LIB-ertarian Johnson has Lib Meltdown

[Ghoulardi]

Ya'll seem extremely dismissive of empirical data, studies and the work of journalists and professors.

Journalist are mostly liberal. Professors are mostly liberal. So your so called empirical data is mostly biased.

The only links I've seen any of you post in response to anything I've said are extremely biased anti-Muslim websites like "TheReligionofPeace".  I usually weed out polemics and seek hard data.

Seems to me you weed out the hard data and seek out the liberal point of view

I admire Robert Pape because he is very rigorous and scientific.  He makes all his data available for anyone to look over.  He's very much a scientist and he doesn't allow his preconceived notions to color his conclusions.

You mean Robert Pape, one of Obama's advisors?  Another unbiased source [sarc]

[jrodefeld]

Younger? Don't worry, you'll grow out of it.

Clueless? Try naive. Your presenting a wold that doesn't exist. As I said in an earlier post (which you never answered) Human history is NOT the history of making friends.

They're mad at us because of what we did to them, you say. So why did we do it to them? Why aren't they taking responsibility for what they did (to make us do what we did).

The US military killed their citizens, you say. Why? We don't intervene without reason, so what was the reason?

In all that research, did you find the answer to those questions?

A little one sided, don't you think?

American foreign policy is largely driven by war profiteering and the misguided notion that we have to "project strength".  Our foreign policy is also largely driven by the ideology of Neo-Conservatism, which is heavily influenced by lobbying efforts from the State of Israel. 

The Israel Lobby is hugely influential in American politics.  It was Netanyahu who was primarily responsible for starting the propaganda against Iran regarding their fictitious nuclear weapons program.  It's kind of odd how Iran was "on the verge" of having a nuclear weapon for over 21 years without anyone demonstrating a shred of evidence in support of that fact.

As old-school conservatives, I'm sure you could appreciate how radical neo-conservatives hijacked the Republican Party and used it in support of their vision of Big Government.  For a bit of perspective on Neoconservatism, this article serves as a good overview:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j052303.html

Neoconservatives were originally radicals on the Left who took over the Republican Party during the 1980s.  Dick Cheney, George H.W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Jonah Goldberg and Weekly Standard editor Bill Krystol are among the most prominent of the neocons.

They believe in military intervention and the projection of strength throughout the world.  They see the United States as the "indispensable nation" and it's our job to "lead" the world and involve ourselves in determining the outcome of conflicts that are really none of our business.  So they support the building and maintenance of bases in other countries, the propping up of puppet dictators who will do our bidding and serving the military interests of the State of Israel.

There is a Neo-Mercantalist ideology involved in all of this as well.  Military interventions into other countries, especially the Middle East, have a lot to do with capturing natural resources.  Securing a consistent supply of oil played a huge role in US intervention into the middle east.

The record is pretty clear.  The United States military has killed exponentially more Muslims than Muslims have killed Americans over the past thirty years.  Nobody has said that when any group of criminals commits violent acts against Americans, they shouldn't be captured and brought to justice.  But we can certainly cease with the intervention, the unprovoked bombings, the nation-building, the maintenance of bases and embassies, and the interference into the elections of other nations.

It would help matters immensely if conservatives like yourselves would cease speaking of Muslims in gross generalities and instead be mindful and open to how reasonable and peaceful Muslims feel about US foreign policy. 

[Ghoulardi]

American foreign policy is largely driven by war profiteering and the misguided notion that we have to "project strength".  Our foreign policy is also largely driven by the ideology of Neo-Conservatism, which is heavily influenced by lobbying efforts from the State of Israel. 

The Israel Lobby is hugely influential in American politics.  It was Netanyahu who was primarily responsible for starting the propaganda against Iran regarding their fictitious nuclear weapons program.  It's kind of odd how Iran was "on the verge" of having a nuclear weapon for over 21 years without anyone demonstrating a shred of evidence in support of that fact.

