You voted for Kerry?!? Dear lord! I love ya, lady, but damn! (grin)

"terror-bunnies" --> chuckling...I like that!

(Don't tell me my fellow republicans - grin)-->I got arrested in 1991 for protesting gulf war I - no conviction, thank god. After I pulled my head out of my ass a year later and registered as a Republican, I realized that Monsieur Hussein must go. Took a few years, but. I never bought the "saddam helps osama's buddies angle". For me it was the moral side of things. Taking care of a fuck who had no problem with rape as a form of interrogation (etc).

As to the vegan lef-wing nutjob, ignore the jerk (except for her power at the polls). She probably thinks "it's a fabulous idea" to tack on a 7.5% payroll tax that small businesses have to pay to ensure that all have health insurance...

Sigh...ranting...

As I said to a reporter from the Pittsburgh Trib-Review: "I loath John Kerry, but I'd vote for an autistic monkey before I vote for that fundamentalist, anti-science George Bush." (They had a number of subscription cancellations thanks to my statement -- which I found hilarious, since my column was actually running, not in the Trib-Review, but in another paper in Pittsburgh, now-defunct.)

Believe me, I wish I'd had a better. I voted for Schwarzenneger for governor, and Hertzberg for mayor. I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican; I just try to vote for the least stupid, least sleazy, least funda-nutter candidate running.

"a better choice," that is.

Speaking as a guy who has worked in politics for years "the least stupid, least sleazy, least funda-nutter candidate" is few and far between. There are a few I truly dig (including my boss - honestly, no vacuous ass-kissing there), but most I would hesitate to buy a cup of joe.

Well, did you read Nick Goldberg's op-ed in the LAT? He was trying to answer the question that leaps to mind if you see A Mighty Heart, ie

"What would possess an American Jew to go to an after-hours meeting in Karachi, Pakistan, with an obviously hostile and possibly dangerous fundamentalist leader?"

Goldberg, who'd been in Teheran, writes:

"Perhaps we were naive. Perhaps I should have taken the old, bearded men more seriously when they said they wanted to kill Jews. "

Ya think? So, did 9/11 get his attention? Is he paying attention now?

What's particularly sad about the LA Times is how they're too weenie to promote young talent...for example, Matt Welch, the editor from Reason who was hired as associate or assistant editorial page editor at the LAT, and was responsible for much of what's been new, interesting and different thinking in that section. Or, in short, good writing as opposed to tired old Rosa Brooks stuff (Barbara Ehrenreich's Virgina law professor/bore daughter, who, for some inexplicable reason, is allowed to put out her tedious thoughts in the LA Times for all of us to skip on the way to finding something interesting to read).

Matt's on three-month leave now, doing a book on McCain. But, maybe he wouldn't have taken that leave if they'd taken a chance on him: Andres Martinez left, and did they promote Matt? See if the young guy can really liven up the place? Nope. Old LA Times guy Jim Newton, who reportedly had a photo of professional liar Michael Moore above his desk got the job.

What would be happening in Iraq if we'd not invaded?

Not if the past had played out according to our fantasies, but if we'd simply not invaded?

Amy-

One thing I'd pick you up on, is that you tar all Muslms with the same brush. The terror bunnies all claim to be Muslims, but the converse is not true. Sure, you can quote Koran that says kill your beighbour, but most Muslims do't buy into that any more than most Xians believe you should set bears to attack children for name-calling. And while you can say that these ordinary folk provide space for the extremists by setting the parameters, the same can be said for any other religion.

It seems to me that the terrorists have hijacked Islam for their own purposes. Maybe Islam is particularly easy to hijack. But plenty of Muslims don't want any part of this. It would be wrong to demonise them. Nor is is their particular responsibility to stop terrorism.

So, a bunch of wackos want to kill us all. They can't; we are far too many, even if they manage to set off a bomb a day, or ten or a hundred bombs. The main danger is not the wackos but our reaction to them. Just like the driver who crashes because he panics when a wasp flies into the car, our threat is our own government (panicked by the media) which will have us living in a police state in no time. All governments have a tendency in that direction, and we don't all have written constitutions to hold them back. As for the media, it would be nice to roll them up and swat the wasp.

