Shakedown 1979

TPM Cafe has the video of today's remarks by House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Bizzarro World).

You have to see the video. Boehner's comments are so deeply strange that I wouldn't have believed this was real from reading a transcript.

You know this war didn't start in Iraq. This war didn't start on 9/11. The war began with the Iran hostage taking in 1979 ...

Boehner then recites a garbled and selective litany of terrorist attacks from the intervening years, working his way up to Sept. 11, 2001, when, he says:

3,000 Americans died for no other reason than they were Americans ...

Well, no. The list of victims of 9/11 includes people from more than 90 countries. That's an important point. The attacks of that day provide a basis for solidarity among nearly half the nations of the world. Boehner's comment, on the other hand, disrespects nearly half the nations of the world. He seems to prefer international enmity toward America to international support.

All of this is in the context of Boehner's portrayal of the invasion of Iraq as one inevitable step in this larger war that began in 1979.

It's difficult to discern just who it is that Boehner imagines America is at war with. He prefaces his unique history by talking about al-Qaida, but that organization didn't exist in 1979 -- nor was it involved in Iraq until after the U.S.-led invasion of that country created a haven for it there.

Boehner might just be trying, with his invocation of the 1979 hostage crisis, to beat the drum for war on Iran ("Quagmire II: The Deepening"). But the proximate cause of his remarks today is a defense of the war in Iraq. It seems strange to frame the overthrow of Iran's bitterest enemy, followed by the establishment of a friendlier, Shiite-led regime, as a logical step in a longer conflict with that country.

Seriously, Boehner is a powerful and influential public official so I want to understand where he's coming from. Is there any way to make sense of what he's saying?

Update: John ... John it's just a question, you don't need to get ... John? Aw, geez, man, don't cry.

Comments

[Citizen]

He wants war with so many people he's gotten them all confused. But that's ok, because to him, they don't really exist as anything but a way to validate conservative anxious masculinity by mastering them and causing them to submit.

[Steven S.]

He means the War On Terror, American Version (because, like the last two World Wars, Europe was enmeshed in it before we got involved)

You know this war didn't start in Iraq. This war didn't start on 9/11. The war began with the Iran hostage taking in 1979 ...

Before then, fighting terror was something people Over There did...and while Americans sometimes got caught in the crossfire, it was just that.

It's that particular Abstract Noun War that he thinks he's referring to, ignoring the fact that Abstract Noun Wars make land wars in Asia seem sane, reasonable, and downright winnable.

[L]

Is there any way to make sense of what he's saying?

Yes. He wants this war escalated, and is willing to say anything he thinks will play in Peoria in an attempt to get people to support it.

[LL]

He's just getting the countries mixed up. He meant to say "Iran" but said "Iraq." They're right next door to each other and their names are almost identical. Easy mistake. How can politicians be expected to keep the countries straight when they're so busy defending marriage over here from the radical homos? If it's not Islamofascists hating America, it's the homos. And Hollywood. And the mainstream media. And the liberal college professors. Basically, everyone but the Republican Party, Fox News and Ann Coulter hate America. They're the only thing standing between us and our Islamofascist overlords. It's a 24/7 job, so if they mix up the countries every now and then, it's understandable.

[hf]

I see a possible consistent and relatively well-informed interpretation of his remarks. Iran had its revolution after the Shah tortured Iranians at the advice of the CIA. (Carter apparently also made a throwaway remark that the Shah took as approval.) Judging by the quotes here, Boehner sees the enemy as a broad group of people who resist American power.

[inge]

"You know this war didn't start in Iraq. This war didn't start on 9/11. The war began with the Iran hostage taking in 1979 ..."

Well, the Shah getting kicked out was a major rupture in the US' idea of how to deal with the Middle East... As interconnected as the world is, I'm quite sure one can make a point of the revolution in Iran contributing to USSR's nervousness in the region, which then became a factor in their invading Afghanistan. The US poured support to Afghan insurgents to counter the USSR's move, and to Hussein to counter Iran, and we know how that went.

1979 seems as good a date as any and better than some as a start of the whole thing accelerating towards the fan.