As old-school conservatives, I'm sure you could appreciate how radical neo-conservatives hijacked the Republican Party and used it in support of their vision of Big Government.  For a bit of perspective on Neoconservatism, this article serves as a good overview:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j052303.html

Neoconservatives were originally radicals on the Left who took over the Republican Party during the 1980s.  Dick Cheney, George H.W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Jonah Goldberg and Weekly Standard editor Bill Krystol are among the most prominent of the neocons.

They believe in military intervention and the projection of strength throughout the world.  They see the United States as the "indispensable nation" and it's our job to "lead" the world and involve ourselves in determining the outcome of conflicts that are really none of our business.  So they support the building and maintenance of bases in other countries, the propping up of puppet dictators who will do our bidding and serving the military interests of the State of Israel.

There is a Neo-Mercantalist ideology involved in all of this as well.  Military interventions into other countries, especially the Middle East, have a lot to do with capturing natural resources.  Securing a consistent supply of oil played a huge role in US intervention into the middle east.

The record is pretty clear.  The United States military has killed exponentially more Muslims than Muslims have killed Americans over the past thirty years.  Nobody has said that when any group of criminals commits violent acts against Americans, they shouldn't be captured and brought to justice.  But we can certainly cease with the intervention, the unprovoked bombings, the nation-building, the maintenance of bases and embassies, and the interference into the elections of other nations.

It would help matters immensely if conservatives like yourselves would cease speaking of Muslims in gross generalities and instead be mindful and open to how reasonable and peaceful Muslims feel about US foreign policy.

You didn't answer the question; you just spouted a lot of talking points.

Try again.

They're mad at us because of what we did to them, you say. So why did we do it to them? Why aren't they taking responsibility for what they did (to make us do what we did).

The US military killed their citizens, you say. Why? We don't intervene without reason, so what was the reason?

[walkstall]

Older people have the benefit of experience that younger people don't have.  We all know that.  But in a discourse, we try to arrive at the truth through argumentation. 

Speaking down to me because I'm younger does not qualify as an argument.  It actually doesn't serve any purpose.

Ya'll seem extremely dismissive of empirical data, studies and the work of journalists and professors.  The only links I've seen any of you post in response to anything I've said are extremely biased anti-Muslim websites like "TheReligionofPeace".  I usually weed out polemics and seek hard data.  I admire Robert Pape because he is very rigorous and scientific.  He makes all his data available for anyone to look over.  He's very much a scientist and he doesn't allow his preconceived notions to color his conclusions.

No it's just that I am 3 if not 4 time older then you.  I am not PC and full of BS, I call it as I see it.  Pape is a scientist in your opinion.  He just a damn book pusher in my opinion.   I have given more books away in my first 40 years then you have read in your life time.   

 

[jrodefeld]

Journalist are mostly liberal. Professors are mostly liberal. So your so called empirical data is mostly biased.
Seems to me you weed out the hard data and seek out the liberal point of view

You mean Robert Pape, one of Obama's advisors?  Another unbiased source [sarc]

There are very good journalists who are liberal and very good journalists who are conservatives.  The litmus test we should apply is whether they are doing good journalism.

The idea that journalists are mostly liberal and professors are most liberal, therefore you can dismiss journalism and empirical data out of hand is incredibly misguided.

Robert Pape also lent his knowledge and advice to the George W. Bush administration.  Of course they didn't heed his advice, and it doesn't look like Obama is either.

Pape is not a partisan.  I don't even know what his political views are.  I only know his scientific work on chronicling every worldwide terrorist attack since 1980 and looking into what motivates the attackers.


You should also recognize that Michael Scheuer, who I also cited, is a very conservative person politically.  He worked at the CIA as the leading expert on Osama bin Laden, so I think his experience and knowledge of Al Qaeda and the motivations for their attacks should be taken seriously.

So, you are assuming Pape is on the Left.  I don't know this to be a fact, but I'll assume it is for arguments sake.  Well Scheuer is a Conservative.  And Chalmers Johnson is essentially a libertarian.

So I've cited experts from across the political spectrum who agree on this issue.  How is that cherry-picking liberal views?

[Ghoulardi]

There are very good journalists who are liberal and very good journalists who are conservatives.  The litmus test we should apply is whether they are doing good journalism.