Get a grip, everybody.

Crid-

I guess, just the same as it was. A bit of no-fly-zone posturing, whats-his-name searching for WMD, the UN somehow managing to wring its hands and sit on them at the same time.

There wasn't any particular trend there at the time, was there?

the main danger is not the wackos but our reaction to them.

Yes...especially if we sit around and do nothing while they plot to blow us out of existence.

No, not all Muslims want to kill us, but "moderate" Muslims really don't speak up, and there are a considerable number who do want us dead.

Google "use your words." Enjoy.

From Norman:

>One thing I'd pick you up on, is that you tar all Muslms with the same brush. The terror bunnies all claim to be Muslims, but the converse is not true. Sure, you can quote Koran that says kill your beighbour, but most Muslims do't buy into that any more than most Xians believe you should set bears to attack children for name-calling. And while you can say that these ordinary folk provide space for the extremists by setting the parameters, the same can be said for any other religion.

Of course there are moderates, Norman. But not nearly enough of them. See the survey results at the link:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200705/CUL20070524a.html

I know Amy's blogged on this. If one in four young Muslim Americans (among the most moderate Muslims, btw) believe suicide bombing in defense of Islam can be justified, and only 40% of them believe Arabs were responsible for 9/11, Islam presents the world with a HUGE problem.

If the West doesn't get pretty damn proactive about dealing with the threats posed by its anti-West immigrant populations pretty damn quickly I can't help thinking we're hosed.

I don't want my daughter growing up under Sharia laws, thank you very much.

Amy-

I don't think we need do anything more than treat them as criminals. It's already against the law to blow people up. We don't need any more laws, for example. What we need is effective policing.

There have been lots of terrorist gangs over the years: think of the Baader-Meinhof gang or the IRA. What's different about Al-Qaeda? Size and ideology. It has lots of members. Whether the fact that it is based on a religion rather than a political ideology is significant, I don't know. (Like Michael in "Stranger in a strange land" I sometimes wonder if we just have two words for the same thing.)

Do you think there should be be internment camps?

Thank you. I have been saying the same thing since before the USS Cole got attacked. They want us dead and these maniacs are serious. There are still to many Americans that don't get it.

While saying things like use words not war may feel good to some. The Jihadist are saying use nukes not car bombs to others.

If one in four young Muslim Americans (among the most moderate Muslims, btw) believe suicide bombing in defense of Islam can be justified, and only 40% of them believe Arabs were responsible for 9/11, Islam presents the world with a HUGE problem.

If I remember right, that survey sampled only Muslims. I'd like to know how it was conducted, and what proportion of our non-Muslim youth believe, for example, that it would be a good idea to "bomb Iran back to the stone age." If someone had asked me at age 20, I'd have given an extreme answer too. Especially if I thought the interviewer would be inpressed and I might get laid. Young people see the world in black and white.

Over 20% of Americans do not believe that the Earth goes round the Sun. (http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2007/06/06/eppure-si-muoveor-does-it/) A surprisingly large proportion of the population are pretty dim and ignorant. There's a youtube video where the interviewer asks US citizens what month the 9/11 attack took place ... not a serious study, but terrifyingly funny.

The media must take a lot of the blame for getting everyone excited about this, and one of the ways they do it is to publish rubbish surveys with no serious analysis.

I'm not in any doubt that we must defeat this latest bunch of wackos - but we need to be level-headed about it, and stay calm.

Do you think there should be be internment camps?

No, I think there should be deportation camps.

And Americans who think the earth doesn't revolve around the sun don't want me dead because I know differently.

Norman,

We're talking about Muslims, which is why I brought this particular survey up. You're right that young people tend to be more militant. In this survey it was people under 30. Of course this is the age group that usually does the blowing itself up.

Among all surveyed, the number does drop from 26% to 13%. So only a bit more than one in ten Muslim-Americans believe suicide bombing's okay. Much better.

