i feel Iran ,afghanistan, iraq, lebanon and all the countries in the middle east should be bombed. But i still feel that they are overrated. The country that US, UK and Canada need to invade is Pakistan, which has been fueling terrorism since its creation in 1947 against india to the United States. Pakistan is the country that is really needed to be invaded.

i feel Iran ,afghanistan, iraq, lebanon and all the countries in the middle east should be bombed. But i still feel that they are overrated. The country that US, UK and Canada need to invade is Pakistan, which has been fueling terrorism since its creation in 1947 against india to the United States. Pakistan is the country that is really needed to be invaded.

i feel Iran ,afghanistan, iraq, lebanon and all the countries in the middle east should be bombed. But i still feel that they are overrated. The country that US, UK and Canada need to invade is Pakistan, which has been fueling terrorism since its creation in 1947 against india to the United States. Pakistan is the country that is really needed to be invaded.

A few idea's on Terrorism...

1. Stop calling it "Terrorism", and call it what it really is..."Cowardness".

2. If the "Cowards" really want to fight for a cause, then stop hiding...come out and fight like a real Warrior!

3. Stop bringing God into your cause, I will CONDEM those that continue on this path, maybe today, tommorrow, it will happen!

Washington Post has certainly served as a media instrument of the Neocon American imperial hegemony over the Middle East as demonstrated by the plethora of Post posters entirely supportive of every military incursion and permanent installation into the Middle East is blatant and arrogant disregard for sovereignty, or basic human reaction to foreign occupation, foreign domination, foreign exploitation. The ideal views of the American founding fathers as proponents of independence and freedom have been long since frittered away by hatemongering and bigotry which backs the Bush led empire.
The queen is dead. Long live the presidency.

Middle East never more will evade from making headlines, be less engaging. For more than forty years, or some hundreds, there have been davids and goliaths and hordes of hawks, no doves, behind them to captivate the world's attention and concern.

From the relatively local and focused violence and misery there is though but some few steps towards global, ever more competetive and resourcewise divisive macroprocesses.

Who cares then if there is unproportionate destruction in a military showdown, if villages and townships have to be rebuilt, if millions are displaced and destitute - when there are efficient international mechanisms to extinghuish the flares, to take over from the scratch, to pay the bills, to heal the wounds, to bury the dead...

Shouldn't the perpetrators, the powerful, the warfarers be instead, directly and by causality, solely, made accountable?

Politics just isn't anymore plays with words, virtual games with backspacebuttons - the stakes are higher than anyone of us would like to admit, the less assume.

America was relatively disengaged from the Middle East prior to 9-11 ... and see what it got us.

In my opinion, the radical Muslims won't be satisfied until Israel and the US are destroyed, and the entire world is Muslim ... regardless of how America acts. The moderate Arabs should get the radicals under control, and speak out vehemently against them ... but they don't. It's up to the moderate Arabs to do something very soon, because eventually Iran and the Shiites will get nukes, and use them, if the moderates don't clean up their own house. Otherwise, it will simply come down to ... who's going to use the nukes first ... and America may have no other choice ... either nuke Iran ... or wait to be nuked.
Wake up moderate Arabs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5150118.stm

Wednesday, 5 July 2006
"Two people are reported dead after Islamist gunmen in central Somalia opened fire in a cinema where people were watching a banned World Cup match.

The cinema owner and a young girl were reportedly killed by militia loyal to the Union of Islamic Courts, who seized control of parts of Somalia last month.

The courts have introduced Sharia law, including in some areas a World Cup broadcast ban. "

So much for populism in Somalia.

"How could they side with criminal warlords in Somalia against a popular Islamist uprising?"

Mr Goth, while I agree that this US policy is wrong, you might be well advised to provide a little more explanation for our conservative American friends.

I can assure you that 99% of them haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about.