The idea that journalists are mostly liberal and professors are most liberal, therefore you can dismiss journalism and empirical data out of hand is incredibly misguided.

No, what's incredibly misguided is expecting a liberal to give you anything other than a talking point, spin, or distortion of the truth. When a liberal belches, it's for political reasons.

A perfect example is you spouting talking point in response to the questions I asked. I asked them again and you still refuse to answer.

Once again:

They're mad at us because of what we did to them, you say. So why did we do it to them? Why aren't they taking responsibility for what they did (to make us do what we did).

The US military killed their citizens, you say. Why? We don't intervene without reason, so what was the reason?

Robert Pape also lent his knowledge and advice to the George W. Bush administration.  Of course they didn't heed his advice, and it doesn't look like Obama is either.

Pape is not a partisan.  I don't even know what his political views are.

Obama wouldn't have an advisor that wasn't a carbon copy of his viewpoint.

[jrodefeld]

No, what's incredibly misguided is expecting a liberal to give you anything other than a talking point, spin, or distortion of the truth. When a liberal belches, it's for political reasons.

A perfect example is you spouting talking point in response to the questions I asked. I asked them again and you still refuse to answer.

Once again:

They're mad at us because of what we did to them, you say. So why did we do it to them? Why aren't they taking responsibility for what they did (to make us do what we did).

The US military killed their citizens, you say. Why? We don't intervene without reason, so what was the reason?

Obama wouldn't have an advisor that wasn't a carbon copy of his viewpoint.

Could you specify in what capacity Pape is an adviser to President Obama?  And, furthermore, could you elaborate on why this relationship renders Pape's views suspect?

There are a large number of people who contract with the government or offer their expertise to various departments in the government without regard to who happens to be President at the moment.  Robert Pape is a very well-respected foreign policy analyst who has made himself available to the CIA and our military as an adviser.

I want you to be very specific in precisely what you are insinuating in regards to Pape's work, character and integrity. 


I actually DID answer your questions, but you obviously lack reading comprehension skills.

Here are some of the reasons why we intervene into the middle east:

1.  War profiteering

2.  Fighting Israel's wars for them

3.  Mercantalism, which means that we covet the natural resources that many of these countries have

4.  The desire to exert influence in choosing which leaders rise to power in which countries


Borne out of World War 2, we saw the emergence of a massive military industrial complex.  This is what President Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell speech.  This was essentially a permanent war economy.  During the Cold War, the military industrial complex prospered, building up arms to supposedly protect against the Soviet menace.

During the 1980s, Ronald Reagan and his administration financed and supported the radicalization of various Muslim groups in an effort to fight against the Soviet Union, who were then occupying Afghanistan.  The US military and CIA went so far as to establish and support various Madrasas in the Middle East and they even pushed the idea that Soviet occupation constituted an attack against their religion.  This was not a hard sell, but the US government actively financed religious fundamentalism during this period.  These radical Muslims were called the Mujahideen.

These were OUR radical Muslims, as long as they served our purposes.

Then the Berlin Wall fell, the Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War was over.  Now, we could have gotten a peace dividend, cut back on our military spending, reduced our Nuclear Weapons arsenal, and closed down foreign military bases.  We no longer needed to be so militaristic since our greatest nemesis was no more.

Okay, but what about the Permanent War Economy that had been prospering for decades during the Cold War?  These lobbyists would not appreciate losing their lucrative subsidies and government contracts.

So George H.W. Bush stabbed Reagan's Mujahideen in the back, and started the War in the Persian Gulf.  We no longer had any need for the Mujahideen that our CIA had trained and financed. 

Our military establishment sought new enemies to justify it's existence.  So, Saddam Hussein was portrayed as "the next Hitler" and the War Economy persisted.  After the War in the Persian Gulf ended, we continued bombing Iraq, imposing brutal sanctions against that country and intervening in various ways throughout the region throughout the 1990s.

This created a great deal of anger and resentment throughout the Muslim world.  In 1993, Ramzi Yousef committed the first attack against the World Trade Center.

