Muzzies, Godwin's, and Liberal Media BiasFollow

Gbaji, if your theory was correct, Islamic terrorism would be over by now. In fact, it would've stoppde in 2003. OBL would have declared peace, and called for his brothers to put down their arms.

Why hasn't it happened?

Well, considering he's been living in a cave in Afghanistan for 10 years, I wouldn't be surprised if he did.

What if you wave a chair at him? Or stand on one of those round platforms? Is there a way to get OBL to balance on a brightly colored ball?

"Over and above" means "in addition to". See, for example, http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/over+and+above

or: http://www.allwords.com/word-over%20and%20above%20something.html

The first two hits from googling "over and above".

Reading comprehension? Indeed.

Although you are already wrong, let us for the sake of argument assume you are, somehow, right.

No, really.

Let's assume it is a mistranslation - or even if it is not a translation - even if these are the words from OBL's mouth - that he didn't mean what he said.

In this case, we arrive at the last point of my previous post, which I will repeat here for the, erm, shall I say very able to read, but unwilling, gbaji.

There were many foreign militaries in Saudi Arabia. If, as you claim, it is indeed causal: if A (foreign troops in Suadi Arabia) then B (OBL orders an attack against you) - where were the strikes against each of the Gulf War coalition partners?

In case you can read, but cannot count, that is two independent lines of reasoning.

Humored, as always,

yoyo

Um... Yes. Because you're missing the difference in meaning. The phrase "over and above" does mean "in addition to", but has a specific connotation of separation and importance included within it. When something is "over and above" something else, it means that the other thing already exists and this new thing adds on top of it. It's a statement of status-quo plus something new.

It also denotes a degree of importance. The "over and above" thing is significant in its effect on what it's adding to. So if you were to say "I got paid 100 dollars over and above my regular pay", the extra 100 bucks is considered to be important in its unusualness or significance. You expected the regular pay, but you got something else "over and above" it...

If OBL meant for the stationing of soldiers in SA to be at the same level of signifigance, he would not have used that phrase. He'd have simply said: "Because of the soldiers occupying the land of the holy sites and because of the US support of a hated regime in SA and the US support of the evil Zionists...".

See how the word "and" denotes equality? Over and above sets significance on the thing that is "over and above" the other thing(s).


Someone with really good reading comprehension would know that. It's about more then just looking up synonyms online and declaring one phrase to be equivalent to another because they're both in a list together. There are significant differences of meaning based on the word choice.


Ultimately, the point is that Omega countered my arguments about OBLs reasons for directing attacks against the US by making a snide comment that unless someone sat down with OBL and asked him, we couldn't possibly know his reasons. I produced an interview where someone did exactly that, and in which the very reason I've been talking about what the first statement out of his mouth in response to the question.

I guess I'm just curious what level of "proof" would satisfy you? I made the claim and was attacked for it. I supported it with writings from OBLs fatwas, and everyone goes off about how my interpretation might be wrong, and he might have meant something else, and if only someone could have asked him, maybe we'd know for sure. Then, when I present exactly that information you guys *still* refuse to believe it.


What level of proof will satisfy you? Seriously. Because it sure seems like you guys determine truth based on what matches beliefs you already possess. You certainly aren't determining it based on facts.




Heh. I am right. Perhaps if you started out with an open mind and looked at the facts instead of starting with an assumption and refusing to acknowledge anything that challenges it? Just a suggestion...



Why? How about we assume that the translation was correct and that he meant what he said? Why do you insist on creating "what if" scenarios to support your position? Why not look at what is and base your position on that instead? Doesn't that make more sense?


But hey! I'll play along, although I'm not sure what this can possibly prove...




First off, I'm not sure how many soldiers from other nations were stationed in Iraq. Pretty sure we had the most by far. Additionally, the US clearly was leading the effort against Iraq. That other nations were also involved is somewhat irrelevant. If the US had pulled its soldiers out of the effort to apply sanctions against Iraq, it's unlikely that there would have been any. The UN certainly seemed perfectly ok to just ignore the situation. We can play "what if" games here, but the fact is that we were the main player involved. Why direct attacks against the bit players?


Um... And that's all beside the point. You're using the logic wrong. Once again, you're trying to argue that since something could have happened differently, that this means that it didn't really happen the way it did happen. The facts are that OBL did direct attacks against the US because the US did have soldiers stationed in SA, which were there enforcing the UN sanctions on Iraq. The fact that OBL didn't direct attacks on other nations is utterly irrelevant to that chain of logic.