I have to agree with Mr. Goth and I think most of the comments here miss the point. Yes, there is plenty of hypocricy to go around, but pointing fingers is not the same as solving the problem. The "war on terror" has been a counterproductive disaster that is unwinnable. Many columnists recently have written that the "war on terror" is in fact a war on Islamist extremism, a fact that has been plain from the start. So the question is, how does one go to war on an "ism" that can be taken up by anyone to whom it has an appeal. Events of the past several months have made clear that military campaigns have been a failure. Anyone who is siezed by the jihadist vision can go buy an old copy of the Anarchists' Cookbook and found their own local franchise, as we have seen in Toronto, Florida, Britain and elsewhere. Against such a threat, we can only rely on luck and police work. As Mr Goth points out, if Muslim states were to fall to Islamists, we would at least have an enemy with a fixed location and a state that could be subjected to our formidable military force.
I don't believe, as many leftist pacifists do, that violence is never a solution and always only breeds more violence. But in this case, it is clear that we are simply playing a game of whack-a-mole and widening the gulf that seperates us from the Muslim world and even from our allies. The folly has to stop.

tih: if Nasrallah and by proxy Ahmedinejad fire unguided rockets towards major Israel population centers their targets is not military, it is civilian.

If Nasrallah and by proxy Ahmedinejad apologize for killing Israeli Arabs then by the tenets of logic it means they only mean to kill Jews. You don't hear them say "death to the Jews"? How can you fail to see it is their desire to do so?

If Hezbollah, who adopted the nazi greeting in their rituals, shouts "Jews here we come" in the streets of Lebanon during marches then they aren't bringing any picknick baskets. Racism and antisemitism in the Arab and Persian world are endemic which is why so far 400.000 black Muslims have been killed in Sudan without much of an outcry at all. The outcry in the west over the genocide in Sudan has largely fallen on deaf ears in Khartoum and with its allies. Like I said in the first post, where is the proportional outcry over the killing of Jews and Blacks?

Your charaterization of Zionism is totally off. I think a read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism will be a worthy investment of your time although I have heard people say the wikipedia is, despite the many quoted sources and references, a tainted source (some even called it a Zionist website) and that qualification suffices for them to ignore the accumulated information altogehter. However in this case it is far more balanced than your interpretation.

hmm. Another problem with the west disengaging from the middle east is it is very unlikely to persuade Al Quaida to disengage from the west. What is the solution? I cannot say I know. But might it not be a good start if people in the middle east stop blaming everybody else for all their problems?

pardon the typos

JVD70's comments about right of return for all is well taken and agreed with. However, he is wrong about anyone hearing "death to the Jews" from leaders in the Islamic world. Neither Nasrallah nor Ahmadinejad has called for the death of Jews or a war on Judaism. They specifically and, apparently,carefully identify their enemies as Zionists. In reality, Zionism was once a reviled extremist wing of Judaism. Unfortunately, the holocaust made more Jews amenable to Zionism, much as our war on Iraq and the rest of Islam is prompting the Arab world to look more favorably upon Islamic extremism. But it is important to not lose sight of the fact that Zionism remains a radical, extremist, and political movement with nothing to do with Judaism as a religion or culture. The Middle East world is rife with factionalism as we are now seeing in Iraq. The historical enmity of Jews by Islamists is in reality hardly more grievous that the enmity between Sunnis and Shiites. It is Zionism and the imposition of Israel in the Middle East that Islamists resist. I have heard no calls for the eradication of Judaism from Islamists that in any way resemble the call for the eradication of Islam that I have heard from American conservatives a Evangelical Christians.

Mr. Goth's comments are well noted. Radical islamists are reacting to what they feel is Western hegemony in their sacred lands. We could easily put their patrons (the oppressive governments of Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc) out of business by totally withdrawing from the area and conducting no commerce with them.
There's just one little problem: We purchase 25% of our oil from them. So much for that idea.

TLH, Israel is a country whose citizens are mostly of Arab origin by virtue of all the Mizrahim Jews (Jews from Arab lands) that settled there as a consequence of the 1948 war. Did you know that more Jews were evicted, forced from or voluntarily left their homes in the Arab / Persian world than Palestinian Arabs who were evicted, forced from or voluntarily left their homes?