[Drocket]

I think its pretty clear what he means: all you have to do is look at what Iran, Iraq and Al-Qaida have in common. There's a few potential answers, actually - they're all Muslim, they're all middle-easterners, they're all 'brown people' - take your pick. In the end, they all mean the same thing: they're all THEM. You know, as in us against THEM. The OTHERS. THOSE people. They're not us, so there's not really that much point in making the effort to distinguish between them, right?

[Steven S.]

1979 seems as good a date as any and better than some as a start of the whole thing accelerating towards the fan.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it allows dates to be chosen for very particular rhetorical purposes. Pick 1973, 1967, or 1956, let alone 1953, and you get a very different "war", with different sides, sometimes, and very different notions of who's the aggressor and what a fair result should be.

I admit that aside from my objection to wars on abstract nouns, I am also inclined towards a very particulate view of war -- because people seem far better at drawing connections and reasoning out grudges between things than seeing distinctions and breaking apart tangled threads within them.

[baf]

Yeah, there's nothing new or notable about the idea that everyone you don't like is united against you. It reminds me of the idea of the joint Jewish/Hindu conspiracy that sets US foreign policy -- a laughable notion to us, but plausible to many people in Pakistan.

[bulbul]

Oh boy, Stewart and Colbert are going to have a field day with this...
I gotta check my cupboards, see if I have enough popcorn.

[Doctor Science]

There is actually a quasi-reasonable interpretation. In The New American Militarism, Andrew Bacevich proposes that if World War III was the Cold War, then World War IV was (and is) the War for Oil. Bacevich dates the first rumblings of World War IV to the Yom Kippur War and the Oil Shock of 1973, but it really took off . . . with the 1979 Iranian Revolution and Oil Crisis. So, in fact, Boehner may be right: the Tehran hostages were the first American casualties of World War IV, and the War for Oil continues to this day. All the enemies Boehner cites *are* united -- in the sense that they all oppose American corporations' unhindered access to Middle East oil, and that is the freedom they hate us for.

[Steve]

I think Quagmire II: The Deepening should star either Jean-Claude Van Damme or Steven Seagal...or both! That would really pack in the "conservative anxious masculinity" crowd.

(BTW, I'm "Steve", different from "Steve S.", though we're both Steve S.'s, and seemingly both Steve Schwartz's.)

[bill]

Well I don't know what Boehner is going on about but the war did start quite a few years back. Maybe you should forget about American partisan politics for awhile and look into Jihadism. For example, Walid Phares wrote a book titled “Future Jihad” that gives a bit of history on the subject.
While you're laughing about some stupid politician, people are plotting to attack. And they told us they would do it, btw. I'm not taking up for the Bush administration, but when people play like they know what's going on in the world but don't know about Jihadism, it just ticks me off. And, btw, it's not about oil.

[Michael Llaneza]

Well, the whole Iran thing has been building for a while. Remember the 3rd Bush-Kerry debate ? Towards the end, Kerry just happened to mention that if he had to get tough on Iran, he'd get tough on Iran. No context to it, he just switched topics and brought up being tough on Iran. Then again, they had just been declared part of the Axis of Evil.

It is my honest and sincere belief that the Iraq invasion was meant to develop bases for an attack on Iran. The reason our strategy looks hopelessly muddled is because we were supposed to be operating against Iran by now.

[Drocket]

*It is my honest and sincere belief that the Iraq invasion was meant to develop bases for an attack on Iran. The reason our strategy looks hopelessly muddled is because we were supposed to be operating against Iran by now.*

I mostly agree with you on the first part - invading Iraq WAS supposed to be Part 1 of a continuing series of American imperialism. It wasn't the ONLY reason, though - Iraq has plenty of oil, as well (and lets be blunt, that IS the reason we're in the middle-east.)

As for the second part, I think you have it backwards: we're not in Iran because our strategy in Iraq is hopelessly muddled. The Neocons have grand ambitions, but they're completely hobbled by a deadly combination of incompetence and short-term greed. They got so involved in planning Phase 2: Iran that they never fully thought out what they'd need to do to complete Phase 1: Iraq.

