So now, President Obama's advisor on man-made disasters and homeland security, John Brennan, has stated that the goal of the administration is to identify "moderates" within Hezbollah.
This from the same boob who calls Jerusalem by its Arabic name (Al Quds).
All I can say is Mr Brennan, good luck in your search for those moderates.
Must be a moderate in there somewhere.
Or there.
I think I see one.
With your background in law enforcement, Mr. Fouse, you must be dimly aware that the CIA has always maintained some connections with Hezbollah. Its part of their job, simply because Hezbollah is a force to be reckoned with, which is also why it has seats in the Lebanese government. I'd like to ignore both of the senators from South Carolina, but given Jim DeMint's predilictions, I don't mind that my home state senator might speak civilly to Lindsey Graham now and then.
ReplyDeleteLet's also remember that the rise in Islamic fundamentalism was sponsored in large part by the CIA, as an alternative to the domination of rhetorically "leftist" allies of the Soviet Union, albeit their actual base was more feudal than proletarian. Now we reap the whirlwind. It was part of the cold war, as you like to observe.
Siarlys, stop confusing the issue with things like fact and historical perspective. It's hard to make a talking point out of all of that!
ReplyDelete"With your background in law enforcement, Mr. Fouse, you must be dimly aware that the CIA has always maintained some connections with Hezbollah"
ReplyDeletePossible. I don't know.
"Let's also remember that the rise in Islamic fundamentalism was sponsored in large part by the CIA, as an alternative to the domination of rhetorically "leftist" allies of the Soviet Union,"
I guess you refer to our aid to the mujahadeen in Afghanistan against the Soviets, which is kind of like blaming the US for being allies with the Soviets in WW2.
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
ReplyDelete"George Bush's terrorist was Ronald Reagan's freedom fighter."
But there is more to it than Afghanistan. The CIA was pushing Islamic fundamentalism all over the middle east, before, during and after the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, for the reasons I stated: it was a viable alternative to quasi-Marxist ideology, led by semi-tribal feudalists who were functioning as useful idiots for Soviet influence.
The WW II analogy is also not apt. Our government was hostile to the USSR before WW II, for reasons which had little to do with "freedom" and more to do with the fear that a "workers state" might actually succeed. When it emerged as a military empire during the run-up to the war, and afterward, our home grown anticommunists breathed a sigh of relief and launched vicious persecution of anyone who advocated increasing the minimum wage.
We were not enemies of Islamic fundamentalism until AFTER the ungrateful bastards turned on us.
(Lance, so sorry to keep introducing facts, a long view of history, and additional perspective. My fourth grade teacher used to lampoon aversion to data with the words "My mind's made up. Don't confuse me with the facts.")
Siarlys,
ReplyDeleteSo the CIA started all this fuss, eh?
Interesting theory.
So the CIA started all this fuss, eh?
ReplyDeleteWow. Way to completely oversimplify everything.
Lance,
ReplyDeleteYou are right.
Back to you Siarlys.
No, Gary, I'm saying that you're oversimplifying what Siarlys wrote.
ReplyDeleteYes, Lance
ReplyDeleteI was asking for a follow up from Siarlys on his assertion about the CIA.
I doubt very much that the CIA deliberately created a violent school of jihad among a peaceful pastoral people engaged in creating trinkets for western tourists and sending off their kids to British universities to learn the ways of liberal democracies.
ReplyDeleteFor one thing, Kutb was preaching his brand of Islamic fundamentalism long before the CIA even developed any amity toward Israel. I haven't forgotten that a good part of our political and military establishment were leery of the "Jewish state," and patronizing at best toward Jews in general, during the 1940s and much of the 1950s. The Muslim Brotherhood, among others, was well established. Nor did the CIA have to convince Iraqi Shias to abandon close brotherly alliances with their benevolent ruler, Hussein al-Takriti.