If you didn't know now you do, there may well be a right of return or compensation but this would naturally go for both sides.

It is not about a military option because instead of what you interpret to be a conservative wish to defeat the Muslims there is a genuine desire to see them freed from the oppression of their openly antisemitic and anti western regimes and of those religious masters that teach hatred. There's the old Baghdad of the 1001 nights, there are plenty of examples in the past and present of Islam to point the way forward to a peaceful and tolerant religion, that's where they have to go. At this point they depend on the USA and Israel to police their terrorists, they continue to flaunt their hatred of Jews and liberal values.

The Zionists have been unable to get along well with their neighbours for well over 60 years. For the Jews it has been for over 2000 years; they have always been persecuted. Don't you hear it when they say death to the Jews, don't you see that Nazrallah only seeks to kill Jews when he apologises for murdering Israeli Arabs? Haven't you heard Ahmadinejad speak?

Conservatives, both European and American, seek to reform the Arab and Persian world and model it after our liberal democracies because of events such as 9/11. I myself don't believe the military option is the optimal one but when your people are killed, abducted and shelled you have little choice.

I love the fascist chest thumping by our conservative friends here. They seem to overlook the fact that the vaunted military that they expect to change the Muslim world by force has been shown to be less than adequate to the task. The same thing for the Israeli military which just got humiliated in Lebanon. Looks like force might not be the answer our militarist friends seek...unless they want to pony up another few trillion dollars of borrowed money and allow their children to be drafted. Fat chance of that!! What gives conservative Americans the right to tell Arabs how to live? Israel is a great example of how efforts to shove American and European solutions down Arab throats are bound to fail. How long are US taxpayers supposed to prop up their biggest welfare child? In perpetuity? For what?? If Zionists can't figure out how to get along with their neighbors after 60 years, it's time to accept the fact that Israel is an unsustainable concept. Maybe Israelis should try being genuinely pluralistic and democratic and let Palestinians return to the homes that were confiscated from them and live as citizens. Oh no...we can't even discuss that! It's high time the United States stopped trying to run the Islamic world and focussed on our own problems. Then the Islamic world might have a genuine oppotunity to decide for itself how it would like to fit into the world community, rather than have "solutions" shoved down its throat by idiots like George Bush, Dick Cheney, Tony Blair and Ariel Sharon.

Oooops. Apparently Orwell has decided to return his head to his lower orifice. Let's not disturb him, he seems so peaceful.

Orwell,
You haven't noticed anything except what you've been told to notice. How small. Imagine Joesph Stalin suddenly stopping his army at the gates of Berlin in 1945 to assist Hitler in fighting someone/something else. That something else would have had to have been, well, something else.

BTW, at least you made it to the bottom of the "screed", I suspect that at least you weren't bored to death with the same old BS that permiates the other, less screedous but oh so agreeable, opines.

So what do you think (or do you?) about Iraq deigningly assisting the Iraqis? (Regardless of which part of their society they choose to help.)

OhYeah writes (if you can make it to the bottom of his screed): "Has anybody noticed that Iran is assisting Iraq?"

If you what you mean by "assisting" is fomenting sectarian violence and doing everything possible to undermine the creation of a centralized Iraqi government and its ability to provide security for the nation, why yes, we certainly have noticed!

Most intelligent and engaging arguments I've read so far. However, the title of the piece should actually be: To START Stopping Terrorism...
It is virtually impossible for we lazy bastards in the west to understand how devastating our corporations have been to countries outside of the "western world" over the years. We Americans tend to see our corporations as a giant WalMart kind of thing, with aged greeters at the door and super saver specials on every aisle; and, all of the military stuff as, well, just military stuff. We have yet to be taught the connection between the rape of a weaker country by corporate America, and how the military aides, abets, and protects that rape. Y'know, kind of holds 'em down while the deed is done. And, all the while the political aspects keep us warm and fuzzy in our ignorant illusions by telling us how these insane, hateful, vicious, evil animalistic enemy want to destroy us just because, well, darn it, just because we're so friendly and good. I mean, gosh, golly, didn't we give them a hundred million dollars in aid last year? (Of course, that's AFTER we raped the country for a hundred BILLION dollars of their raw materials.) I mean, ain't we nice?