He said, among other things:  "Yes, I am a terrorist, and proud of it as long as it is against the U.S. government and against Israel, because you are more than terrorists; you are the one who invented terrorism and using it every day. You are butchers, liars and hypocrites."

He did not call the United States "terrorists" and "butchers" because we allow women to go to college.  He said these things because he perceived the United States as supported Israel in their oppression of the Palestinians.  He saw the United States military as having used and betrayed the Muslim people during the 1980s and during the War in the Persian Gulf.

Yousef also said:

"If the U.S. government keeps supporting Israel ... then we will continue to carry out operations inside and outside the United States... All people who support the U.S. government are our targets in our future plans, and that is because all those people are responsible for their government's actions and they support the U.S. foreign policy and are satisfied with it."

This is the goddamned motivation, like I've been saying over and over.  I could fill up one hundred pages of quotes from Islamic terrorists explaining that they are attacking the United States because of our foreign policy.  You can have any opinion about these people that you want, but this is what they believe and why they commit the terrorist acts that they do.

Have I more fully answered your question about what motivated the United States military to intervene into the middle east?  Hopefully I've provided some much needed historical context as well.

[quiller]

Oh wow, another Dump Israel troll. Yeah, sonny, evvvvvvvvvvry problem is the Jews, right? Right? Putz!

[Possum]

Oh wow, another Dump Israel troll. Yeah, sonny, evvvvvvvvvvry problem is the Jews, right? Right? Putz!

Think you nailed it. There are two sides to every war, and we know which side he stands on. He's not a liberal? Well he is part of the blame America first crowd. Obama could not have said it better.

[supsalemgr]

OK. It's one thing to have an opinion, it's another to create your own facts.
I've been skimming this thread for awhile now and it's obvious you're completely oblivious and ignorant to history. I can appreciate the fact that you hate war, we all hate war, but war is merely a mirrored image and an amplification of human nature, sometimes it's failed politics, and sometimes it bruised egos, but in this case, it's a political system disguised as a religion, one of conquer and destruction.

Look up Barbary Pirates and why we have a Navy today. So cut the idiocy and learn something for a change!

Just dump his ass. It is all a repeat of BS.

[tac]

Just dump his ass. It is all a repeat of BS.

Agreed

[Billy's bayonet]

Do you understand that I am not defending any terrorist attacks, least of all the attacks on 9/11?  What I am saying is that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda were motivated primarily by resentment over US occupation of Muslim nations and war crimes committed against the Muslim people.  Osama said it explicitly as have nearly all terrorist attackers since.

Yes, Osama was also angry at the United States for supporting Israel and turning a blind eye to war crimes committed against the Palestinian people.  In my opinion, the United States should not be supporting Israel financially and we should not be afraid to speak out in support of a two-State solution.  Nor should we be afraid to criticize Israel for their shoddy treatment of the Palestinian people on the West Bank.

If you create an atmosphere of general resentment towards the United States due to your constant interventions into the middle east, it is logical that this would foster a resentment and some people will seek drastic measures to fight back.  I don't condone the purposeful targeting of civilians (I keep repeating this because you don't seem to get it) but the general anger that gives rise to terrorist attacks is something that can be understood.

Osama bin Laden is a bastard, all right?  I'm not condoning his actions whatsoever.  But he and Al Qaeda were not capable of killing the numbers of people that the US military has. 

I agree with one thing you said though.  Bill Clinton COULD have killed Osama bin Laden and he should have.  Also, there was plenty of evidence that suggested a planned attack against the World Trade Center.  Bill Clinton is culpable in not acting upon this intelligence and George W. Bush is culpable as well.

But Bill Clinton is ALSO culpable in repeatedly bombing Iraq and imposing crippling sanctions against that country for the entire duration of his presidency.

You did make a startling claim though.  You said that Osama bin Laden has killed many more Muslims than the United States military.  This is absolutely false.  It's ludicrously false.  Even before 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, the United States military had killed, directly or indirectly, hundreds of thousands, and likely as much as one million Muslims just during the 1990s.  And estimates are that the United States has killed over a million more since the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Are you honestly claiming that Osama bin Laden is personally responsible for killing two million Muslims?  Do you just make up facts?