I honestly don't know what the solution is. Obviously many Muslims are happy here, and want to adapt to our culture. The ones who financially support terrorist groups, the ones who want to destroy our way of life? They need to be treated as criminals. And perhaps for a while, at least, we need to stop letting as many Muslims immigrate here.

"I do listen to (NPR station) KPFK..."

I'm pretty sure the folks at KPFK consider NPR a bunch of repulsive, regressive corporate shills.

They're a "Pacifica" radio station, not NPR (but KPFK still has some good music programming).

NPR stations like KCRW are merely liberal and lefty, Pacifica stations like KPFK are full on Chomskyite, collectivist, America-hating, conspiracy-mongering, slightly left of Mao crazies.

Kimberly-

I don't have an answer either. The point I don't think Amy accepts yet is that there's more at risk than just non-muslims from wackos. We also have ordinary muslims at risk from wackos, ordinary muslims at risk from non-muslims, and everyone at risk from governments using the "war on terror" to further their own ends. The media play on our perception of risk to sell papers.

Amy-

What is a deportation camp?

Okay...but which station is Sandra Tsing Loh on...and Larry Mantle and Pat the Hat?

And deportation camps...I'm making that up. But if you want to kill us, and advocate it out loud, you should leave.

"Perhaps we were naive. Perhaps I should have taken the old, bearded men more seriously when they said they wanted to kill Jews. "

I just read a Weekend Journal interview/op ed about Giuliani, and he made a good point about this. He thinks exactly this: we should take these nuts at their word when they talk annihilation of the west and etc. E.g., use the words of Ahmadinejad regarding Israel to help make the case for why Iran must not be permitted to have nuclear weapons. I think Mr. 9/11 is onto something here. Still couldn't vote for him, but he makes some good points.

And let me clarify...on all of these stations, and with all of these personalities, sometimes it gets so dumb or ridiculous I have to flip to another channel. But there's value in knowing what all sides are saying -- and people I know who don't stick to a particular team (Donkeys or Elephants) but vote with their brain for the least reprehensible candidate mostly read and listen to a variety of media.

> no-fly-zone posturing, whats-
> his-name searching for WMD,
> the UN somehow managing to
> wring its hands and sit on
> them at the same time.

That strikes you as acceptable? The No-Fly zones were not a "posture"... They were a decade-plus-long act of war that defended the safety of millions. If you believed in no-fly zones, you really have no business complaining about invasion. "What's-his-name" is Hans Blix, who, as President of the IAEA, begged the United Nations to relax containment of Kim Jong-il's nuclear ambitions, as he meant no harm. Oil-for-food was the biggest financial scandal of all time... of/all/time... of all time. The French, who IIRC were the greatest beneficiaries outside Iraq, promised Saddam that they would always veto invasion through their vote on the Security Council. How's that for a "trend"?

> the converse is not true.

That doesn't exonerate. In one of his hundreds of interviews last month, Hitchens talked about the wretched rhetoric which is always in the Bible/Koran, if only lying dormant. To say that many (or even most) Muslims don't presently follow all the obnoxious strictures of the faith (powerless women, etc) means little... Those doctrines are always sitting there in an unimprovable text, and will always be a threat. Joe's explanations of al-taqiyya, jibing nicely with everything we've read about Islamic fanaticism, leave no faith that that corner of humanity will make it's own way to modernity.

> our threat is our own
> government (panicked
> by the media) which
> will have us living
> in a police state

I wish you were wrong. But even though you're right, you shouldn't pretend there's no fight ahead. I very badly want this fight to happen, so that it can be won. Part of the problem is an enemy disinclined to confrontation.

But if you want to kill us, and advocate it out loud, you should leave.

Even if you don't advocate it out loud. And not just leave but be kicked out.

and people I know who don't stick to a particular team (Donkeys or Elephants) but vote with their brain for the least reprehensible candidate mostly read and listen to a variety of media

Well, *this* elephant listens to a variety of media (in variety of languages), however I find the folks on the left to be so intellectually dishonest, it is hard to get through their diatribes. I have generally found that folks on the right are marginally more intellectually honest...