[Steve]

They got so involved in planning Phase 2: Iran that they never fully thought out what they'd need to do to complete Phase 1: Iraq.

I thought Phase 1 was Afganistan? Oh wait, nothing to see there...move along.

[Drocket]

Nah, they never gave a crap about Afghanistan - just look how much effort they put into securing the country (Bin who? Whatever.) Afghanistan was little more that a minor detail they had to clean up before they'd be able to get enough public approval to move into Iraq. At most, it was a training exercise.

[Axiomatic]

A single...perfect...tear...

Cheer up, emo Boehner.

[the opoponax]

@ Bill:

yes, and it always ticks me off when people who throw around these xenophobic buzzwords like islamofascism, jihadism, etc. seem to know nothing about islam as a religion and the history of the muslim world. in that context, "jihadism" has been a major force in islamic historical trends since islam's inception. it's also a pretty apt counterpart for western imperialism and colonialism. not to mention that it's almost a direct analogue to various christian ideas, ESPECIALLY those right wing politicians use to justify this very war we speak of. to say that this completely laughable "world war III/IV" can be traced to concepts like "jihadism" would mean that we've been fighting world war whatever since before the US even existed.

personally, i don't exactly understand how our war in Iraq is a "world war", at all. it's basically the US and a few scraggling allies against certain particular countries in the middle east/central asia. it doesn't translate to conflicts outside those specific regions. most countries besides Afghanistan, Iraq, the US, Britain, Pakistan, and maybe Israel are not involved in this war. there are exactly two fronts to this war, and one of those fronts is not exactly on the defense department's front burner these days. other potential conflicts outside the region (and even within the region, in the case of Israel's ongoing conflicts with its neighbors) are not considered part of this conflict. every possible definition i can come up with for "world war" doesn't apply here.

[ako]

every possible definition i can come up with for "world war" doesn't apply here.

I know the Bush administration would love to have this called a world war. It would support certain legal contentions they're making, which no one supports otherwise.

A number of international law obligations about how to treat captured enemy soldiers and other people who are involved or suspected of being involved in the war (gurrillas, saboteurs, etc) can be temporarily suspended when and where the war is taking place. If the US is defined as fighting a war in two countries for a limited period of time, it's debatable whether they'd have to provide a full range of peacetime legal rights to people in Iraq now (remember "Mission Accomplished"?) If the war is taking place everywhere in the world, and will continue to take place everywhere in the world for an indefinite time period into the future, then a good chunk of international law protections go out the window until the President feels like putting them back.

[Captain Slack]

Dan Simmons (in the post where he officially started working for the TechnoCore) dates the "Century War" between Islam and the West to 1968 and the assassination of Robert Kennedy. (The facts that Sirhan Sirhan was a Christian, and that actual shooter Thane Eugene Caesar was a typical homegrown anti-anti-fascist, have no impact on the now-egregious Simmons.)

[LL]

RE "It is my honest and sincere belief that the Iraq invasion was meant to develop bases for an attack on Iran. The reason our strategy looks hopelessly muddled is because we were supposed to be operating against Iran by now."

OK, so I'm not crazy for thinking this too, or not the only crazy one thinking it. We have been pretty busy the last 10 years or so surrounding Iran with various weapons/bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kazakhstan, etc. I think we DON'T want to invade Iran (or the military doesn't, anyway) and that's why we're trying to "contain" Iran with all this other shit. That's why we have nothing to say about torture in various former Soviet republics, we don't want to piss off their dictators enough to make them tell us to get the hell out of their countries. We're not "winning" in Iraq because we don't care about "winning" in Iraq, we just want a puppet government that will let us keep our missiles there, pointed at Iran.

[Captain Slack]

And, in a series of posts from the following October, another blogger shows what's wrong and toxic about Simmons' worldview.

[bill]

Opoponax,

I'm not making any generalizations about Islam or Muslims. In fact, I'd continue my point with a caution that there is a thinly veiled fascism in the western world as well. It grows within Christianity as well as Capitalism.

My point was that this is a declared war. Whatever mess the current American administration made of its response to the long underway war is more a matter of wasting time and resources than a question of whether to respond. When someone declares war, only fools ignore them.

