and i think fragility needs to take some comprehension lessons inhofe’s statement is exactly the opposite of the blame america crowd. they say the jihadists attack us because of our support for israel. he was saying it is our lack of support (trying to be “humane” and not kill the people that want to kill you)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but i was in a conference/meeting/visit with Inhofe with a few of my coworkers (He was paying a visit for a charity fundraiser we were a part of). I had actually never heard the quote mentioned, but a coworker did, and asked about it (aside from the “official visit”). The picture you painted is dead wrong.

No one was “inspired” to jihad because of the defeat in Somalia.

Fragility on June 28, 2007 at 1:23 AM

I hate to bust your bubble, but the Muslim populations in both Somalia AND Lebanon have grown exponentially, while the former majority Christian population has decreased in similarly huge numbers. The Somalies make up a large portion of neighboring Djibouti and life for non-conforming Muslims is getting as bad for them as it is for the few Christians who haven’t been run out. Jihad has been alive and well in Somalia for a while.

Pass the BBQ and beer could get interesting in here

Allow me to quote the great Patrick Henry:

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.

Welcome aboard Fragility. Opening up registration keeps this place hopping.

BBQ and beer on the way!

Not in the least. I stated that his statement says appeasement does not work. Now if he wants to include God’s anger into the brew who am I to say he is wrong. Do you know for sure that God did not allow 9/11 to happen. I wasn’t sitting at God’s arm on 9/10, so I have no idea what God allowed to happen or didn’t.

I don’t know if he is correct or not and no one else on this earth knows either.

Now if you don’t believe in God then that is a totally different discussion.

As far as appeasement it has failed EVERYTIME it has been tried throughout the HISTORY of MAN

Ok I’ll take you at face value and believe you want to learn something so I’ll explain.

The jihadists believe they can win if they wear us down. They know that they can not defeat us in a fight.

From our Actions since the PULLOUT of Vietnam, the jihadist has concluded that we are a paper tiger. These actions include but are not limited too:
The Vietnam pullout
The Iran embassy non response,
The non response to Afghanistan invasion by the USSR,
The Pullout of Beirut after our soldiers were blown to bits,
The failure to topple Saddam in 1991
The Pullout of Somalia
The non response to the first world tower attack
The non response to the Cole bombing
The non response to our North African embassies getting blown to bits
The non response to the attempt on Bush 41
The non infantry campaign in Bosnia
The non response to the West Germany night club bombings
Our tepid response to the Lockerbie bombing

All of these together painted a picture for the Jihadists that we are a paper tiger. These events guided their plans up to 9/11.

Their plan thought that 9/11 would make us pull back to our shores. The forceful response to 9/11 was a surprise and caught them off guard. BUT the past events inspired the jihadists during times of low morale.

The increase in poll numbers against the war in Iraq has further cemented in their minds that their basic assumption of us being a paper tiger was correct. They have increased the attacks on civilians in Iraq in response to the poll numbers. These attacks serve no military purpose except to lower our morale.

Do you understand now ….our actions since the early 70’s has and continues to inspire the Jihadist in the belief that we will fold if only they continue to fight. That we will give up and go home. History tells them this. Our actions reinforce this. The only way to persuade them and our other enemies that this is untrue is to fight on when the going gets tough.
Sure we need to change our battle plans since the fight isn’t going to well. But it is no cause to run away with our tails between our legs.

Any thing else will inspire future enemies and dissuade present allies.

History is important. History should be used to guide us so we do not make the same mistakes. You seem like you do not understand history.

Fragility on June 28, 2007 at 1:55 AM

Dude. Seriously. I just asked a question. I understand in the heat of the discussion you might think I’m attacking you, and I’ll even grant that you might hear that a lot.

I don’t recognize seeing you post here before, and I was reading you posts and trying to frame your PERSONAL position as opposed to pigeon-holing you. Seriously, dude. Just a question to see where your coming from; if I want to get involved in the ‘debate’, I’m not going to snipe from the sidelines.

Fragility on June 28, 2007 at 1:53 AM

I’m a simple fella. You said ‘forgive my liberal elitism’, well forgive my high school education.

If there is a pack of dogs bothering the herd, and I shoo off the main offender, the rest of the dogs keep coming.
If I kill the SOB the other dogs go away. Doesn’t matter to me if those dogs agreed with each other or not, they were all after the herd.