Yes, kishke - be kicked out.

But, as for those who don't advocate it out loud (or in print), how do you suggest we identify these people?

Sam Harris' End of Faith should be required reading -- especially in the Topanga Canyon area!

Norman I gotta wonder if your reading or skimming these posts. Were talking about muslims wanting to kill us - you protest saying they are not all like that.

Someone gives you a survey that says 1 in 4 - you protest saying they only surveyed muslims, do you know how bizare it is to challenge a suyrey about muslims because only muslims were asked questions?

Should they have asked jews or hindus if they belived suicide bombings in the name of islam was justifiable? How stupid is that???

And FYI when christians kill in the name of religion they are immediatly disavowed by preachers and congragats alike, How many muslim leaders have protested the actions of the english bomb plot?

Wake up

Amy, I love you dearly for getting the story from the variety of characters you mentioned (not to worry, I'm just really pleased, not nuts). Most people are so into "confirmation bias", where they won't see anything they don't agree with already, that they can't have an informed opinion.

Now, do any of you remember my asking for consistency in drug laws? Look back. Nobody can tell me how to test for impairment in critical positions if drugs are legalized. Can anybody tell me how to test for criminality in speech?

We already have kids in junior high school accused of "making terroristic threats". Now how far will you throw the 1st Amendment - and to whom? The gag you propose for others will fit you.

Norman's right about public reaction. Action, not speech, should be the criterion by which crime is adjudicated. We have gone crazy with fear, and started from ignorance in many ways. Right now, the public literally does not know what a "crime" is - a violation of a statute - and they have unreasonable expectations of police and courts as well. This is encouraged by professionals eager to display their own importance. This makes it easy to handcuff us all!

The list of ridiculous "official measures" is LONG. To give you an idea - we have a "30-yard rule" at SRS: "You cannot park a private vehicle within 30 yards of an important or occupied structure." It's a DOE rule. Of course, a parking rule isn't impressive to a suicide bomber; the 30 yards clear gives a vehicle a good, unobstructed run at the target building; a government license plate is easy to steal. We don't even have any measures whatsoever for even noticing such a violation!

Ahhh, this makes me mad enough to step out for awhile. I hate easily-scared sheeple who clamor for someone, anyone, even unimaginative idiots to "do something"! Grr!

When the Soviets got nukes, then the Chinese, when all sorts of terrorists infested a divided Europe, the road in front of the White House was still open. Why are we quivering with fear all the time, now? Why can't we SEE anything other than what has been hyped by "news" agents? Bah!

Let us define a "faithful" follower of a religion with a definite founder as one who imitates the example and teachings of that founder closely, while an "unfaithful" one does not.

Now let us define a "moderate" as someone who is not especially driven to convert others to his religion, and a "fanatic" as one who wishes to convert all others to his religion.

Next, let us consider these definitions as a pair of axes on which we can place the followers of each of the three major religions with definite founders, defining four groups for each of these religions, and consider the question of where the followers would stand when it comes to the appropriateness of war to conquer the heathen and convert him:

Buddhists
Fanatic Faithful: Condemns wars of conversion.
Moderate Faithful: Disapproves of wars of conversion.
Moderate Unfaithful: Doesn't really care.
Fanatic Unfaithful: Willing to wage wars of conversion.

Christians
Fanatic Faithful: Condemns wars of conversion.
Moderate Faithful: Disapproves of wars of conversion.
Moderate Unfaithful: Doesn't really care.
Fanatic Unfaithful: Willing to wage wars of conversion.

Muslima
Fanatic Faithful: Willing to wage wars of conversion.
Moderate Faithful: Moderately supports of wars of conversion.
Moderate Unfaithful: Doesn't really care.
Fanatic Unfaithful: Willing to wage wars of conversion.

Because, you see, unlike the Buddha or the Christ, the Prophet was a conqueror, not a preacher of nonviolence.

