View Full Version : BPC Response - From Snohetta Thread

October 5th, 2005, 01:29 AM
Zippy saw fit to delete my response at he had posted his request to move the conversation as I typed my response. So, lest anyone think the final word was had....

Wow. So much Islamist propaganda, so little time to respond. OK, just the basics...

Ah, Islamist propaganda. Now, anyone who has a dissenting view from yours is tossing about "propaganda". Given your long winded responses up until now, it seems you'll have all the time in the world to respond - that is until you run out of name calling and condscending dismissal of contrary viewpoints.

What they don't tell you on your 9/11 conspiracy web sites......

Interesting, I don't recall referring to any 9/11 conspiracy websites. Which specific ones do you visit as you seem to have read any available to me and determined through your, as of yet unsubstantiated, expertise what "they" do or "don't tell me." It's always a warning sign when someone starts blowing smoke as opposed to stating facts - such as trying to portray me in a light convenient to the only argument you can formulate.

The Islamists are not democrats, and do not object to dictatorships.......

I wasn't aware that you were the spokesperson for all Islamists. How is your narrow definition of a broad and diverse culture supported? It isn't. Let's look at some of the "Islamist Dictatorships": Iran - Supported by the Reagan Administration as revealed in the "October Surprise". Iraq - Supported by Reagan and Bush I, who provided him with all the weapons his son would send Americans to die in search of. Egypt - American ally receiving US aid. Jordan - American Ally receiving US Aid. Libya - a "new ally" of George W in the fight on terrorism. Pakistan - a key ally receiving US Aid. Kuwait - a key US ally. Saudi Arabia - A key US ally receiving US aid.

Actually, most countries aren't subject to dictatorships unless the dictators are supported militarily and financially by western backers. Also, you seem to be using that narrow focus to paint the muslims in a certain light. How might you explain the dictastorships in Africa? They are not Islamic. Oh, wait, not fair, You were talking about Islamists. The people with the guns and money get to be dictators. The guns and weaponry throughout the middle east are predominantly American and European.

Spare me the sermon. Islamist propaganda is what you are spewing - not me. You are a perfect example of a person falling hook, line and sinker for the "propaganda" we are being asked to believe. Bernard Lewis "What Went Wrong?", Sam Harris "The End of Faith", yeah, yeah, I read all of those books written by WESTERN academics. What have you read by an Islamist?

...Indeed, the one regime that gave them state sponsorship, the Taleban, was the most repressive regime in the history of mankind........

The most oppressive regime in the history of Mankind? You are omitting a lot of history to make that argument. Oppressive, horrendous and murderous - yes. Where would the American slaughter of Native Americans fall on the all time list? The American slavery system? That wasn't too opprssive. Burning witches in Salem was pretty civil.

Let's assume they were the WORST. They were supported by the US. Bush I and Clinton both supported the reguime as Unocal attempted to negotiate the building of a pipeline from the huge gas reserves under the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan, into Pakistan and to the Indian Ocean. Do I need to pull up the photos of the official visits? So, now let's see what we have... A bogus turnout in the first Afghan election that greatly overstated participation. Oh, and let's not forget Harmid Karzai. A Unocal consultant during the period when Unocal was negotiating with the Taliban.

1) Don't blame citizens for succumbing to the people who have the guns and money.
2) Don't assume that our "democracy" is necessarily the "shining light" and ultimate vision for people of totally DIFFERENT cultures. As the Arabian women tod Karen Hughess, "we not interested in driving."

...What they want is world Islamist rule.........

REALLY? And what exactly does the country want? When have we ever acted in a way that was not in our own "national interest?" How can you argue that their desire for world Islamic Rule is any worse than American Imperialism as exemplified by our occupation of both Afghanistan and Iraq, where we are introducing our version of "ideal government" via missiles, depleted uranium, Halliburton and an American picked slate of candidates?

...As for Saudi Arabia, our troops were there at the invitation of the rulers of that country, to protect that country from an external threat, the Iraqi army amassed just outside its border. Once that threat was removed, we left and have no military presence left in that country tpday, contrary to your post.........

