Why do we keep using the term "radical" when refering to the militant Islamic factions? There doesn't really appear to be anything all that radical about their views, they are just militant and agressive in their political policies and the use of religion to bolster their goals. If you use the term "militant" you more aptly describe what is going on and get a much more honest view of the role of the Islamic governments in this situation and the scope of the problem. Everything seems to funnel back to Iran. I don't see why we don't just recognize that reality and approach this in a manner that will bring it to a head or an end. If it is going to be war eventually, why wait for them to gain an even stronger position with nuclear weapons?

Why do we keep using the term "radical" when refering to the militant Islamic factions? There doesn't really appear to be anything all that radical about their views, they are just militant and agressive in their political policies and the use of religion to bolster their goals. If you use the term "militant" you more aptly describe what is going on and get a much more honest view of the role of the Islamic governments in this situation and the scope of the problem. Everything seems to funnel back to Iran. I don't see why we don't just recognize that reality and approach this in a manner that will bring it to a head or an end. If it is going to be war eventually, why wait for them to gain an even stronger position with nuclear weapons?

That's a pretty militant opinion, if you ask me. :wink:

You sound exactly like a certain Air Force General during the 13 days of the Cuban Missile Crisis...a certain Curtis "bombs away" LeMay.

Just sayin'

Why do we keep using the term "radical" when refering to the militant Islamic factions? There doesn't really appear to be anything all that radical about their views, they are just militant and agressive in their political policies and the use of religion to bolster their goals. If you use the term "militant" you more aptly describe what is going on and get a much more honest view of the role of the Islamic governments in this situation and the scope of the problem. Everything seems to funnel back to Iran. I don't see why we don't just recognize that reality and approach this in a manner that will bring it to a head or an end. If it is going to be war eventually, why wait for them to gain an even stronger position with nuclear weapons?

yeee hawwwww!!!!!!!!

and combine it wit religious furor are titled 'radicals'
being willing to blow yourself up for a cause goes beyond militant into 'radical' territory
No Iran isn't the only focal point. It is the focal center for Shia Lead Islamic Radicalism
Saudi Arabia is the center for the wahabbi lead radicals

and how did that radical shia revolution start in Iran? oh yeah, we threw out a democratically elected President and installed a brutal dictator who served our and Britain's oil interests

Just kidding, Snake. I'm with you: Glass the f*ckers!



/That felt good. Haven't said it in a while.

and combine it wit religious furor are titled 'radicals'
being willing to blow yourself up for a cause goes beyond militant into 'radical' territory
No Iran isn't the only focal point. It is the focal center for Shia Lead Islamic Radicalism
Saudi Arabia is the center for the wahabbi lead radicals

and how did that radical shia revolution start in Iran? oh yeah, we threw out a democratically elected President and installed a brutal dictator who served our and Britain's oil interests

No, no, no, no! You aren't going to get away with that one. Radical is a departure from the norm. In that respect, the Shah was the radical change in the ME. He tried to westernize his country and break the strong hold of the Mullahs. These guys there now aren't "radical" at all, they are the friggin norm. When the Shah fell, they went back to "normal."

Everyone seems ready to attack me on this one but no one is addressing my claim that this militancy is the damned norm and not radical at all. This militancy and the various armed groups exist because the governments of the region support them and use them to enforce their policies. They are not radical, they are the accepted norm. Why the hell do we keep pretending otherwise and trying to find where we went wrong? There is nothing we can do that will change the way they view us, we are competitors and enemies. Their blustering and threats go unchallenged and it works for them.

This Hezbollah crap is orchestrated from Iran. The missiles striking Haifa are IRANIAN in origin. It is a muscle flexing exercise, a show of strength and a challenge to us to btf off. Piss on 'em. I can walk or ride my bike. We can eventually drill new wells. I say lets get 'wm.

Ummmm....Snake....there was no Mullah strongholds in Iran in 1953. Some (like the author of "The Eagle and the Lion") suggest that it was the Shah whose attempts at westernization also meant widespread torture and strongarmed tactics led many to turn to radicalism and a mosque mentality. (Many many women left the Universities in favor of the Burka during this time.)... Cause you see in 1953 radicalism really hadn't come of age yet, but it grew from about that time. Mossadaq who won election (after forcing the Shah's hand with his popularity)...was largely secularist.

Just sayin'

only if you are stereotyping. That would be being a bigot. Islam is the worlds largest religion I think and you are categorizing millions by the behavior of


No they were already westernizing and actually easternizing (as the President was a bit of a lefty) you know nationalizing the oil biz to share the wealth with the general populace. Spread some love around, educate everyone, be a secular but lefty democracy. Our installation of the Shah was the 'same old'. A western power installing a dictator to serve it's interests and at the expense of the people.