Radwaste -

Bad news sells. People pay attention to it, therefore ratings go up, and you can charge more for ads. Good news doesn't sell - people hear it once and go "Ok, that's nice" while people will repeatedly look for more details on the bad news. Good news doesn't get viewers, doesn't improve the ratings, so doesn't get covered much.

There wasn't much of a reason to block off the street in front of the White House when MAD was the name of the game - street barricades wouldn't stop a nuke. And the IRA wasn't interested in bombing the US, neither were the Christians and Druze militias in Lebanon, or the Basque separatists or any other LOCALLY pissed off group. What would have been the point?

9/11 showed that there was a group willing to change the rules of the game. We'd already seen it with the suicide bombers in Israel - but didn't figure there'd be an exporting of that sort of insanity. Now you've got people willing to destroy themselves to destroy the US, and don't exactly let folks know where they're going to hit next.

It's a messy situation, with no good solution.

J.

I only know that if someone in my town keeps telling me that they want to kill me if I don't convert to their "gang" I will pay attention to what they say and look at my choices. Which are not much. Terror bunnies are all victim's by the way. And if any think that the judicial process work for these problems, I'd like you to take a look at what happened after the first bombing of the World Trade Centers in 93. In other words, not much.

One thing you can DO, however, is hit up primary sources you can trust. http://michaeltotten.com/, http://www.michaelyon-online.com/, post on what THEY see, not what's filtered through layers of stringers, editors and managers. You can find info out there - but you gotta dig a bit further than the AP feeds.

J.

So Amy, I'm confused. You wrote:

"Christians, aside from five nutbags blowing up abortion clinics, don't want the rest of us dead."

But then you wrote:

"I'd vote for an autistic monkey before I vote for that fundamentalist, anti-science George Bush."

So apparently you do regard the spread of creationism or something else related to Christianity as being a more important issue for our times than the Islamist threat. You certainly voted as if you do.

Norman,

"There wasn't any particular trend there at the time, was there?"

Wow, you must have slept through the whole thing--YES there was a trend, a very bad one! Sanctions were falling apart, half of our allies on the UNSC were on the take, and with just a little more time Sadaam would have been free to resume all his R&D projects.

This is funny and witty and smart and I agree with everything except;

"The Muslims -- not all, but a great many -- want everybody who isn't Muslim converted or dead."

should be said like this "The Muslim extremists want everybody who isn't a Muslim extremist converted or dead"

JLAwson--I'd never read Michael Yon's work before. Great link.

So apparently you do regard the spread of creationism or something else related to Christianity as being a more important issue for our times than the Islamist threat. You certainly voted as if you do.

George Bush was and continues to be a failed businessman. There are many reasons I didn't vote for him, and believe me, I loath Kerry with every bone in my body (if bones can actually loath, and I believe mine make the effort for Kerry). Sadly, we had two real losers running. Had Bush's father been running against Kerry, I would have voted for him.

Furthermore, regarding speech being the standard, we have pretty clear free speech parameters. You cannot, for example, yell fire in a crowded theater, or incite people to violence. Well, violence is being incited in mosques in Britain...I've heard the tapes. I wouldn't be surprised if it's being incited here in the USA.

should be said like this "The Muslim extremists want everybody who isn't a Muslim extremist converted or dead"

But, aren't the "moderates" accessories of a sort for sitting on their asses with their mouths shut?

Furthermore, how many moderates are truly moderate? With all the stuff I've read about the wonders bestowed upon people who convert or kill the infidels, how do the "moderates" sift through which wild tales to believe and which to ignore?

SO glad to see that there are others who can't resist taking a rhetorical pushpin to the ever ballooning intellectual vanity of the LA left. Touché.

You may be against the Iraq war, however we are killing Al Queada by the bucketful.

Iraq has attracted a ton of jihadists who are now toast.

We need to keep up the pressure. We cannot leave Iraq to these butchers.

I see us fomenting terrorists in Iraq where they were none. Saddam was a bad guy, but I don't think we should be the world's policemen. How many servicemen and women and how many billions of dollars have we poured down the hole there? From what I read of Muslim culture, we're not going to instill a democracy there...it's probably impossible.