Has anybody noticed that Iran is assisting Iraq? Now, think about this. In the 80's, Iran and Iraq fought an incredibly bitter war. For it's ferocity and vitriol, it ranks right up there with Germany and Russia in the 1940's. And yet, these two peoples have put aside their mutual hatred to help each other against a common enemy. US! Does that give you some inkling as to how much America is hated in the mideast? Yet, if you ask a common Iranian or Iraqi, "Do you hate Americans?", they over whelmingly say, "No, we don't hate the American People, the American people are nice. But we hate their government." How interesting that they can separate the two, but we can't.
And for all of you die hards, here's a bit of historical homework: find out how much the "Sons of Liberty" were deemed terrorists to King George III.

Per a comment upthread, I don't think the Sudanese war against civilians ought to be used as a debating point in arguments over Lebanon.

It should be considered on its own, and on its own the question asked upthread deserves an answer from Muslim and particularly from Arab commentators: what are you doing about Darfur? Why do Arab governments back Khartoum in blocking a proposed UN peacekeeping force there? Why is Arab media silent, and why are Western aid efforts in a region with a mostly Muslim population so much more extensive than those of Arab countries?

Arab silence on a conflict now well into its fourth year raises ugly suspicions about Arab racism and tolerance of the most barbaric kinds of violence as long as they are directed by Arabs against non-Arabs. To address such suspicions the silence must be broken.

Amazing! Simply medieval! And this is a "moderate" Muslim! And he truly believes what he says. He and millions of moderates like him believe that there is no difference between Bush and bin Laden. While in Afghanistan, bin Laden stood idly by while his Taliban hosts publicly beheaded women, allowed public rape and instituted a totalitarian regime and a reign of terror. Compared to this, Abu Gharib was a picnic.

Still, he echos the same sentiments as the "moderate" Muslims in London. They ask the US and Britain to change their foreign policy if they want terrorism to stop. They ask nothing of the terrorists.

These "moderates" simply have no shame.

Oh wait, here's an example... you mean like how the "moderate" nation of Lebanon successfully clamped down on the radical terror activities of the Hezbollah minority among them, without any help from outsiders?

"Oh, just leave us alone... we 'moderate' Muslims will take care of everything and get those pesky radicals under control..."

Could you point to any sort of track record where "moderate" Muslims have ever had success with this, let alone made any sort of attempt?

Mr Goth

Your insights are well worth reading...as they show how far from reality many in the Islamic societies are.

First, a transgression like Abu Gharib is viewed akin to the mass murder of thousands, while Hebollah's rocket attacks, suicide bombers on buses, suicide bombers on airplanes are, well, the norm and acceptible.

Second, coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq DO NOT wantonly kill civilians. Regretably, deaths do occur. But only when extremists hide and fight from among the civilian population. And then, only when the military forces feel they they cannot restrain themselves any longer...for the safety of others (military and civilian). I know...I was in Afghanistan last year.

There is a lot of great things happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. When 60 percent of a population will turn out to vote...despite the risk of death, it shows you how committed they are to democracy...and how far they have to go.

Mr Goth...you're writings are important to those in the West to understand the Muslim communities. We would hope you share a western's frustration

Mr. Goth, your comments are short sighted, myopic and ethnocentric. Sometimes I wonder why you call yourself a journalist when all you are is a propagandist for radical Islam. This nation will not disengage from Muslim facists no more than it disengaged from Japanese fanatacism and German and Italian facism during WWII. This movie has been seen before... extreme facism used to manipulate and incite a society for no other purpose than to fill the drunken lust for power on the part of totalitarian dictators, but this time using the disgusting premise that a faith based belief system makes them right.