Ummmm....Snake....there was no Mullah strongholds in Iran in 1953. Some (like the author of "The Eagle and the Lion") suggest that it was the Shah whose attempts at westernization also meant widespread torture and strongarmed tactics led many to turn to radicalism and a mosque mentality. (Many many women left the Universities in favor of the Burka during this time.)... Cause you see in 1953 radicalism really hadn't come of age yet, but it grew from about that time. Mossadaq who won election (after forcing the Shah's hand with his popularity)...was largely secularist.

Just sayin'

If they were so damned benign, what happend to them while they were exiled to France? The Ayatollah returned and implemented what we have today. Also, it seems to my ignorant mind that the Shah was torturing and fighting factions, not the general populace. was his struggle not with the clergy of the time? Of course there were political factions, and I would be the last to say he was what we would prefer but he was what he was. Our role was determined by our cold war strategy and good or bad, we were pretty much out of there when the mullah control came about. Why are they who they are today if they have a different and more benign philosophy? I'm saying they are not "radical" and the term radical is misapplied here. We are fighting government policies, grass roots movements if you like, but not radical.

would have been what they called those in Algiers and there's was a peoples (not Theocratic) revolt as well. It was the Shah's behavior IMHO (as well as the author of
The eagle...") that gave rise to the return of fundamentalism. Snake doesn't like to confront any bones in his closet though. He still thinks that the Alamo was purely a good guys (us) vs bad guys (them) scenario.

If they were so damned benign, what happend to them while they were exiled to France? The Ayatollah returned and implemented what we have today. Also, it seems to my ignorant mind that the Shah was torturing and fighting factions, not the general populace. was his struggle not with the clergy of the time? Of course there were political factions, and I would be the last to say he was what we would prefer but he was what he was. Our role was determined by our cold war strategy and good or bad, we were pretty much out of there when the mullah control came about. Why are they who they are today if they have a different and more benign philosophy? I'm saying they are not "radical" and the term radical is misapplied here. We are fighting government policies, grass roots movements if you like, but not radical.

Until last year I would have had you come up to William and Mary where he headed the Wendy and Emery Reves Center for International Studies since 1987 and kick James Bill's arse, but alas he has retired. If you want to refute him now your going to have to find him on a golf course or maybe in Tehran where he has traveled and researched for countless weeks, months and years.

Going to defer to him on this one, but by all means, cull your authorities and see if you can refute his insights.

would have been what they called those in Algiers and there's was a peoples (not Theocratic) revolt as well. It was the Shah's behavior IMHO (as well as the author of
The eagle...") that gave rise to the return of fundamentalism. Snake doesn't like to confront any bones in his closet though. He still thinks that the Alamo was purely a good guys (us) vs bad guys (them) scenario.

The Alamo was MY guys vs THEIR guys.

Also, it seems to my ignorant mind that the Shah was torturing and fighting factions, not the general populace. was his struggle not with the clergy of the time? Of course there were political factions, and I would be the last to say he was what we would prefer but he was what he was.

because you could make the exact same one in support of keeping / leaving Saddam Hussein in power

because you could make the exact same one in support of keeping / leaving Saddam Hussein in power

Just like I said in another portion of that thread, we looked after our economic and security needs. We are still donig so. Saddam is gone because he didn't believe we would go so far in doing so. His erstwhile northern neighbors should have been paying attention as they seem determined to cross the same lines he did. We can and will do the same again if it comes to that.

Is the often mutual exclusivity of our security needs vs. our econoimic needs.

we'd have been more secure (in the long run, especially given all that has happened as a result of the Shah) if we'd have not let our economic needs come first.

this is the double edged sword. We tend to side with economic side of the equation and then suffer the consequences.
so if you had a Crystal Ball and had seen that by deposing Mossadeq in 1953 would result in all the Radical Islamicist Crap we have nowadays I think if you were President you would tell what was British Petroleum to get bent. Personally having to change the structure of ME Oil Profits would have been far more beneficial as we'd have had a democracy there all this time.

and again, yes Hezbollah is firing missiles. Hezzbollah is funded by Iran. What you are failing to admit is Iran was supposed to cut off funds to Hezzbollah after the moderates threw out the mullahs because they became emboldened by the democracy in Iraq.
PNAC still batting .000

again, had we stayed out of Iraq and focused more covert actions in Iran we may have already been there.