Washington’s enemy ‘doesn’t exist’

I am only interested in discussing this with those prepared to take the ten mins to watch the interview that is here..

http://rt.com/news/us-muslim-policy-sheuer-895/

Americans are in the crosshairs of terrorists worldwide purely due to Washington’s policy in the Muslim world, not because there is an Islamic enemy whose only aim is to kill Americans for their freedoms and lifestyle, insists a former CIA officer.

(*)Historian Michael Scheuer, an author of "Through our enemies’ eyes", who worked for the agency for over 20 years till 2004 and at one time was the chief of the CIA’s ‘Bin Laden unit’, says America’s greatest enemy – radical Islam – never existed: neither when Bin Laden was alive, nor now.

(*)Israeli lobby drag America into wars

Actually, “it is America’s relationship with Israel that is causing this war [on Islam]”, and until Americans accept this, “we are not going to defeat this enemy,” the author says.

Michael Scheuer believes it is the Israeli lobby in America that is dragging the US into wars.

“In Israel itself as a country, it is not a problem. The real problem is the leaders of the Jewish American community in the US, who influence and corrupt our Congress to support Israel when we have no interest there,” he states.

“The American political establishment is caught between two things. They are extremely pro-Israel and they are almost Marxist in their belief that the spread of democracy is inevitable in all places, in all peoples, in all time,” evaluates the former CIA officer, adding that in their desire to protect Israel, the US establishment cannot tell what’s real.

(*)Radical islamists will benefit

(*)Michael Scheuer predicts that in countries caught up in the Arab Spring like Tunisia, Libya and Egypt, “there is not going to be a democracy that in any way resembles democracy in the west.”

At the same time, the anarchy being created in the Muslim world will make radical Islamists the only beneficiaries of the chaos engulfing the Arab countries.

According to Michael Scheuer, further radicalization of Islamist groups, particularly in Africa, is inevitable – thanks to guns becoming more affordable.

The endless flow of uncounted weapons and the opened prisons in the above countries have reinforced Islamist groups around the world, believes Scheuer.

“Their [American political establishment’s] mindless pursuit of secular democracy at the end of the day endangers the stability of the region and probably the whole world,” he says.

(*)If Syria falls to Islamists – Israel will go down

(*)As for the situation in Syria – it has been interfered in by the US unconscionably.

“Until they [the Syrians] removed the US ambassador, he was running around their country trying to encourage groups to overthrow the Syrian government. That is not the role of any diplomat, US, Russian, Chinese or British,” the author points out, saying that “Syrians were urged onto the streets cold-bloodedly,” without mention of the possibility of being shot dead by the government.

The author recalls that Syria, with its traditional support of Hezbollah, is naturally an Israeli zone of interest, not an American one.

“Syria is a country with no US interest. Since I was a little boy, we’ve been afraid of the Syrians,” the author says, laughing at the fact that “if you look at the map – it’s hard to imagine that this little blat of country called Syria could be a threat to the US.”

Clarifying a possible result of any American success in Syria, Scheuer says that “this is another good example of dichotomy in the thinking of the American leaders. Because as we call for democracy in Syria, if Assad goes – Israel’s security goes straight down.”

(*)Israel sets US plans on Iran

(*)Michael Scheuer reveals that America’s ‘plan on Iran’ depends on that of Israel.

“Both Republicans and Democrats are deathly afraid that Israelis will attack Iran off their own work. If Israel attacks Iran, the Americans will get blamed for condoning it, whether we did or not,” he explains.

“What we are seeing is a slow, almost non-accelerable advance toward some kind of a conflict with Tehran.”

He labels the alleged plot of eliminating a Saudi Arabian ambassador in the US with the help of a Mexican drug cartel “a comic uproar”, saying he can hardly believe Iran would risk a war with the US, Israel and much of NATO, just to kill somebody who is not even a member of the ruling family of Saudi Arabia.

“They’ve come down under belief that democracy is better for everybody. The truth is, American and western foreign policy interests in the Middle East have depended for 50 years on the maintenance of tyranny that gave us access to oil, that protected Israel and persecuted Islamists to protect us. All of that going by the wayside,” acknowledges the author, recalling the Israelis, who were first to realize that democracy might not be good for their security.

(*)‘Libya will be anti-American’

(*)Answering a question about war-torn Libya, the author pointed out that this country is notorious for having its Islamists fighting against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and then the same men encountering the Americans in Iraq and also in Afghanistan. Michael Scheuer is uncertain whether Libya will become a hotbed for terrorists, but “it will decidedly be anti-American and anti-NATO”.

