fact (Marx called religion "the opium of the masses").  And furthermore, many members of such groups are highly educated! 

You still haven't answered my point about education - lack thereof does not produce terrorism. Looking at recent high-profile attacks like 9/11, using your logic (which looks for root causes) I would have to conclude that education, indeed, produces terrorism - many are well educated. Look at the Aum Shinrikyo nerve gas attacks in Tokyo - try telling me that was because of Japan's illiteracy and lack of education, or that anyone with a grade three education could mount a WMD attack like that.

Education does NOT inoculate society from terror. Neither will stamping out religion - look at Communist China and Russia, Cambodia, etc. Cuba is supposed to be secular and has consistently been a state sponsor of terror. 

Take a long, hard look at your argument and compare it to the real world. And while you're at it, you still owe several hundred million law-abiding Arab Muslims an apology.


----------



## Smoothbore (29 Jul 2004)

My first post wasn't very clear, this is what I'm trying to imply:
Lack of education breeds extreme views and provides support for extremists who are not psychopaths but sophisticated, educated individuals seeking revenge for America's association and military/financial support of Israel. Period.

McVeigh believed in what he was doing, because he was taught to believe that the Federal Government is conspiring against its own citizens. Psychopath? Possibly.

Here's a great video taking on religion:
http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?reposid=/multimedia/tds/car/carell_7145.html


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Jul 2004)

> The Parade Square / News / Re: The Netherlands  on: Today at 11:47:09
> Quote
> "What we see is that people who have been cooperating are participating and those who aren't cooperating are declining to attend," asks Mr. Khafaji. "Either we were going to have a conference where everyone from the extreme religious establishment to the extreme liberals [font=Verdanawere going to come in, or else there's no point in having it
> [/quote]
> ...


----------



## Guardian (29 Jul 2004)

Smoothbore,

No one will deny that many Arab countries have problems nowadays - poverty, dictatorship, illiteracy, etc. But did you know that several hundred years ago the Islamic world led the West in literature, technology, and philosophy? We use an Arabic numeric system - our modern 1,2,3 hove roots in that very culture. The mathematical concept of the number zero - a number with no value - is a concept we borrowed from Muslims hundreds of years ago, and has enabled most of modern mathematics. Muslims were some of the first soldiers to use cannon in combat - during the siege of Constantinople.

Why the Islamic world has fallen behind in terms of quality of life and technology is a topic beyond the scope of this thread. But I've pointed out here that Islam certainly didn't hold them back hundreds of years ago, and since then Christianity certainly hasn't held back the West. As for Christianity, why did the Christian world suffer through the Dark Ages, and then recover to become a powerful civilization if they remained Christian throughout? Take Judaism too - the Jewish people once had a homeland two thousand years ago, then were dispersed for centuries, and now again have a nation of their own. Their ups and downs aren't consistent with your implication that religion is just an "opiate for the poor."

In short, you can see that religion has remained constant in these cultures, while their respective fortunes have risen and fallen. Therefore, you cannot make a case in any way that religion is tied to educational standards, or standards of living of any kind.

Your attitude about religion in general and Islam in particular is disturbing. Your use of a Comedy Central clip to try to support your anti-religious bias would be laughable (pun fully intended) if it weren't so offensive. As a person with religious beliefs, I may not be able to fully identify with or understand someone who has none, but I will certainly fully support their right to believe any way they choose, and respect that viewpoint's legitimacy on that basis. 

You, however, appear to disagree, and have implied in a circular fashion that religion / Islam is a blight to be corrected through re-education. You do not consider someone who is religious to have a legitimate point of view, and have implied that it is a threat. That, Smoothbore, is intolerance. It is little different from a religious figure who would wish to "re-educate" you because of your own beliefs. That attitude towards those you do not agree with is one that my grandfather fought against in World War II, and it's one I, as a soldier, would be prepared to lay my life down to fight now.

Maybe you didn't intend to come off that way, but you certainly have disturbed a few people here. And that apology is still absent....


----------



## Smoothbore (29 Jul 2004)

You guys are so painfully politically correct. No apology is due, for what is strictly my unwavering personal opinion.
For answers to any further questions you may have please read my last post, I'm assuming you haven't done so yet since were already accusing me of view sympathetic to the Third Reich.

The video was to supposed to portray my position on religion, I'm a Roman Catholic and I don't care what other religions people decide to pursue, as long as they keep it out of Politics. I'm certainly not an atheist, just a supporter of separating church and state.


----------



## nbk (29 Jul 2004)

Guardian said:
			
		

> Which powers are these? The oil companies that pay US taxes and which are regulated by them financially and environmentally? The Republican or Democratic parties, each of which regularly loses free and fair elections? Please tell us.



I said I would not argue this, but some things I said were unclear so I will just clarify them. 

