Stop pretending

[frigidweirdo]

Why don’t you first admit that the greatest problem with all the killings and turmoil in the Middle East year after year is because of Islam and its millions of followers willing to commit violence upon others?

Then we can pretend it’s anything but that.

There are terrorist attacks, far too many to count, that occur across the globe because sects and perverse ideologies are intolerant of anyone who does not agree with them. That would include Indonesia, the Phillipines, Nigeria, Sudan, Sri Lanka, India, most of Europe!, and so on and so on. Let us not try to mitigate the real cause and point to foreign nation influences in the region as the reason Muslims go on a rampage.

I found this article to be timely, interesting and pertinent to this discussion. Though I'm not entirely sure why the title would single out Bush.


America enabled radical Islam: How the CIA, George W. Bush and many others helped create ISIS - Salon.com

It was only with the onset of the First World War in 1914 that this 400-year-old regional paradigm unraveled. When Mehmed V sided with the Germans, Britain was reluctantly excluded from dealing with the caliphate’s catchment of over 15 million Muslims, reasoning that “whoever controlled the person of the Caliph, controlled Sunni Islam.” London decided that an Arab uprising to unseat Mehmed would enable them to reassign the role of caliph to a trusted and more malleable ally: Hussein bin Ali Hussein, the sherif of Mecca and a direct descendant, it is claimed, of the Prophet Muhammad. The British employed racism to garner support for the uprising, appealing to the Arabs’ sense of ownership over Islam, which had originated in Mecca and Medina, not among the Turks of Constantinople. A 1914 British proclamation declared, “There is no nation among the Muslims which is now capable of upholding the Islamic Caliphate except the Arab nation.” A letter was dispatched to Sherif Hussein, fomenting his ambition and suggesting, “It may be that an Arab of true race will assume the Caliphate at Mecca or Medina” (Medina being the seat of the first caliphate after the death of the Prophet). Again, the British were prepared to defend the caliphate with the sword, promising to “guarantee the Holy Places against all external aggression.” It is a strange thought that, just 100 years ago, the prosecutors of today’s War on Terror were promising to restore the Islamic caliphate to the Arab world and defend it militarily.

A lot of people who talk about the Middle East conveniently ignore most of the history that ever happened there. They pretend like the Muslims are worse than the people that went over there and caused a lot of the problems.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why don’t you first admit that the greatest problem with all the killings and turmoil in the Middle East year after year is because of Islam and its millions of followers willing to commit violence upon others?

Then we can pretend it’s anything but that.

There are terrorist attacks, far too many to count, that occur across the globe because sects and perverse ideologies are intolerant of anyone who does not agree with them. That would include Indonesia, the Phillipines, Nigeria, Sudan, Sri Lanka, India, most of Europe!, and so on and so on. Let us not try to mitigate the real cause and point to foreign nation influences in the region as the reason Muslims go on a rampage.

I found this article to be timely, interesting and pertinent to this discussion. Though I'm not entirely sure why the title would single out Bush.


America enabled radical Islam: How the CIA, George W. Bush and many others helped create ISIS - Salon.com

It was only with the onset of the First World War in 1914 that this 400-year-old regional paradigm unraveled. When Mehmed V sided with the Germans, Britain was reluctantly excluded from dealing with the caliphate’s catchment of over 15 million Muslims, reasoning that “whoever controlled the person of the Caliph, controlled Sunni Islam.” London decided that an Arab uprising to unseat Mehmed would enable them to reassign the role of caliph to a trusted and more malleable ally: Hussein bin Ali Hussein, the sherif of Mecca and a direct descendant, it is claimed, of the Prophet Muhammad. The British employed racism to garner support for the uprising, appealing to the Arabs’ sense of ownership over Islam, which had originated in Mecca and Medina, not among the Turks of Constantinople. A 1914 British proclamation declared, “There is no nation among the Muslims which is now capable of upholding the Islamic Caliphate except the Arab nation.” A letter was dispatched to Sherif Hussein, fomenting his ambition and suggesting, “It may be that an Arab of true race will assume the Caliphate at Mecca or Medina” (Medina being the seat of the first caliphate after the death of the Prophet). Again, the British were prepared to defend the caliphate with the sword, promising to “guarantee the Holy Places against all external aggression.” It is a strange thought that, just 100 years ago, the prosecutors of today’s War on Terror were promising to restore the Islamic caliphate to the Arab world and defend it militarily.

A lot of people who talk about the Middle East conveniently ignore most of the history that ever happened there. They pretend like the Muslims are worse than the people that went over there and caused a lot of the problems.

Yeah those French suicide bombers are real trouble.
Just how stupid are you?

 

[Tehon]

I found this article to be timely, interesting and pertinent to this discussion.