[the opoponax]

well by that logic, islam has every right to invade the west, since "christendom" had that very same idea (convert or die) long before islam did, in fact probably before islam existed. that was a part of what the crusades were about. we can't let those non-believers occupy land in/near our holy sites!

[David]

I love the blog that you have. I was wondering if you would link my blog to yours and in return I would do the same for your blog. If you want to, my site name is American Legends and the URL is:

www.americanlegends.blogspot.com

If you want to do this just go to my blog and in one of the comments just write your blog name and the URL and I will add it to my site.

Thanks,
David

[Doctor Science]

bill --

If you want to persuade me that "it's not about oil", you're going to really have to persuade me, not just assert that we should not, on your say-so, Follow the Money. On the contrary, Follow the Money is the default assumption for our capitalist worldview -- why should it be different here?

[Zorya]

If the Ohio Democratic Party had made an effort to recruit a viable candidate to run against Boehner we could have voted this goober out of office in November. I can only hope that we voters in his district have a real choice in 2008.

[Darren MacLennan]

The problem with splitting the casualties of 9/11 down into their component groups is that it seems like some weird form of casualty apartheid - I'm reminded of that line from Huckleberry Finn, where a guy says "A boiler exploded; nobody was killed, but a nigger died."

If you say "Three thousand people died, many of them Americans", it sounds like you're only counting the Americans.

If you say "2800 Americans, 53 Canadians, 32 Chinese..." and so forth, it sounds like you're breaking down a pie chart.

If you say "Three thousand people were killed," it lacks the punch; people go "Oh, yeah, very tragic," and keep on with their lives.

Anybody got any ideas?

-Darren MacLennan

[Xanthippas]

His statement indicates that his whole belief in the war in Iraq and any future war with Iran is some general fear of the "other." It doesn't need to be rational, you don't need to be able to explain it, and there doesn't need to be any linkage between the disparate groups that you fear or advocate war against so, so long as they can all be distinguished from you and your group. That it's a completely irrational argument doesn't matter. It's power is indicated by the number of times throughout history war has been waged over this fear.

[ako]

If you say "Three thousand people were killed," it lacks the punch; people go "Oh, yeah, very tragic," and keep on with their lives.

Not sure of the solution, but it seems the problem is how many people only care about three thousand people dying if they're Americans.

[bulbul]

Doc,

I'd say Bacevich is wrong here. If what we're currently seeing is indeed a War for Oil, than we must move further back in time to see its origins: 1953, the CIA-sponsored coup against Iranian PM Mossadegh (Mossadeq). He wanted to nationalize Iranian oil fields and kick out BP and the US and the British just had to stop him. I'd say that this was the first time the Powers acted in this manner in order to protect their oil supply and the 1979 islamic revolution was a direct result of the 1953 coup.

[bulbul]

Bill,
When someone declares war, only fools ignore them.
Oh boy, so much stupidity in so few words...
First, who declared that war? The 9/11 hijackers? They were mostly Saudis, so why don't the US kick the the crap out the Saudi Arabia? Removing the Saudi royal family from power, now there's a police action I'd love to see.
Secondly, no, this is not a declared war. No subject of international law has served the White House/Congress with a notice of declaration of war. And come to think of it, neither has Congress declared war. It is a war only because the Bush administration has chosen to frame the debate in these terms and idiots like you bought it hook and sinker. Every other country affected (France, UK, Spain) sees terrorism for what it really is: a law enforcement issue.
Thirdly, Walid Phares is an idiot. Anyone who choses to lump various diverse fundamentalist movements and groups into one single category "jihadism" obviously suffers from chronic idiocy. I won't even go into how manipulative this term is. Phares is the right person to talk about how journalists and academics are engaged in apologetics on behalf of Jihadism, yes indeed. What an asshole.

[bill]

Doctor Science,

Your point is well taken. I didn't make myself understood because I resorted to short pithy statements that sound much like the ones I'm complaining about. Sorry about that.

