I'm one who's always tried to be a voice of reason; to do things like point out instances where I think people are being a little extreme, even if I know I'll get flamed mightily for it! One area where I've sensed a little not-so-subtle bigotry is when people lump together all Muslims with the terrorists. I traditionally argue for discriminating between Islamofascists and good Muslims. While I've never really bought into the view that Islam is a religion of peace, it seemed the gracious and prudent thing to give those Muslims who insist that "terrorists are not true Muslims" yada, yada, the benefit of the doubt.
However, after what I just heard on the news (47 Sunnis found shot in the head in south Baghdad,) and everything that's been going on since the 'toon riots I think it would be too much of a stretch to agree with that proposition anymore. Mainstream Muslims celebrate, or at least raise no objection when terrorists kill Jews and Christians. Mainstream Muslims kill each other in sectarian violence. Hundreds die regularly during religious observances. Islam a religion of peace? I don't think so.
. . . then again, it does look like Zarqawi is behind the Samarra shrine bombing, and his intention is to foment civil war. I guess it's the fact that he's nearly succeeded that makes it difficult to view Islam as a religion of peace. Too many of them are rioting, lynching and executing the other side when they should be mourning, praying, and rebuilding.
However, after what I just heard on the news (47 Sunnis found shot in the head in south Baghdad,) and everything that's been going on since the 'toon riots I think it would be too much of a stretch to agree with that proposition anymore. Mainstream Muslims celebrate, or at least raise no objection when terrorists kill Jews and Christians. Mainstream Muslims kill each other in sectarian violence. Hundreds die regularly during religious observances. Islam a religion of peace? I don't think so.
The M.E. is a unique place to deal with and the most dangerous place in the world. When I first got to my ship in 77 some guys were telling me of their two previous MED Cruises. One involved riots on Cyprus in 74 the other involved evacuation of Lebanon in 76. I was still in when we went on alert for possible deployment to Iran in 79. Another carrier was deployed instead due to our needed overhaul we were fixing to get.
The world situation has indeed changed. In the 1970's Filipino nationals were many in the Navy and were entering the critical ratings. Three were in my shop and very good men. PI now has an Islamic problem. That is due in part to our bad move of shutting down much of our presence there. From WW2- most of the 1980's PI enjoyed peace.
The main thing is in Arabic nations the leadership is subject to change literally on a moments notice. One of the main causes of M.E. terrorism has came from a very stupid E.O. put in place by Gerald Ford prohibiting assassinations of foreign heads of state. You go back to about 1974- present counting the number of significant attacks it's easy to see what a policy of no threat of death to heads of state supporting terrorism got us. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm shows this.
There is no such thing as a reasonably safe M.E. port anymore. They were rapidly disappearing in the early 1980's. Our leaders have a bad history of underestimating and mis-judging those risk. One morning a Navy ship pulled into a port it should have not gone into for refueling and was attacked. The point I make about that is arrogance in the Pentagon and State Department put the ship there. Virtually all rules of long established Naval Protocols were violated. We has a ship two days out from fleet underway alone. That ship had it been with fleet could have if needed topped off with a ship in company. But the ship didn't need the fuel to start with the refueling was a diplomatic move.
Yemen borders the UAE and even after the COLE attack our government remains friendly to them. What did we get in return? Escaped terrorist who helped blow up our ship last news I heard.
Our M.E. recklessness started in 1981 with carriers once again going through the Suez. What was a low risk then is much higher now. We also abandoned the two MED SEA Carrier posture which was another invite for problems.
I don't know but used to be security actually meant something. In 1980 if you tried to get on base in NORVA you had to have military ID or be escorted by someone with ID. You did not walk up to the D&S piers to snap a picture or two even if you were a squid. We never parked 5 carriers at NOB Norfolk. The place only held three actually and even at a Cold War Strength it was not done. One recent thread showed such a picture and if NNSY or Norfolk Naval Shipyard had a carrier in their docks that meant at least half of our carrier fleet was at risk and could have been taken out in a Pearl Harbor type attack. The base and both yards are within strike range of each other. Poppy Bush did it and Clinton did this as well. That also is part of the problem. We have too many of the ones who took us into bad policies still running things now.