Of course, murder is murder.  Saying that someone has not killed as many people as the United States military is faint praise, after all.  I'm not even intending to praise Osama bin Laden at all.  I'm only making the factual point that the United States military has killed vastly more Muslims over the past twenty five years than Muslims have killed Americans.  This is an absolute fact.  If you want to dispute this, I'd ask you to cite hard statistics and prove your case.  Don't just make vacuous assertions.

There was an important article written on this subject by Stephen Walt:

Please read the entire article:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/11/30/why-they-hate-us-ii-how-many-muslims-has-the-u-s-killed-in-the-past-30-years/


And, please explain the justification for killing Anwar Al-Awlaki and his 16 year old son?  Both were American citizens who had the Constitutional right to due process.  You can't claim to be "Constitutional Conservatives" one minute, then abandon it when the founding document gets in the way of murdering Muslims.


Pulled post out of quote I hope.
walks. 

Lets get Al-Awlaki out of the way first, killing him was the only thing Obmao did right IMHO, even leftist CNN agrees on that, it would be no different than killing Hitlers Propaganda secretary

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/11/opinion/bergen-american-terrorism-leader-paris-attack/

Now lets chip away at the rest of your bullshit.

OF COURSE THE US KILLED MUSLIMS in the 1990's Most of them were the Iraqi army who invaded Kuwait and unchecked would have rolled into Saudi and robbed OBL of his chance to become the big cheese. OBL mourning the "murder" of Saddam's Iraqi soldiers His mortal enemy is almost laughable. And yes the US has armed and supported Isreal as they are beseiged by Palestinian terror campaigns financed by hostile countries. Vicariously, one could claim that when Isreal hits back after a Palestinian terror attack the scum killed by the IDF using an American made Apache helicopter is vicariously killing Muslims....even though something like 20% of Palestinians claim to be Christian.

So OBL was angry at US forces for Killing Muslim's.... his enemies (Saddam's army) who invaded another Muslim country and were killing Muslims and likely would have extended his invasion to the other Gulf States and quite Likely again OBL's home country Saudi Arabia making it impossible for him to return as the conquering hero ousting the house of Saud.

You see how ludicrous your (Pape's) position seems in that light of practicality?

Now I do agree that one of the biggest 'sin's' the US has committed in Radical Islamic Jihadi's eyes is support of Israel.
You really think they want a peaceful coexistience with Israel in some type of shared country with Palestinians? BULLSHIT! They want every last Jew on earth dead. That goal begins when they intimidate us away from our aly in the ME Israel, and when Israel has NO SUPPORT FROM THE US....here comes WW3 and guess what THEY WILL POP NUKES, and they will pop them against hostile MUSLIM COUNTRIES and kill millions and Millions of Muzz if it looks like they are going down. Of course Muzz don;t care about loss of life, they care about their power mad scheme's to make the world bend to their insane religion.

Of course they cite the US intervention as their reasons for war, without the US they have a clearer path. So while they want the US to stop interfering in the politics and climate of the Middle east THEY INTERFERE IN OTHER COUNTRIES EXPORTING THEIR RADICAL ISLAM AND TERRORISM. MURDERING CIVILIANS INCLUDING OTHER MUSLIMS. I SAW THAT WITH MY OWN EYES.

These attacks took place in the following countries I worked in from 1999 to 2008. East Timor, Indonesia,Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand (Southern Thailand especially) Philippines, the later especially influenced by the Arab Wahabbi Jihadists who finance a number of terror orgs war against the Govt. SO don;t try and sell me you or Pape's convoluted bullshit, I KNOW BETTER.

EACH ONE OF THOSE COUNTRIES SAW A RISE IN POST 2001 TERROR ATTACKS BY MUSLIMS WHO CLAIMED ALLEGIANCE TO OR were EMBOLDENED BY OBL and AL-Q'EDA.

So add hypocracy to the list of Radical Muslim Jihadi's list of sins.