As reported in today's news, the US government has approved the sale of $1.2B in military armaments to Saudi Arabia. We don't just "sell" these weapons to countries. We train their personnel, take part in joint maneuvors, and, once again, support one of the most oppressive regimes in history (by your definition). Who exactly are these weapons to be used against? We are allied with Israel. We are occupying Iraq. We are allied with Jordan and Egypt. Yes, Islamist propaganda. The US is the biggest destabilizing influence in the world when it is in their national interest. We are talking about bringing peace to the middle east and talk about "democracies don't wage war" as we arm a total dictatorship with state-of-the-art weaponry. Tell me more about the "propaganda".

...BTW, it was Clinton who kept the troops in Saudi Arabia for eight years, Bush who pulled them out. So much for your theory of the Islamists as liberal democrats!.........

Uh, you'll have to republish my "theory" on Islamists as liberal democrats. And, wouldn't that be a "conspiracy theory", since it opposes your Truth?

...As for our support of various dictators, again that policy has been consistent throughout the past dozen presidents, republican and democrat, and for good reason. There is no viable democratic alternative in most of these countries. The only current alternative to the secular dictators who afford their citizens some rights are Islamist dictators who would afford their citizens no rights..........

Oh yes, the various sundry dictators. Spoken like a true American tuning out anything beyond our own borders. When your done parking your Ford and eating your apple pie, you'll find that there are plenty of alternatives in any country left to its own devices. When you say "no viable democratic alternative" you mean like Chavez in Venezuela. He, of course, was democratically elected and enjoys the support of the majority of the population. He is not, however, a viable alternative because his policies are not in our national interest. Aristede in Haite - democratically elected - was not a viable alternative. Your rationalization of secular vs. Islamist dictators is repugnant to its core. We should support the people who hurt them every other day over the people who hurt them every day. Bloody brilliant! ::queue up "God Bless America"::

How do you then approach genocides? Karfur, Sudan? Rawanda? Congo? Saddam against the Kurds? We'll choose one dictator over another, but we'll choose not to interfere in the "internal affairs" of another country - no matter how loud people scream for help - if its NOT IN OUR NATIONAL INTEREST.

...The only American president who has actively supported democracy in Islamic countries is the current one, who brought democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan...........

A bomb at 9:00AM, a bomb at noon, an occupying foreign army there for three years now. It must be democracy - because George W would lie. He has a good heart.

...Oh yeah, that's right, you think that means we deserved to have our civilian airplanes hijacked and crashed into office towers, even though 9/11 came first, because the Islamists knew it was "hit or be hit."...........

I don't condone what they did, but I get it. To not seek to understand the "why", is ignorant to the core. It was a crime - not an act of war. It was committed by a cabal of men - not arabs in general. Not Afghanistanis ATALL and there is no link to Iraq. If anything, the seeds of this attack were sown in Saudi Arabia. Note above - we are selling them $1.2B in weaponry.

...Even the NAZIs had propagandists before WW2, but they at least were good at what they did.

Well, it makes sense that you would admit an appreciation for the "talents" of Nazis. Your support of American Fascism makes that much more sense.

Because I know your response, if you can developone will use the word "conspiracy theory" every other sentence, let's all look at the definition:


(1) to plan together secretly to commit an illegal act (See the Downing Street Memo, See Tom Delay, See the Florida Recount 2000 and Ohio election 2004, see Gulf on Tonkin, USS Maine, Watergate, Irangate, the October Surprise, Halliburton no bid contracts)

(2) To join or act together (See George W and Cheney's appearance before the 9/11 commission, the increased unilateral bombing of Iraq before the President was given permission to act by Congress, Department of Homeland Security and FEMA in the wake of Katrina, George Bush et al in the appearance before the UN delivering unequivocal evidence of WMDs in Iraq, the governments of Mexico and the US in response to illegal border crossings).

Conspiracy: A plot, esp. an illegal one (see the 2000 election Bush sues to stop counting of ballots, see the attempt by Ken Blackwell of Ohio to dismiss voter registration not printed on 28lb paper, see Lucas county 2004 where stickers were placed over Kerry votes on absentee ballots, see Ohio coingate, see Tom Delay, see the Valerie Plame case).

Yeah, where do I come up with these things? There are no conspiracies, just little tiny errors everyone agrees to overlook.

I'm sorry my original post got deleted. It covered the same ground but more effectively. In short, I don't buy your propaganda and I don't share your warped "yehaw American!" perspective.