I find it amusing that a lot of people still see Islamic leaders as champions of the downtrodden, voices for the oppressed, etc. It is obvious to the world now what they really are... Godless, evil, dictatorial, mentally derainged and sociopathic thugs bent on securing thier own power and cementing their positions with death and intimidation.

I also am amused with your reference to Abu Grhuraib. I submit that this incident is a loathsome and regrettable mistake on the part of some mis-guided service members. But at least we did not chop anybody's head off, gas the population with chemical weapons, and establish death and torture camps that make what the U.S. is accused of look like a spa treatment.

The world no doubt will go through a period of attempted pacifism and make a futile attempt to negotiate some sort of half herated settlement nobody wants. That is because the Islamic facists want all non-believers destroyed and a world under Muslim domination. Your assumption that the Muslims will quietly go off in some corner and settle this amongst themselves is laughable and hallucinatory.

I look forward to your inevitable clash of civilizations. Just as the west did with several conflicts we did not start, we certainly have the resolve to finish them. Unless it embraces reality, the same fate awaits the Muslim world that befell the enemies of humanity in WWII.

For the Muslim world it is still not too late. Renounce intolerance of non-believers, acknowledge and accept unconditionally the existence of Israel, and establish respect for human existence.

No sir, we will not disengage as long as there is one breathing enemy that seeks to destroy us. Your offhanded dismissal of "evil forces gaining power" simply shows your ignorance of our culture. Yes, we will attempt to appease, negotiate, reconcile and accomodate. But this is not what the Muslim world wants.

Radical Islam will be presented with a very simple choice. Stop the horror of your inhuman actions and agree to unconditional surrender or face complete destruction.

Nattering nay sayers could at least be entertaining. I suppose that if the ALLEDGED
threats and been sucessfully accomplished it would have been someone elses fault. And so it goes.

In the conflict in Sudan, where over the last few years 400.000 people, mostly Muslims, have been killed by a government sponsored militia, Muslim nations have found their moral waterloo. According to the Coalition for International Justice, 500 people, mostly if not exclusively Muslims, are being killed daily in Darfur.

It only takes two days in Darfur to achieve one thousand civilian deaths. Only two days to eclipse the entire Lebanon war so far. Where is the "proportional" outrage? The silence is stunning!

From my perspective it is easy to doubt the veracity of the outrage against Israel and the United States. In fact, it seems amazingly hypocritical. But unlike in Israel and the United States where public discourse is free and protected by first amendment rights, the focus of public opinion in the Islamic world is not on ones own failings, it is directed against the failings of the other, the "Crusaders and the Jews".

Why blame Israelis for trying to defend themselves against murder, kidnapping and incoming rockets? An Iran bankrolled militia is employing a blatantly antisemitic terrorist strategy that causes Israeli counterstrikes to kill civilians. How difficult is it to acknowledge that that is the condensed truth many people see? It's the other side of the medal, free debate turns that medal.

Hassan Nasrallah apologizes to Israeli Arabs when his missiles fall and kill amongst them, he warns Israeli Arabs to flee Haifa, he might as well say it out loud: we intentionally target civilians but only mean to kill Jews. He is a man that represents not a third of the Lebanese nation, he is a totalitarian usurper that seeks to murder Jews. Where is the rage against him? The silence is stunning!

Instead when Jews are killed by his rockets, radicalized Muslims rejoice. Having been spoonfed the antisemitic line for thousands and the anti-crusader line for hundreds of years by their own authorities, they know no better than to hate the "Crusaders and the Jews".

On a global scale, we need to have a gradual synchronized withdrawal, the mainstream of Muslims must seek to contain and inhibit radicalism, must end the preaching of hatred and racism. Israel and Lebanon are the microcosm of the entire planet. The west can only gradually withdraw from it's south lebanon as long as the Muslims seek to disarm their Hezbollah. Yes the west must disengage from the Muslim world when that Muslim world can police its own and prevent them from striking out across the border and across the world. Right now, the Muslim world depends on the Crusaders and the Zionists to clean up after them.