How Inhofe came to his conclusion doesn’t matter at all to me. It is the conclusion that matters to me. Kill the critter.

I’ll go back to my grits now.

not to interrupt you, but quick question…is he yours?

Great one-liner dude, right out of the right-wing blogger playbook. You side-stepped the debate, which you can’t really reason your way into, and just went for the “yeah but I bet you’re on the side of the terrrrrrrists” jab. Nice one.

I give it two and a half stars.

Our pullout in Vietnam has inspired the Jihadist

I would love to hear how you came to this brilliant conclusion, then I would love to hear you explain how our (arguable) defeat in the War of 1812 (If the White House is in ashes, it ain’t exactly Mission Accomplished) inspired Jihadists too.

Sorry, you’re just grasping for straws at this point. No one in the Muslim fundamentalist sects actually leapt to their feet after the defeat in Vietnam and said, “We CAN DOOOO ITTT!!!” The Muslims were probably rooting against the communists. Or rooting for us to kill each other.

And you’re also trying to weasel your way out of the basic fact that James Inhofe, whether you like it or not, has a record of religious fanaticism and irrational logic. Connecting “9/11″ with “not sending the Israelis enough tanks” is not the thinking of a rational mind.

Again your argument is flawed. Our pullout in Vietnam has inspired the Jihadist. The whole battleplan of the jihadists is to wear the American population’s morale down with daily attacks in Iraq until the American population turns against the war. Much like the North’s war plan. The jihadist have not won one battle yet because of their battle plan they are close to winning the war.

you better go read OBL’s speeches than. He specifically stated that this showed we were weak. IN OBL own words

“”So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War …”

since we’re his enemies

not to interrupt you, but quick question…is he yours?

I could be wrong, but that seems to me to be an argument against trying to appease terrorists by persuading Israel to lay off of them.

You are wrong. It had nothing to do with foreign policy, and everything to do with Inhofe actually believing that God Almighty parted the clouds, reached down out of the Heavens, pointed, and then, “BAM”, NYC was covered in dust.

By the way, I’m quoting from the conservative-libertarian CATO Institute. Not exactly Media Matters.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/06-04-02.html

If Inhofe was suggesting that “appeasement” was the reason we were attacked, why does he say “spiritual” door? Forgive my “liberal elitism”, but I was unaware that conservatives framed foreign policy matters in terms of “spiritual”. Spiritual doors? This is the reason he said it, his belief in defending Israel is based biblically, not practically or strategically:

In a Senate speech, Inhofe said that America should base its Israel policy on the text of the Bible:

I believe very strongly that we ought to support Israel; that it has a right to the land. This is the most important reason: Because God said so. As I said a minute ago, look it up in the book of Genesis. It is right up there on the desk.

In Genesis 13:14–17, the Bible says:

The Lord said to Abram, “Lift up now your eyes, and look from the place where you are northward, and southward, and eastward and westward: for all the land which you see, to you will I give it, and to your seed forever. . . . Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it to thee.” That is God talking.

The Bible says that Abram removed his tent and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar before the Lord. Hebron is in the West Bank. It is at this place where God appeared to Abram and said, “I am giving you this land — the West Bank”. This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true.

It’s similar to the argument that by cutting and running from Somalia, we showed weakness and inspired more jihad.

Which is also a stupid argument, since we weren’t fighting

jihad

in Somalia, we were fighting secular warlords who actually kept the jihadists at bay, while Republicans back home called for our withdrawal, including George H. W. Bush. You deliberately say “more jihad” as though what happened in Somalia was “jihad”. No one was “inspired” to jihad because of the defeat in Somalia. Your only shred of proof of that is the fact that Osama Bin Laden mocked us for losing soldiers there (which makes sense, since we’re his enemies, and during the Cold War we mocked the Soviets for losing soldiers in Afghanistan. That’s how it works. We like to call this “trash talking”.) For you to say this was “appeasement” would be like claiming that a withdrawal from communist Vietnam was appeasement to Islamic fundamentalists as long as Bin Laden made some video at some point afterward that mocked our failure in Vietnam, regardless of the fact that the Vietnamese War had nothing to do with religion.

and this statement is wrong how?

All this says is appeasement doesn’t work. True he threw in God’s name but the basic message is the same. Appeasement gets you attacked. Only way to peace is through strength