Anyway, I don't claim that this war in Iraq is not about money and business, nor that oil is not an issue. When I say that it's not about oil, I'm responding to those who think in single issues, insinuating that it is ALL about oil. I'm responding to what seems like someone looking at complex, multi dimensional global issues from a single point. And no, I don't claim to understand it all. What I do know, is enough to know that I don't have it all figured out. But spending hundreds of billions of dollars to take over and occupy Iraq for the oil is a ridiculous business venture. It would take decades, if not centuries to pay off. The costs of maintaining a presence there must be greater than the profit on the oil. Besides, there are different interests in oil: there are suppliers and users. Forcing the price up would be bad for users of oil, etc. It doesn't take much thinking to realize that taking over and occupying a country the size and complexity of Iraq just for crude oil is a bad business venture.

There are certainly agonists and antagonists who act and react, on the notion that Western powers are after Middle Eastern oil. But Western powers are after what empires have always been after, and that is a piece of the business action. Oil is only part of it. And it's not about getting oil, but about the flow of oil throughout the world. Business depends on trade. Trade depends on safe trade routes. There is a hell of a lot more going through the Middle East than just oil. There is still much trade that crisscrosses that part of the world. And of course, oil money funds the war. So in that very big way, it is about oil.

So, yes there are groups involved who see the problem as a fight for control of oil, but as I understand, the initiators, are not going at it for oil. The Jihadists are reacting to a threat, whether real or perceived, that is not about oil. The forces that brought down the Caliphate and the Ottoman Empire that the Jihadists want to reinstate, were not in it for the oil. Although WWI, it can certainly be said, was about business. And, regardless of the evil fascism behind WWII, it was about business as well. So I will agree with you if you are saying that war is about business. But this so-called War on Terror is not about oil. That's only one small part.

It is a war that was declared by one group upon another group many years ago. There have been many battles, or attacks, over the decades and western nations have mostly had their heads in the sand. It's a war that's being fought in other countries and only recently made it's way into our nice quite streets. We've ignored it as long as other people were dying in other countries. We only reacted when it came to us, at home. So regardless of the mess that the current administration has made of it, this thing is going to continue until one side loses. Which side would you rather lose?

[the opoponax]

i have to say that this is a "war" i'd rather lose. it might sound insensitive of me. it might sound traitorous of me. but honestly at this point, no, i don't care whether we win the so-called "war on terror" or not. mainly because i don't believe the US has anything at stake. we are attacking countries who are so incredibly unstable that they cannot retaliate in any real way. while at the same time we are fostering alliances with countries that openly support the actual terrorists who really did attack the US. furthermore, we're not being attacked because of our freedoms, our beliefs, or "just because we're Americans". that's bullshit. we're being attacked because extremist groups dislike quite specific american foreign policies of the last 20-30 years. policies i generally disagree with anyhow.

which means, yeah, in a lot of ways i really do hope we lose this war. we certainly have it coming.

[jackd]

Something I just noticed from the Dan Simmons piece - one of the casualties of the Century War that his time traveler mentions is "the Bell South Building in Atlanta". Simmons didn't do his homework. The merger with AT&T was announced in March 2006, a month before the post.

Sorry for the nitpicking, but all the frothing right-wing buzz phrases were making me twitchy.

[bill]

"i have to say that this is a "war" i'd rather lose."

Well the one you're speaking of, the one in Iraq, I think I might agree with you that we deserve to lose. The other one, the war over our freedoms and our way of life, I'm not sure where that one is. Maybe that one is being fought inside the beltway in DC.

There's another one that I don't understand, that may be easily solved but left unsolved for the good of those who need a conflict. Or, it may be something else. The noise level is too high to figure it out.

But people need to avoid getting sucked into partisan political games and try to sift through the noise. I rarely trust politicians for facts and reason. It's a pretty sure thing that they always have an eye on the next election, no matter which party they belong to.

[Jeff]

opponax:
But spending hundreds of billions of dollars to take over and occupy Iraq for the oil is a ridiculous business venture. It would take decades, if not centuries to pay off.

No one said American businessmen were smart, or careful investors, or anything like that. Besides, it's not their money (nor their bodies) that is being chewed up in Iraq. So far, for ExxonMobilShellGame, the War For Oil is going extremely well.