It's like arguing that the racist who burned a cross on some black family's yard in the 60s wasn't really racially motivated because there were other black families who's yards he *didn't* burn a cross on. It's a horrible bit of illogic. All we have to do is determine the motive for burning a cross on *that* family's yard. Period. Everything else is extraneous and irrelevant.

In the same way, all we have to do is determine the motive OBL used for directing attacks against the US. Period.


It's pretty straightforward. I guess I just don't understand the incredible desire to deny this. Let's recap:

OBL named his first fatwa: "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."

OBL's second fatwa contained even more concise languge restating the same reason for jihad against the US.

OBL's statement in the interview quoted above *again* repeats the same reason.


How many times does he have to single that one thing out before you recognize that it's significant? It's more important then all the other backround reasons. Yes. We support a regime he dislikes in SA. Yes. We support Isreal. Yes. We're not on Palestine's "side" (not enough anyway). Yup. Those are all issues. However, this one is the most important.

One might say it is "over and above" all the others...

Edited, Aug 7th 2007 7:35pm by gbaji

Is that you on the surf?

Pretty impressive if so...

I think, Gbaji, that you may be underestimating the 'breadth' of the dislike of US foreign policy.

Trying to reduce it to something as simple as the number of US soldiers stationed in Saudi Arabia is a very blinkered PoV.

The disgust at US actions in the ME, by the residents of that region, and after the last few years, by people (not all Muslim BTW) all over the world, has grown from a lot more than the military presence in SA (tho that for sure has had a huge impact).

Your personal belief in the God -given right of the US to project its power and opinions to far off lands, no matter what the consequences for the 'locals', is a fine example of the audacity that the US foreign policy as a whole, continues to demonstrate.

I would hazard a guess that that self- assured righteousness and unwavering belief in the infallibility and 'rightness' of your actions (no matter the consequences to the citizens) contributes in no small way to the support of groups who are seen as 'fighting back' against the 'Great Satan' in the West.


For you to fail to understand that US global foreign policy, as a whole, is a primary cause of the distrust and eventual visceral hatred of a country like America by many of the people who are now willing to die for that hatred shows how naiave you are in understanding the world outside your own country.

Like Bush and co. agreed to go to war in Iraq based on WMD's, because "it was something they could all agree on", as was OBL deciding to use US military in SA as a reason to attack you. It wasn't his only reason, but it was one that all the radicals could get behind.

gbaji believes Iraq was linked to 9-11. They're linked via Saudi Arabia, because having soldiers in Saudi Arabia (to defend the no fly zones in Iraq) caused 9-11, in his opinion:

First, gbaji says:
(emphasis mine)

He says this many times:



And eventually he resorts to the rather outragous claim that troops in SA cause 9/11, which he didn't say earlier. But that's ok.

(emphasis mine)

When asked exactly what he means by "cause", e.g. was SA "the" cause, or just a contributing cause he says:



So, troops in SA will always result in attacks. A rather bold claim. It is a "sufficient" cause.

Note the use of "always".

But we all know that many nations had (and still have) troops stationed in SA. So I say:



To which gbaji replies:





On a separate note, gbaji dismissed what other people brought up as potential contributing causes:



So I was reading the 9-11 commission report, because it's public, and there it says: "Though novel for its open endorsement of indiscriminate killing, Bin Ladin’s 1998 declaration was only the latest in the long series of his public and private calls since 1992 that singled out the United States for attack." So before this declaration, he called for attacks against US Soldiers - NOT 9/11, but in this declaration, he calls for indiscriminate killing, e.g. 9/11.

(see http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf

page 48 (PDF page 66). )

So I figure I should read this 1998 declaration. Fortunately it is also public. You can go read the whole thing here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/...3-fatwa.htm

The title is: "Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders". And conveniently, right at the front, is a little list of reasons for this new call to arms:

No. US troops in SA "caused" 9/11 to happpen.

Sheesh!

Your argument is obviously flawed. Clearly you can't interpret my statement to mean "any nation that has troops in SA will cause them to suffer a 9/11 type attack", since "any nation" includes the Saudi Arabian government as well.

The cause was specifically US troops in Saudi Arabia (as I stated repeatedly throughout this thread). Changing who has soldiers there and why changes the condition "A" in that relationship (and therefore the certainty of "B" occuring). Obviously, those soldiers being US soldiers is part of the conditions that "cause" the 9/11 attack to occur. This was so obvious I figured I didn't need to make special note of it. Apparently, what is obvious to some just isn't very obvious to others (or others choose to be deliberately dense on some topics).



