It's easy for the Iranians to use the Administration's language against it. If Bush had explained that we were fighting a defensive action against a global jihad, it wouldn't be so easy for the jihadists to do this. From Arab News, with thanks to Sr. Soph:
SHARM EL-SHEIKH, Egypt, 5 May 2007 — Iran and the United States dashed hopes of a major breakthrough at an international conference convened to stabilize war-torn Iraq when they held only mid-level talks yesterday.The two-day meeting, however, wrapped up after a marked improvement in Washington’s strained relations with Iran’s traditional Syrian allies, signaling an apparent shift of US policy in the region.
Speculation had mounted since Thursday’s start of the conference in the Egyptian resort of Sharm El-Sheikh that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice could hold historic talks with her Iranian counterpart Manouchehr Mottaki.
But at a meeting designed to enhance international cooperation on Iraqi security, Mottaki described US troops as “terrorists” and lashed out at Washington over the continued detention of Iranian officials seized in January. “To create a safe haven for those terrorists who try to turn Iraqi territory into a base for attacking Iraq’s neighbors should be condemned,” the Iranian foreign minister said.
US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker said he met a deputy foreign minister of Iran but played down the event. “It was very limited, very short and it was on Iraq,” he told reporters.
Rice for her part pointed out that a meeting at the same level had already taken place in March while Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari was more upbeat, stressing that the meeting was a “positive sign.”
The final statement on yesterday’s security meeting reaffirmed all participants’ desire to “combat terrorist activities and prevent the use of their territory for supplying, organizing and launching terrorist operations.” “The participants agreed to... welcome offers by Arab and other countries to support the development of the professional capabilities of the Iraqi armed forces,” said the statement.
“To create a safe haven for those terrorists who try to turn Iraqi territory into a base for attacking Iraq’s neighbors should be condemned,” the Iranian foreign minister said.
it seems the iranians fear the US presence in Iraq, and that gives more reason for U.S. pressence, as futur launching pads for quick attacks on iran and syria.
"It's easy for the Iranians to use the Administration's language against it. If Bush had explained that we were fighting a defensive action against a global jihad, it wouldn't be so easy for the jihadists to do this".-Robert
The current situation is comparable to the world wide and quite aggressive Soviet (50's, 60's, 70's) attacks on the non-Communist world and the policy of containment required to counter that belief-system. Administration failure to consistently define Jihad in global terms, the pretense that Islamic aggression is an accumulation of isolated "incidents" and "tragedies", is a criminally stupid policy. A similar policy re the USSR and the Communist belief-system would have made it impossible for the US people to stay the course in the containment policy that began with President Truman.
The situation of Islam is similar to that of the USSR. Over time, the USSR became increasingly rigid-aggressive as belief-system adherents refused to allow critical analysis of Communism. Though many knew the Soviet system needed critical analysis, dogma trumped reason.
Leonid Brezhnev once confided (in the 70's) to his daughter that Communism "is a total failure" but that did not prevent him from arresting and imprisoning dissenters as "anti-Soviet" bigots, or attempting to kill the Pope for criticising the Communist belief-system. There are remarkable parallels between Islam and Communism in both their world-wide aggression and fear of critical analysis by anyone.
Brezhnev probably sensed that allowing critical analysis of the Soviet system would cause the system to collapse because of it's dogmas. So he (and believers) grasped more tightly to the dogmas and became more aggressive to internal and external critics. (Meanwhile, flunky apologists (Armstrong types) defended the system.) However, deception and self-deception and frightened aggression to critics was all that the believers and the apologists had left. Eventually believers and apologists admitted the truth about Soviet Communism was painful truth.
The old Socratic adage: "Define your terms" (or enemy) is still crucial.
You let the opponent set the groundrules and you cede a crucial advantage.
It's the Jihad, stupid! T-shirts should be sent to every member of the Administration and Congress.
Because "Terror" is only the jihadists' means, not their end.
And it's the "end" (a global theocratic tyranny) that we are trying to prevent, not merely their murderous methods.
Actually, it would probably have been really easy.
Iran: "We are fighting a defensive battle against murderous jihadists (defined here as Americans trying to take over the world--their definition, like Spencer's, can be altered to mean what they want it to) who want to force us to submit to their form of government."
(Note: As far as I know, not a real statement--made it up for the sake of argument--although I wouldn't be surprised)
Just doing some thinking...
Am I still annoying you, Hugh? I realize that Naseem and Abdullah [more than likely people kept on here because they fit the site's stereotype of a Muslim] don't actually challenge this site's statements, pre-judgements, sources, and lack of accuracy or knowledge on things involving the Islamic world. I however, do. That's what annoys you...the fact that I don't agree (on one hand) or go wacko and call for jihad and sharia (there's those scary words again, what do they really mean?[rhetorical])
Watcher-
You don't have to play dumb. ("...what do they really mean?")
I'm sure you can achieve it for real.
Robert,
I suggest that we stop referring to "the war on terror" altogether and simply refer in all contexts to our "defense against jihad." This terminology should even be used in the title of funding bills.
This could serve as a marvelous appeal by President Bush for bipartisan support, satisfying the Democrats' demand that we stop referring to the war on terror in legislation.
Wacko Watcher, here's a hint, stop being a part time muslim and go move to some sharia land, and then come back, l am sure your experience living in some dictatorship of a cesspoolstan you will love to live in some "Western US style democracy".