[bulbul]

The forces that brought down the Caliphate and the Ottoman Empire that the Jihadists want to reinstate, were not in it for the oil.
Make it stop, please, make it stop...
I'm having a root canal tomorrow, but man, it's surely going to hurt less than this prime example of bullshittiness.

[Steven Schwartz]

(Sorry if this is slightly behind the discussion -- I was unable to post earlier due to typepad oddity.)

Opoponax:
personally, i don't exactly understand how our war in Iraq is a "world
war", at all. it's basically the US and a few scraggling allies against
certain particular countries in the middle east/central asia. it doesn't
translate to conflicts outside those specific regions. most countries
besides Afghanistan, Iraq, the US, Britain, Pakistan, and maybe Israel are
not involved in this war.

Well, insofar as it's a war, singular, at all, it depends on when you
start it; one could argue that at different times it's included both sides
of the Cold War (Russia in Afghanistan, except of course those mujehadeen
(sp?) weren't terrorists, they were freedom fighters (r) (c) (TM) (pat.
pend), along with Britain and France, who were, in the 50's, nuclear
powers; thus, though it's been geographically fairly limited, the range of
people involved in it has been large.

(Of course, if you're fighting the War On Abstract Noun, then it ranges
from Jakarta to New York, with stopoffs in Madrid, Paris, etc. and counts
as a World War.)

Please note that I find the whole notion of calling it a world war
ludicrous at best, actively malicious at worst. But that's the analysis
behind it. ;)

Bill:
My point was that this is a declared war. Whatever mess the current
American administration made of its response to the long underway war is
more a matter of wasting time and resources than a question of whether to
respond. When someone declares war, only fools ignore them.

Bill, you're barking up the wrong tree here. We are no more at war with
"jihadism" than I am at war with Jerry Falwell, or with the Crips in Los
Angeles.

Conflict? Yes. But the rhetoric of war here is incredibly damaging, as it
shuts off options and means of conflict resolution that otherwise might
work perfectly well. The number of times I have seen talk of drug
legalization slammed down as "surrendering in the War on Drugs" is too
large for me to have kept track of. Whether or not legalization is a good
thing is beside the point, here -- the debate itself is shut off.

(BTW, I'm "Steve", different from "Steve S.", though we're both Steve
S.'s, and seemingly both Steve Schwartz's.)

Ssh! If they know how many of us are here, they might uncover the Super
Secret Steve(n) Schwartz Scheme for Solar System Subjugation! (Yes, we
Steve(n) Schwartz's are big on alliteration.)

Oops. Did I say that out loud. Um.

Hi, fellow Steve(n) Schwartz! (do not look behind the curtain.)

[Drocket]

*Besides, it's not their money (nor their bodies) that is being chewed up in Iraq. So far, for ExxonMobilShellGame, the War For Oil is going extremely well.*

Exactly. We, the American taxpayers, are paying to boost their business/profits. All they've paid is a few piddling millions to buy off some key politicians and influence some elections, and they've gotten billions upon billions in return.

[JessicaR]

Well maybe the president needs to pray harder for peace is all.

http://www.watsonswildlife.com/images3/praying_for_peace_RDF.jpg

[Nell]

Is there any way to make sense of what he's saying?

Yes. The Republican strategy paper on handling the Iraq resolution debate in the House was leaked yesterday. It says:

Democrats want to force us to focus on defending the surge, making the case that it will work and explaining why the President's new Iraq policy is different from prior efforts and therefore justified.

We urge you to instead broaden the debate to the threat posed to Americans, the world, and all "unbelievers" by radical Islamists. We would further urge you to join us in educating the American people about the views of radical Islamists and the consequences of not defeating radical Islam in Iraq.

The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily. If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose.

[bulbul]

If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose.
*Tap*Tap*Tap*

Is this thing on?

TEST TEST TEST

OK.

So, uhm, any democratic strategists in da house?
Have all of you heard this and that other bit about presidential candidates?
Good. Now go and kick ass.

[bill]

Never mind.