America enabled radical Islam: How the CIA, George W. Bush and many others helped create ISIS - Salon.com

It was only with the onset of the First World War in 1914 that this 400-year-old regional paradigm unraveled. When Mehmed V sided with the Germans, Britain was reluctantly excluded from dealing with the caliphate’s catchment of over 15 million Muslims, reasoning that “whoever controlled the person of the Caliph, controlled Sunni Islam.” London decided that an Arab uprising to unseat Mehmed would enable them to reassign the role of caliph to a trusted and more malleable ally: Hussein bin Ali Hussein, the sherif of Mecca and a direct descendant, it is claimed, of the Prophet Muhammad. The British employed racism to garner support for the uprising, appealing to the Arabs’ sense of ownership over Islam, which had originated in Mecca and Medina, not among the Turks of Constantinople. A 1914 British proclamation declared, “There is no nation among the Muslims which is now capable of upholding the Islamic Caliphate except the Arab nation.” A letter was dispatched to Sherif Hussein, fomenting his ambition and suggesting, “It may be that an Arab of true race will assume the Caliphate at Mecca or Medina” (Medina being the seat of the first caliphate after the death of the Prophet). Again, the British were prepared to defend the caliphate with the sword, promising to “guarantee the Holy Places against all external aggression.” It is a strange thought that, just 100 years ago, the prosecutors of today’s War on Terror were promising to restore the Islamic caliphate to the Arab world and defend it militarily.

I personally blame Winston Churchill.

I know, you have already stated as such. But don't be deterred, your opinion matters.

Of course I dont blame Winston Churchill, who was a genius. But it is funny watching libs try to shift blame for Obama's gross failures in foreign policy to anyone else: Bush, America, the UN, the British, etc.
Every president inherits the situation his predecessor left. His job is to make that situation better, whatever it was. Whining that "Bush screwed things up too much" is an admission of incompetence that Obama lacks the power, competence, and ability to make those things better. That is the point.

Your point fails because I am not shifting blame from Obama. Obama is fully responsible for his foreign policy decisions since taking office. Pointing out that they are a continuation of already existing policies does not exonerate him from his decision making and I have been critical of his decisions in the Ukraine, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iraq......

I have already submitted this article from 2007. I wish you would take the time to read it. It is an interesting read, especially when you compare what was written in 2007 to the events of today.
The Redirection - The New Yorker
PRINCE BANDAR’S GAME

The Administration’s effort to diminish Iranian authority in the Middle East has relied heavily on Saudi Arabia and on Prince Bandar, the Saudi national-security adviser. Bandar served as the Ambassador to the United States for twenty-two years, until 2005, and has maintained a friendship with President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. In his new post, he continues to meet privately with them. Senior White House officials have made several visits to Saudi Arabia recently, some of them not disclosed.

Last November, Cheney flew to Saudi Arabia for a surprise meeting with King Abdullah and Bandar. The Times reported that the King warned Cheney that Saudi Arabia would back its fellow-Sunnis in Iraq if the United States were to withdraw. A European intelligence official told me that the meeting also focussed on more general Saudi fears about “the rise of the Shiites.” In response, “The Saudis are starting to use their leverage—money.”

Good. We agree Obama's is the most failed foreign policy of any president ever. Thanks.

Whether his policies are a failure or not would depend on what the objectives are. I don't think that there are very many Americans that truly understand what the objectives actually are and therefore his policies are misunderstood by most Americans. I will say that from my understanding of things, Obama is a disaster, a wolf in sheep's clothing.

And now that you have that out of your system, what does any of that have to do with Bush conspiring with the British government to manipulate public opinion in an effort to take us into an unnecessary and costly war.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The memo, if it's real, is classified secret.

which means this is complete bullshit since secret documents take decades to be seen by the public

It says it's been declassified at the top and bottom of every page.

That only makes it more clear that it's fake.


nothing like that would ever be declassified w/o decades passing

And why's that? Do you have a timeline on the declassification of documents from different US govt agencies to compare this against? Otherwise you're just clutching at straws. Why would a national newspaper in the UK report something like this without being sure of the source? Simply said they wouldn't. The Mail is a right wing paper, they'd not want to promote the left. They were trying to attack the left in the UK.

Declassification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Confidential government papers such as the yearly cabinet papers used routinely to be withheld formally, although not necessarily classified as secret, for 30 years under the thirty year rule, and released usually on a New Year's Day; freedom of information legislation has relaxed this rigid approach.


Executive Order 13526 establishes the mechanisms for most declassifications, within the laws passed by Congress. The originating agency assigns a declassification date, by default 10 years. After 25 years declassification review is automatic, with nine narrow exceptions that allow information to continue to be classified. At 50 years there are two exceptions, and classifications beyond 75 years require special permission. Because of changes in policy and circumstances, agencies are expected to actively review documents that have been classified for fewer than 25 years. They must also respond to Mandatory Declassification Review andFreedom of Information Act requests. The National Archives and Records Administration houses the National Declassification Center to coordinate reviews and Information Security Oversight Office to promulgate rules and enforce quality measures across all agencies. NARA reviews documents on behalf of defunct agencies and permanently stores declassified documents for public inspection. TheInteragency Security Classification Appeals Panel has representatives from several agencies.

and the fact that I had to sign off on document swearing that I would not discuss certain things for 75 years, that I did during my service.

 

[turzovka]

A lot of people who talk about the Middle East conveniently ignore most of the history that ever happened there. They pretend like the Muslims are worse than the people that went over there and caused a lot of the problems.

Fact: You are "ignoring most of the history that ever happened there."

Apparently, you are more comfortable not knowing.

 

[danielpalos]

i wish wo-men and the Right, would stop pretending.