(*)‘We are fighting a religious war’

Despite being largely well-educated and technologically advanced,
“America lacks common sense”
, claims the former CIA officer, maintaining that for the last 20 years, the US has been very efficient in creating enemies and endangering security. The last four American presidents have been telling the population that the wars the US wages abroad are against a bunch of madmen, and in no way religious wars.

“We are definitely fighting a religious war. And until we come to realize that – we are never going to be able to defeat it,” Scheuer concludes.

“Let the Chinese deal with these [Islamist] people for the next 50 years, we’ve had enough of it, but the point is – the Americans cannot get out.”

 

So when the West helps overthrow a dictator (Gaddafi) or encourages people to overthrow one (Syria), it's wrong.

However, it's also wrong when we support dictators (Franco, Pinochet).

I wish the world outside of the West would make up its mind.

 

I expected more of you, and for you to take more from that, given that you are usually one of the more intelligent posters on here.

 

I'm no fan of Israel, but it's just not true to suggest that radical Islamism doesn't exist or doesn't pose a threat.

This particular line made me almost laugh out loud...

“In Israel itself as a country, it is not a problem."

Israel is probably the best example of how radical Islamism can be a threat. Palestinians are obviously motivated by more than just religion in their attacks, but a fanatical interpretation of religion certainly doesn't help in matters of restraint.

I have no disputes with the suggestion that Israel manipulates us and that we should stay out of most Middle Eastern affairs, but I definitely dispute this notion that radical Islamism isn't a threat.

 

There are a couple of words to sum that up, which destroy your argument.

The quran (itself) or Bull crap whichever you choose personally I choose the latter as that is what instantly came to mind both when watching your propaganda piece and reading the quran.

 

Honestly - I don't think you are really getting the sub text of what he is saying. He is not denying that it isn't. He is actually saying, and I really feel he is in a great position to speak, that US foreign policy, driven by the Zionist lobby, actually lends itself to creating anarchy in nations that have nothing to do with them, and that each time they do this, they actually serve to increase the risk, and increase the growth of more radical Islam.

Which in turn they then spend billions 'fighting'. Which in turn creates more radical Islam and anarchy. You see the pattern?

He is saying that the US politic has been so infected by the Zionist movement, that the US are perpetually being dragged into conflicts that really they have no person need to be in. But they suit Israel, you see.

That's what I got from him.

 

What does this rant have to do with anything said in the interview, in the OP?

What's that - you didn't click on the link and bother to listen to it? You didn't take the time to consider the source, and his words?

I see.

Okay, that's fine, don't expect me to engage in a discussion with you on the subject then.

Thanks

Jack

 

John..?

John..?

Are you ever going to come back and answer me?

Thanks

 

Appartently your willingness to acquiesce to his conspiracy theories is the determining factor of your intelligence.

 

In other words if American foreign policy was conducted in full compliance with the demands of the Bin Ladens and Yasser Arafats of the world, they'd have no reasons to murder innocent civilians, now that the US refuses to take orders coming from an Afghanistan cave these innocent american civilians have only themselves to blame.

Did I miss anything?...Other than that it's still not clear what America is to do if two gangs of Islamic terrorists have completely opposite and mutually exclusive demands regarding the US foreign policy and both gangs threaten to start murdering civilians if Washington is not in compliance. Jack, what do you suggest in these circumstances?

 

While Schurer has been an antiIsraeli advocate most of his career...he seems to have referenced this non existent enemy in prior works.

 

He speaks a lot of sense, if one takes a little time to consider it.

 

Sorry terrorists dont like our support of Israel. Makes sense tho, since they dont like any Israel and the Jew pigs that presently inhabit "Palestine".

This hardly seems like a reason to cut them off.

If its merely Jews pulling the wool over Congresses eyes, explain why it is most Americans traditionally have stood by the Israelis as well. Has AIPAC brainwashed the American public as well?

 

What conflicts were those? When has a single US soldier EVER fought on behalf of israel?

Many russians have fought on behalf of the arabs, the US sells a ton of weapons to arab nations, etc., how is it that somehow, 4 million jews in Israel can drive policy for a country of 300 million...get real.

 

False dichotomy.

Well done, you have received 20 points and some peanuts, for it's use.

To oppose US unconditional support for Israel does not a 'terrorist' make.

Try again..

 

Please tell me your 16th post is going to be a little more enlightened than this one.

 

Hey boy read that disgusting crap the torah/talmud lately?

Wanna compare them for their evilness?