However, the CIA did have a mission to undermine Soviet influence in the middle east. I'm not privy to their secret files. From general reading, I do have a sense that the CIA, among other American agencies, considered what use the Muslim Brotherhood might be in weakening Gamal Abdul Nasser, who while from from socialist, did cooperate internationally with Fidel Castro's international outreach. The CIA did encourage "conservative" Islamic fundamentalism as a counter-weight to the charisma of Dr. George Habbash, and even of less ideological Palestinian militants. In Iraq, the U.S. tended to favor Saddam Hussein vs. Iran, while deploring the manipulative anti-Israeli stance he adopted to boost his egoistic presence in his own land, but, when Hussein became an enemy or an inconvenience, latched unto Shia grievances as a convenient foil.
It was only natural to also extend support to the brave "freedom fighters" of Afghanistan, who arose against "communist high school teachers" allowing women to become literate.
Its a badly mixed up world Gary, and one who wants to either walk safely or effect modest improvements would do well to examine the demography very carefully. You are quick to denounce some mindless stereotypes, and rightly so, but you are quick to embrace others, and I fear the damage this could do to the country I love if it catches on.
Siarlys,
ReplyDeleteHow 'bout we just build a big wall around it? Nobody goes in and nobody comes out.
Howz that for a simplistic solution?
Gary, I think you should quit while you're behind. When you juxtapose your prose with Siarlys' writings, it's like reading Toby Keith lyrics vs. Bob Dylan. Stephanie Meyer vs. William Shakespeare. A 2nd Grade science teacher vs. Stephen Hawking. It's a total intellectual beatdown. Whoops! Oh no, I know, a dirty word.
ReplyDeleteNolan,
ReplyDeleteI was never a fan of Toby Keith or Bob Dylan-nor Shakespeare and I don't know who Stephanie Meyer is-or was.
But if it's so bad, why do you keep reading it?
What can I say? Conservatives who stubbornly cling to talking points are a fetish of mine. As for Stephanie Meyer, let me help you out:
ReplyDeletehttp://lmgtfy.com/?q=stephanie+meyer
And there's another missed point...
ReplyDeleteNolan,
ReplyDeleteSo now I know who Stephanie Meyer is. (Tomorrow, I will forget). I think the fact that you knew who she was and I didn't is a point in my column.
What other fetishes do you have?
Yes, I know in the new conservative movement (Palin, Bush, etc.), knowledge is considered a detriment. I'm off to unlearn some stuff before I'm qualified to go to the next big Tea Party rally.
ReplyDeleteAsking a relative stranger about his fetishes on the internet is just asking for a world of hurt.
Please don't go into detail, Nolan, and let us hope you remain a stranger. Aside from your snide comments, you don't have much in the way of discussion to offer.
ReplyDeleteSnide comments are the only things that seem to register with you. You sidestep or obfuscate any actual debate.
ReplyDeleteI actually don't have much to say about this particular topic. I just came here because Lance alerted me that you were getting your ass handed to you. He was right. It's delicious.
Nolan,
ReplyDeleteI wish you success in your future endeavors. I'll miss you.
Well Gary, I don't wish to offend anyone who admires my prose, and I appreciate Nolan's support, but I do want to go on record that MY reasons for being here are that I find you sufficiently wrong to be worth sparring with, but sufficiently intelligent that I don't feel my words are wasted. (I think I said that on some other post too). I think we could have an amicable conversation over lunch, if I ever set foot in California again, without coming to blows or trading direct insults.
ReplyDeleteI have some admiration for Shakespeare, although he was a political hack for the Tudors and Stuarts (MacBeth and Richard III both got an undeserved bad rap), and his work is better as a source for pithy quotes (generally out of context) than easy to follow dialog.
I am myself unfamiliar with Toby Keith and Stephanie Meyer, and have been known to write sharp biting parodies about Bob Dylan. I sense that the analogy to a second grade teacher vs. Stephen Hawkings has some merit -- but really, we shouldn't use second grade teachers as an insult. We depend upon good second grade teachers, and need more of them. You do go in for short-winded slogans and rhetorical questions that are quite short on facts and nuance.
Now, I'm trying to figure out what you want to build a big wall around. The world? I have to refer you to Archimedes comment about a lever large enough and a fulcrum on which to rest it. Israel? I think they are trying that, and its providing mixed results.
No, I'm perfectly willing to talk to Americans like you, and ultimately some leader of Israel will have to sit down face to face with some Palestinian leader who can speak for enough people, and enough effective police and business leaders, to deliver, more often than not, on whatever they agree to.