People think up all sorts of names for the power that controls the US government and many governments all over the world. People call it the Shadow Government, the Illuminati, part of the Skull and Bones, etc etc etc. I wont use these names, because I don't want what I am saying to seem too colourful. The powers that supercede the US government is just that, an invisible (to the public) power that has complete control over the US government, and influences both the Republican party and the Democratic party. Bush is under their influence, but so was Clinton, Regan, Carter, Nixon, Kennedy etc etc. Some of these presidents do not agree with what the powers want, and they are reprimanded. I am not going to start talking about Kennedy and what he did to piss them off and how that affected him, because that is an entierly other topic. 

A more recent example is Clinton. 

Just *consider* the following take on events of the last few years. I am also not saying that the US government used its own agents to attack its own country, but I am only asking the question of where Osama got his motivation and got the chance from. It is a well known fact bin Laden used to work for the CIA in the 1980s, where is the evidence that he had ever terminated his contract with them? I do believe al Queda is a real threat and a legit terrorist organization, filled with radical fundamentalists who wish to destroy all of the infidels. I also believe that bin Laden influences and recruits these radicals with his doctrine and gets them to do his bidding. But find it hard to believe that a very intelligent and rich man such as bin Laden would believe in his doctrine and not have an alterior motive for creating and using al Queda to carry out attacks. 

I do not believe bin Laden could do all that he does by himself, unless he had some people who were helping him and allowing him to get away with things.

This brings me back to Clinton. During his time as President the USA's embassies got attacked in Africa and a handful of other al Queda attacks occured. The superiors who helped bin Laden carry out these attacks wanted Clinton to start a ground war with al Queda, as this is the only method al Queda's army can fight. This would also allow US forces to get a "foot in the door" to take the middle east, in perticular seize their oil supplies. Al Queda would be no real big problem for the US military to take care of, the US superiors would get their oil, and bin Laden (their "agent in the field") would conveniently escape capture. And the US public would be whipped into a position behind their government because after all, "the country is at war, we must support the government no matter what".

Clinton's mistake was going against the superiors wishes. Instead of starting a ground war he bombed al Queda from five thousand feet. The public did not consider this a real war and they would not for a second stand for middle east nation building. The US did not get into the mideast, oil remained out of US hands and the powerful superiors were mighty pissed. Since Clintons term was already ending they hadn't any reason to pull another Kennedy with him, so they just let his term end. During the next presedential election, they had to make sure Clintons right hand man did not get in, and you see this in the fact that they rigged the elections to give a new guy a chance. 

The bombings in Africa and the USS Cole and all the others were not pwerful enough to whip up the american public into a colonization frenzy, so they pulled off 9/11 and it worked. Bush complied with their wishes, they got their war, and managed to seize 2 countries so far. You can bet Bush is going to stay for a while longer, and I won't be suprised when he "wins" the next US election.

Is this what happened? Maybe. Maybe not. It does tie up a lot of loose ends and gives reasons to explain things that don't make much sense other wise.



Now to get on to the other topic a bit, a few things I noticed that were off. 

Timothy McVeigh was a hardcore religious christian white supremist. He also comitted the bombing on 19 April to coincide with the storming of the branch Davidian complex in Waco Texas. The Davidians are another group of religious people. McVeigh didn't like the idea of the government stopping them just because they wanted to live outside of society by themselves and somehow in his mind he saw this as a god given opportunity to make a right by blowing up the federal building in Oklahoma..

The Nazis were religious, and although they expanded their reich for purposes of German nationalism and politics, the more sinister parts of their rule are attributed to religion. For example the Jewish holocaust. Hitler and all the high ranking Nazis were christians, and they were serious about it. They saw it acceptable to kill all of the Jews in Europe because they allegedly killed their christ, who was important to them. The German people have accepted that dark part of their history and acknowledge it, the christian people could at least do the same and acknowledge that these people did very bad things in the name of their god, instead of denying that their religion had anything to do with it. 

Don't forget the Soviets drained all of Hitlers resources on the eastern front, which allowed an assault on western front to succeed and allowed for the collapse of the third reich. If it were not for Athiest Soviets you may all be saying "Gott Mit Uns" right now. Soviets were not perfect at all, some things that the dictators did in the USSR even surpassed the Jewish holocaust in the numbers of dead.

Makes one wonder how the Soviet public would have reacted if someone started alledging that Stalin had killed millions of farmers in the Ukrane by starving them to death. "Stalin and his government loves all of the people under his control! They would never harm the children of Mother Russia! We must concentrate on the enemies to our beloved nation and not question our perfect leader."


----------



## SFontaine (29 Jul 2004)

TINFOIL HAT! WHERE IS MY TINFOIL HAT?!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Jul 2004)

NBK I think you have had far too much home grown this week lol


----------



## winchable (31 Jul 2004)

> So does that mean that Canada and other western predominantely Christian nations have a somewhat different future?



Yes of course.

As for Turkey, he praised it for being superior to other states as if it were a Christian state, but then called it's religion inferior in another area. I didn't even come close to debating it's history.

And I'm only a pirate on the weekends or more accurately a privateer...which makes it okay somehow. In any case my gold hoard supplements my miniscule paycheque quite nicely.
Besides, I can still be Canadian and an Arab...and a sailor...and a pirate...err privateer.


----------