 

Yes yes, Algerian Muslims murdering their fellow Muslims in mass, and Arab Muslims murdering black Muslims in the Sudan, and Arab Muslims murdering Arab Christians in Lebanon, and Arab Muslims blowing up Hindu's in Kashmir, or Muslims blowing up a school full of children in Russia, and Indonesian Muslims blowing up a clup in Bali, and Muslims plotting to blow up an airport in Toronto, and, Sunni Muslims blowing up a Shia Mosque in Iraq, and Muslims rioting and murdering over Danish cartoons, and Muslims killing a dutch filmaker, and Muslims blowing up a wedding party in Jordan, and Muslims attacking several locations in Mumbai, and Muslims blowing up buses in the U.K., and Muslims blowing up Subways in Spain, etc etc et al has nothing to do with radical Islamism but with Israel's relationship with the U.S..

 

You have a real problem will Scheuer it seems, but some of your criticism are valid. There is one major flaw in your analysis however.

Its rather childish of you to think that the "Muslims world" (whatever that is) 'hates Americans for their freedoms and lifestyle.' I want to analyze this idea, and prove it wrong.

First on "freedoms". If this were true, why did al Quada declare war only on the US, Britain and Israel and not all of Europe, Australia etc etc? Furthermore, as Osama bin Laden himself stated in 2004, if they attacked America for its freedom - 'Why did we not attack Sweden?' If these terrorists hated America because of their "freedoms" explain all these inconsistencies?
http://articles.cnn.com/2004-10-29/...ript_1_lebanon-george-w-bush-arab?_s=PM:WORLD

Second point - lifestyle. If this were the reason, why did these terrorists not declare war on Japan, or as bin Laden himself mentioned, Sweden, which has legalized gay marriage etc? Surely their lifestyle is the most advanced by way of being free - why were they not targets? Again your contention here makes no sense.

Oh but then you will ask, why? Why then 'do they hate us'? in the words of George W Bush. Well to find that out you could first listen to the terrorists, instead of just pulling some evil vs good dichotomy that we all know is only true in fairy tales and never in real life. After doing this logical first step, perhaps read the scholarship on the matter and then finally find out the views of such people generally. The reality is that the reason why anti-Americanism is so high in the region is actually related to the fact most of the people in the region WANT American freedom and lifestyle - they are just deprived of it - BY AMERICA!
In the 50s, Eisenhower commissioned a study to determine exactly why anti-Americanism was rising. Do you know what the findings were? There was a perception (and an entirely valid one) that the US opposed democracy and freedom in the region and sought only to exploit the region of its economic opportunities. The crux of bin Laden and his associates argument rested in US imperialism in the region and its support for Israel. If Americans generally only waked up a bit they would realize they did in fact have some valid criticism underneath their barbaric behaviour.

But you wont accept this rational thought - you wont even consider it as your OP indicates. You'd prefer to dwell in the nice fantasy land of a new cold war where its Islam vs World, and America is completely right and has never done anything wrong to anyone and the only reason why anti0Americanism is so high is because everybody is crazy. Its amazing how criticism of US foreign policy is reacted to by American citizen in such a way that if you went to Soviet Russia and criticized the government there you would have received EXACTLY THE SAME responses - 'oh no the party is great, they do so much for us and only want to make the world safe and free for socialism' = 'oh no our government is perfect, they do so much us and the world, they only want to secure the peace and prosperity of everything through capitalism and democracy.'

 

So.. what's your argument here? The Quran is hardly any different from the Bible or the Torah.

 

Frickin' LOL So true.

 

And the religious right in THIS country is the aggressor.

 

Ok, what happens if the West allows Israel to be defeated? Is the OP ready for a nuclear exchange in the ME? Do you really want a disruption in the flow of oil to the West? What kind of emergency powers would the govt declare afterwards? What would the West do, when confronted with a second holocaust? What would the West do with millions of refugees? What would the US do with a Muslim internal struggle for dominance and the formation of a new caliphate? How would the West deal with renewed aggression upon Europe by a new caliphate?

.

 

How so? Is the Left's support for the Pals based simply on an assumption that the religious right wants Israel protected?

 

It's a matter of public perception. No sane individual would argue against aggressive militancy, from anyone (including the Israeli Zionists), as being destructive; however the spin-machine has ensured that the masses are increasingly of the mindset that the entire Muslim world is hellbent on the destruction of western civilisation.
It is that same insidious, relentless rhetoric and propagandising which leads us into the wars no one wants-except those who might benefit from them.