OT: Al Ahram

[AMF]

Possum,

I think you're reading too much into what I'm saying - and I do think we're having a civil discussion.

You stated that the people of the middle east are our enemies.

This is a very easy point to refute, if one stays away from the theoretical and merely (simply) looks at national policy. ALL I am saying is that the US government, and all other governments involved in the Global War on Terror, have clearly stated that the war is against terrorists, and most certainly NOT ALL the people of the middle east.

I then went on to say that "empowering moderate muslims, and gaining their friendship and assistance, are the only way to win this war. If suddenly tomorrow all the muslims in the world decided they didn't want to cooperate with the US, then our war effort would grind to a halt overnight"

This is an empirical fact, that any basic ops analysis will show. For example, almost all of our bases in the middle east are in muslim countries (the only exception I can think of off the top of my head is Diego Garcia, which is actually very far away, as are our european bases). If we suddenly decided that all muslims were our enemies, then all our bases here would be unusable the next day. I can show this relatively easily if you want me to, based on the fact that local support and friendly governments, and co-located facilities in the region, are all vital to the operation of our bases. And without our bases we couldn't supply our forces, carry out missions, and so forth. I have a hard time seeing how this is a controversial supposition.

So, in one sense, yes it is my personal opinion. But it is analogous to me saying that it is my opinion that oxygen is necessary for most life on earth to survive. It's really just a fact of life that we rely upon friendly muslims to conduct most (almost all) of this war. Without their help, we'd be sunk.

And, I really don't see how I was disrespecting your opinion at all. But I'm eager to learn (and change my habits) if you'll point it out to me. It's not my intention to "diss" people, because once "dissed" there is no chance to change their minds. So I try not to do that.

Re: Turkey, you stated that perhaps turkey was our enemy. But everything you stated about Turkish history supports my contention that it is a secular state (suspicion re relgiious govt, military being very secular, Ataturk's reforms, etc). I'm not sure what the disagreement here is.

As an aside, Turkey is a great place. I've been there three times in the last six months, it's where I vacation usually. People are great, highly secular, very low crime, great beaches (many of them topless, woop!), and just overall extremely friendly, and extremely wary of religion and religious violence. They're proud, but secular and moderate. That's why I say they're exactly the model for the moderate muslim state. I think we're saying the same thing in re: Turkey.

Now, in regards to your statement that "AMF, was that enough to dispel your assumption (suspicion, maybe?) that if I disagree with you, I must be doing so through ignorance?"

If I implied that by virtue of you disagreeing with me that you are ignorant, that wasn't my intention. Again, I try not to 'diss' or insult people, becuase once it gets to that point, no one will ever change their minds. So, sorry if I came across like that.

RE:"Folks, all I'm trying to do here is have a calm, civilised discussion. I have no problem with others attacking my ideas, but I do object to those who have launched attacks on me, simply because they don't like my opinions."

Again, I don't see how that really happened, but if you feel that way, I guess it must have.

In any case, I do think we're having a civil discussion. If we all agreed it would be boring.

And I think that I have put forth pretty strong arguments against declaring all muslims our enemies. Others have put forth other, different arguments that I feel are just as powerful.

I really don't see that anyone has crossed a line, and certainly there's been no forum rules violations. People have merely disagreed with you, and deeduced logically from statements that you made, which is pretty typical in a debate. If you don't want people to disagree with you, or draw conclusions from what you post, then I would suggest you avoid starting threads that will engender debates.

I don't see how there's been any name calling, but if you can point some out I'm eager to be corrected in that beleif.

EDITs: corrected misspellings, a few clarifications, etc