It's amazing how easily some jump from disagreement to categorization. Oh you must be one of those. Or how quickly a single word can flip a switch in the mind of a binary thinker. Not one of us, must be one of them. Interestingly, some can imagine complex conspiracies and then accuse the alleged conspirators of being stupid and inept. This is the one that really confuses me.

Anyway, I've leaned my lesson. Don't disagree and no outsiders allowed.

[bulbul]

It's amazing how easily some jump from disagreement to categorization.
I'll take that personally. Try and stop me.
Anyway, a bit more diplomacy (not to mention good manners) on my side wouldn't hurt, so I'll try again: What really flipped my swothc, dear bill, was the fact that you seem to actually buy this bullshit about "jihadism". There is no such thing. There is Saudi Arabian wahhabism. There is Iraqi salafism. There is Badr Corps. There is Mahdi Army. There are certain elements within the Twelver Shia in Iran. There is Hamas. There is Hizbullah. There are Abu Sayyaf Brigades. All those and other similar movements/philosophical schools share certain characteristics (chief among them being that all descend from Islam) and wildly vary in others, especially their goals. Most of them want to (re)gain control over their own country, some of them want to secede, some of them don't even know what they want and just want to fight some of the other groups.
The things being what they are, the term "jihadism" is nothing but a code word de jour for "bad brown people who want to kill us, the good white people". It doesn't contribute to the debate, nor does it offer any viable solutions to real-world problems. Now I am ready to forgive that you bought into this meme, hard as it is. But I am certainly not going to forgive that bit about the Ottoman empire the "jihadists" want to restore. It only shows that you have no idea at all about what you are talking about and that at least in this respect, you are as dumb as a freshly baked clay brick.

Anyway, I've leaned my lesson. Don't disagree and no outsiders allowed.
I'm sorry if you got this impression and let me assure you that we the regulars welcome both outsiders and disagreement. Especially the latter.
The real lesson learned here is "don't come to Slacktivist spouting stupid theories, coz if you do, someone is going to kick your ass. If those theories involve Islam, it is going to be bulbul."

[Ray]

"Anyway, I've leaned my lesson. Don't disagree and no outsiders allowed."

You're perfectly free to disagree with Fred, or any of the commenters on his posts. But - and this is where you seem to have tripped up - we're also perfectly free to disagree with you. "Oh, but the indelicate language!", you swoon - forgetting that your first comment insulted everyone on here, describing us as people who "play like they know what's going on in the world".

[Jesurgislac]

Darren: If you say "Three thousand people were killed," it lacks the punch; people go "Oh, yeah, very tragic," and keep on with their lives.

Anybody got any ideas?

Build a world in which "Three thousand people were killed" has punch? Of course, that would require people to believe that they should care about people of other nations who get killed...

[the opoponax]

"the war over our freedoms and our way of life, I'm not sure where that one is."

that's because it doesn't exist.

this "war" has nothing to do with our freedoms or our way of life. it has to do with extremely transparent aspects of US foreign policy over the last 50 years which you can go and look up in any history book. it has to do with israel and palestine. it has to do with the first gulf war. it has to do with our relationship with Saudi Arabia. it has nominally to do with the Shah of Iran (but not in any way that would lead us to war in that country). it has to do with colonialism and the US's behavior in the post-colonial world. it has to do with the CIA's dirty little habit of assassinating foreign politicians "we" don't like and starting civil wars and such.

it has nothing to do with you, your SUV, your house in the suburbs, your checking account, your church attending habits or lack thereof, what kinds of stupid TV shows are on the air these days, whether your wife wears a burqa, bud lite, football, the bill of rights, or anything else you could call american "freedoms", "way of life", etc. except inasmuch as that way of life is underwritten by said fucked up american foreign policies, and those freedoms are denied to the developing world by our country.

period, end of story, that's the way it is. and every time our president or any other prominent politician says otherwise, you might as well just hit the mute button, because whatever comes next out of their mouth is going to be even worse bullshit.

[Angelika]

"the war over our freedoms and our way of life, I'm not sure where that one is."

If there is a war on Amercian freedoms and way of life, than it is fought by Americans against Americans. There is no need to look out for other enemies. (Unless you assume that the people who passed the Patriot Act were actually Taliban in cunning disguise.)