Pull the men back to the large airbases and let water find its own level. The ‘War on Terror’ is like the ‘War on Drugs’. The goal is containment and the prevention of organization. When Iran makes a move, flatten their nuclear facilities, military, and seize their oil-rich islands as conquerors, not liberators.
The followers of Prophet Mohammed would turn ‘Watcher’ into a lampshade. She reminds me of a nagging ex-girlfriend.
I'm a little confused. Is "Terrorist" a bad thing?
Do they mean we are "another man's freedom fighter?"
While the Infidel armies are defending my freedom to scratch my arse while not facing Mecca then I will call them my freedom fighters. Equally while the Islamic jihad wants me to convert to a system of belief I have no interest in I will call them terrorists.
And until I hear of mass protests by Iraqi Christians, Kurds and mothers and fathers calling for the terrorist US to leave them to Al Qaeda’s whim I will assume that they all believe everybody in Al Qaeda should hang too.
So Watcher I want you to go to school and learn something about Islam. In fact I have a test! I want you to list on the left all the countries that the US has publicly shown an interest in conquering. On the right you must list all the countries that Islamic jihad wants to rule. Don’t forget your own country Watcher, we’d hate for you to miss out.
Watcher-
At least Naseem and Abdullah are honest (though Naseem is a wee bit slipery and a little coy). However, you are a phony. I detect that you have also posted under "An American". A bullshit artist by any other name is still a bullshit artist.
Watcher-An American-Whatever-
Stop the crap, the deception.
Naseem is the sites useful fool.
Mert-
She's never been in a place where she can think freely, express herself freely. It's sad. I don't think she is a fool. I think she is truly a victim.
Heard this schizo-babble before.
MSNBCs william arkin called our guys "paid mercenaries"...and even some elected officials tripe.
Just more pot calling the kettle black by iran.
Naseem is more schizophrenic, but nonetheless, her desire for the world to become Islamic is revealing in itself. And she doesn't support Jihad either - she's openly on record as stating that she opposes violent Jihad, and wants us all to Islamize peacefully. Her posts serve to illustrate to those who oppose only violent Jihad activities that there are more threats to civilizations than just Jihad. Or at least force them to ask themselves whether they'd be comfortable living in an Islamic environment. In other words, make them, as you so incessantly put it, do some thinking.
You are welcome not to agree - few of us do on even most things. It's just that most of your arguments - on the occasions that you actually care to make them - are pretty inane.
Hmmmm...well, as for reaction from anti-jihad statements, we shall soon see...
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/07/front2454224.8881944446.html
Well, the US troops have killed a lot of innocent people- which perhaps may justify (from the victim's point of view) the perception that they are terrorists.
We should certainly aim at establishing better communication, so that, one day (let us hope) Christians and Muslims may focus on their many beliefs in common, instead of the few differences, and may no longer be forced to call each other 'terrorists'.
Why do we want to "talk" with the Iranians in the first place? The only thing the Iranians need to be told is as follows:
"The next time we uncover ANY evidence that you are supplying arms or explosives to or supporting terrorist activities in Iraq, we will conduct airstrikes on vital targets in your country at a time of our own choosing. The evidence will be presented to the UN Security Council after such strikes have been conducted. If you have any questions about this policy, re-read this letter."
Diplomacy with the Iranian regime is ridiculous at best. Is it ignorance that prevails or is it all a game? You can't discuss anything with someone who is absolutely correct about everything. The imams "know" they are right and the infidels are wrong, so what is there to discuss? Make it plain, keep it simple. "We have been bombing bastards back to the sixth century since 1776 and we are more than willing to allow you to be next on the list."
"The next time we uncover ANY evidence that you are supplying arms or explosives to or supporting terrorist activities in Iraq, we will conduct airstrikes on vital targets in your country at a time of our own choosing. The evidence will be presented to the UN Security Council after such strikes have been conducted. If you have any questions about this policy, re-read this letter."
One can only wonder at what the reaction would be if Iran sent such a letter to the US "The next we uncover ANY evidence that you are killing people in Iraq, or supplying arms to Israel, we will conduct airstrikes on vital targets in your country. The evidence will be presented to the UN Security Council after the airstrikes have been conducted."
- You can't discuss anything with someone who is absolutely correct about everything. The imams "know" they are right and the infidels are wrong, so what is there to discuss?
Christians (such as myself) also believe they are right, and therefore, by logical implication, others are wrong, or at least in error (It may be assumed that this applies to all religions). It certainly does not preclude reasonable discussion.
"Well, the US troops have killed a lot of innocent people- which perhaps may justify (from the victim's point of view) the perception that they are terrorists."
Posted by: Barnaby
....it is unfortunate that innocent people are sometimes killed by coalition forces...this occurs when the Muslim terrorists use civilians as shields when firing upon coalition forces...the matter is futher complicated as the Muslim terrorists dress identically to the civilians...
....of course the Muslim terrorists have no difficulty in killing innocent civilians ... they bomb them every day....and almost every day bodies are found showing signs of torture and executions...undoubtly innocent civilians killed for either not being Muslim enough, or for refusing to participate in terror campaigns, or as a revenge killing....
the big difference is that the coalition do not intentionally kill civilians...the Muslim terrorists do...