Now we get to the murder and rapine of Muslim's directly under OBL's terror orgs in Afghanistan and Yemen. Obl after fighting the Russians stayed on in the country using the radical taliban as his vehicle to try and dominate the country, this post Russian war was responsible for the killing of tens of thousands of Afghani's and the imposition of strict Shari law standards, women were MURDERED for not wearing Full Prhadia or for gambling at their traditional cock fights and horse races. Of course he was in open warfare against the legitimate residents and inhabitants in the Northern Alliance responsible for killing thousands of NA soldiers AND SUPPORTING CIVILIANS under Amad Shah Mossoud and of course his assassination.  You can read about it in this article the crimes and massacres of the taliban were at their most around 1997 on.
http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/afghanistan/

Then we have OBL's meddling in Yemen and the deaths he caused there

https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/indepth/2016/4/5/bin-laden-yemen-and-al-qaedas-strategy

OBL ensconced himself in among the AFghani citizenry, storing munitions, arms and supplies in such places as schools, Mosques and hospitals, any COLLATERAL DAMAGE to (Muslim) civilians was his fault of course we killed his soldiers, his Al Qeada muslim operatives by the score, so yeah again we killed SOLDIERS who Muslim.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/09/afghanistan-insurgents-civilian-victims

Here's something else you rarely hear, OBL attacked the US because he thought the time was right, he saw the 2000 election which caused so much division and dissension among Americans as his great chance, HE NEVER THOUGHT AMERICANS WOULD RALLY BEHIND GEO BUSH and come kick his ass so soundly. OBL discussed this with other AQ leaders at the time, they too expressed surprise at the ferocity of the US Juggernaut, believing that the DOWNSIZED US MILITARY UNDER CLINTON would not be immediately capable of such an assault. They were also somewhat disappointed that Muslims world wide did not rise up and turn on the US as they thought.

So that's another lesson to the fools who believe a downsized military.

[quiller]

I suppose that's off-topic here. Maybe. 

[quiller]

Think you nailed it. There are two sides to every war, and we know which side he stands on. He's not a liberal? Well he is part of the blame America first crowd. Obama could not have said it better.

See above. 

[Ghoulardi]

Could you specify in what capacity Pape is an adviser to President Obama?  And, furthermore, could you elaborate on why this relationship renders Pape's views suspect?

There are a large number of people who contract with the government or offer their expertise to various departments in the government without regard to who happens to be President at the moment.  Robert Pape is a very well-respected foreign policy analyst who has made himself available to the CIA and our military as an adviser.

As I've told you, Obama would not have an advisor with a view contrary to his. Obama's ego wouldn't allow it.

I want you to be very specific in precisely what you are insinuating in regards to Pape's work, character and integrity.

You mean like I want you to be specific in the following:

They're mad at us because of what we did to them, you say. So why did we do it to them? Why aren't they taking responsibility for what they did (to make us do what we did).

The US military killed their citizens, you say. Why? We don't intervene without reason, so what was the reason?

Rather you gave me a bunch of liberal talking points (which, by the way, you did again).

I actually DID answer your questions, but you obviously lack reading comprehension skills.

Or I have a very effective b.s. detector.

Here are some of the reasons why we intervene into the middle east:

1.  War profiteering

2.  Fighting Israel's wars for them

3.  Mercantalism, which means that we covet the natural resources that many of these countries have

4.  The desire to exert influence in choosing which leaders rise to power in which countries

Didn't ask for b.s. I asked:

They're mad at us because of what we did to them, you say. So why did we do it to them? Why aren't they taking responsibility for what they did (to make us do what we did).

The US military killed their citizens, you say. Why? We don't intervene without reason, so what was the reason?

Now what specifically did they do to us to get us to respond to them aggressively?

This is like being a cop arriving at the scene of a fight. One side is screaming the other side hit them. The cop should ask, why? People don't hit people without cause.

Nor do nations kill other nation's citizens without cause. So, without tap dancing around the facts, what caused the US to be aggressive?

Yadda...yadda...yadda. More talking points snipped.

I'm a simple man, so please quit making up in length what your reasoning lacks in depth. Someone was hit, why?