Oddly, I don't see the world "always" in the quote. Whatever (edit: Found it. Um... that's your word. Sheesh! Strawman much?).

However, the word "US" is either present or strongly implied (our troops, the troops, those troops, etc) when I made my arguments about why OBL directed attacks at the US.


Let me explain (again!). The presense of US troops in Saudi Arabia is the prime cause of OBL directing attacks at US targets around the globe, and ultimately resulted in the 9/11 attacks occuring. US troops were present in Saudi Arabia as part of the UN operations against Iraq (and protection of SA from Iraq).

What part of that is unclear to you?

Edited, Aug 14th 2007 7:37pm by gbaji

It's crystal-clear, but incredibly simplistic and, therefore, ultimately wrong.

No one is denying that US troops in SA were part of the AQ reasoning. But you're adamant that it was the main reason, whereas everyone else understands that the problem is broader and more complex than that.

And then, you have the small issue of using that excuse to justify the invasion of Iraq. Surely, you're the only one left on this planet that believes that taking troops out of SA, and using them to invade and occupy Iraq, somehow reduces the threat we're facing.



No, it didn't. It "contributed" to it happening. It provided more propaganda ammunition to recruit terrorists.

It's clear that you're clinging on to this reasoning because it provides a link between 9/11 and Iraq. But you're clutching at straws.

Troops in SA will be replaced by the invsion of Iraq in the AQ propaganda book. Or Guantanamo. Or Abu-Ghraib. Or Thetchnia. Or Kashmir. Or Israel/Palestine. Or the funding of Egypt/SA/Pakistan's government.

The situation is similar to most terrorists movements that have existed before. You have grieviances from a sector of the population, legitimate, or not. Those grieviances get high-jacked by people that gain something from it, whether financial, or existential. They turn it into a proper industry, in order to get as much support from the local, non-militant, population. And then they commit terrorists acts in the names of those grieviances.

There's nothing we can do about the most hardcore fanatics. Even if we solved every single one fo their gripes, they would still call for Jihad, because it has become their raison d'etre. their income, their status, their existence, depends on that conflict. The only thing you can do about these guys, is lock them up, cut their funding, or kill them.

And then you have the local population. The one without which the terrorists would not be so effective. The "ordinary" Muslims, in this case, which get brainwashed by an effective mix of religious and political propaganda. These guys, you can do something about. Not with guns, not with threats, not by re-inforcing their sense of victimhood and persecution.

But with soft power. Through education, for example. You know that most of the Madrassas in Pakistan, the Islamic schools where 4 year-old kids are taught to learn the Koran by heart and nothing else, are funded by the SA government? That their branch of Islam, wahabism, is the most aggressive and war-mongering kind of Islam on the planet? And that they are brainwashing a whole new generation of dirt-poor kids with nothing to lose?

And we are doing nothing about it. We're not putting pressure on SA to stop. We're not secretly funding Madrassas that would teach a much more open and peaceful version of Islam. Surely, that would a be start...

Not only that, but Islam is an incredibly divided religion, with dozens of branches and sects. If you're a realist, you could argue we should playing those branches against each other. Iran and the Talibans, for exemple, are sworn ennemies. And somehow we manage to unite them both against us.

Winning with guns will be almost impossible. For every innocent Muslim we kill, and it's bound to happen, we're giving ammunition and potential recruits to AQ.

The key is soft power: shared intelligence, education, covert operations, and most of all, a propaganda war. Our best allies, our most important allies, in this fight are moderate Muslims. We'll never "win" without having them on our side.

And then there are regional problems. It's obvious the US and the EU have a different kind of problem when it comes to AQ, and will therefore require different solutions. For simple reasons, like the fact that the EU has a huge Muslim population, which comes from countries actively involved in **** (Pakistan in the UK, Algeria in France, etc...).

And then you have the problems inherent to the Arab world. Should we really be supporting Mubarrak? The SA monarchy? What about countries like Yemen, or Somalia, which have no governemnt to speak of and are therefore a safe haven for terrorists?

It's a complicated and broad topic. Reducing it to the US troops in SA is dumbing down the problem to a level where we'll be completely ineffective.

Who the hell waves a chair at a seal?

And seals balance the balls on their nose. Someone needs to buy you some circus tickets.