Here, from Hugh Fitzgerald over at Dhimmiwatch:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/013245.php

Societies suffused with Islam are suffused with a belief-system that encourages despotism, not least because Islam locates the source of political legitimacy not in the will of those ruled -- the political theory that undergirds the advanced Western democracies -- but rather in the degree to which any government and any rulers adhere to the expressed will of Allah and of his messenger, as located by clerics and interpreters long ago in Qur’an and hadith, a will to be found in the Holy Law of Islam, or Shari’a. And since, further, the belief-system of Islam is a collectivist system, ignores the rights of the individual, and sees the individual Muslim as owing his entire allegiance to that belief-system and to the collective of fellow Believers, the Umma al-Islamiyya, it is difficult for Muslims to conceive of recognizing, much less making the center of their polities, the rights of individuals -- rights such as freedom of speech and free exercise of religion, including the right to abandon a religion. That is why no Muslim country adheres to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (though the Shah of Iran signed the document), and why instead a “Muslim version” that completely vitiates the entire meaning and sense of the original was created and presented to the world as an acceptable alternative, when it at every point undermined the letter and spirit of that original.

It's about Florida. Dear God, but it's still about Florida.

We are not leaving Iraq. Too much at stake.

After reading this dispatch from Michael Yon
http://www.michaelyon-online.com, I am convinced we are doing the right thing by taking out this trash.

Kate at July 1, 2007 10:03 PM.
Unfortunately, like most other English speakers in the world, that "shout fire in a crowded theater" being some sort of legal offense? Well, no. But FALSELY doing so is probably chargable. Nearly everyone has heard the 'shortened' and quite inaccurate version of the Justice Oliver Wendal Holmes remarks in Shenk vs USA (before the US Supreme Court, 1919, as I seem to recall).
Lots of urban legends and hoaxes running around. I'd give you the context and a full quote, but it is late, would be trouble, and you should do your own searching. G

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/bless-the-beasts-and-children.htm

This is a just war. Unfortunately, until recently we've had a pathetic strategy.

We will stay in Iraq till the bugs are crushed. Let's hope the Iraqi leadership can do what they need to do.

Advance apologies for a long post, but you’ve all been busy while I’ve been sleeping.

Amy - But if you want to kill us, and advocate it out loud, you should leave.

I know you're not suggesting they'll read your post, and say, "Oh, I'm guess that's me, I'm not welcome here, I'll pack my bags and leave now." So how do you suggest going about identifying them?

Are you saying that "wanting to murder people" is to be a crime? Or do you want a new crime on the books? I'm not being flippant here ... there is (in the UK) the act of conspiring to do certain things, such as cause explosions, which is itself a crime. But simply wanting to cause explosions, or wanting to murder people, is not itself a crime.

Examples of speech crimes are inciting racial hatred, or inciting a riot. These laws have been on the books for ages. All we need to do is enforce them. That's the difficult bit.

Kishke - Even if you don't advocate it out loud.

Have you heard of thought crime?

Crid - That strikes you as acceptable?

What made you think that? You asked what would have happened if we had not invaded. My answer is speculative. I think the Iraq war was wrong, but only because it was 12 years too late. Better late than never. Also, it has been badly executed; perhaps Bush I would have done a better job. (But I did think that "wring its hands and sit on them at the same time" was quite clever.)

... wretched rhetoric ... I agree it's wretched, but it's not going away soon. These ancient books are like land mines left to blow us up in years to come. I agree, they will always be a threat. In practical terms, there's not a lot we can do about them. Book-burning is not a good idea. Education is.

luljp - do you know how bizare it is to challenge a suyrey about muslims because only muslims were asked questions?

My point is that unless you also survey other groups, you have no idea whether the muslims are exceptional. It's very shoddy reasoning - but typical of the gutter press, which wants to sell papers.

How many muslim leaders have protested the actions of the english bomb plot?

I haven’t counted. But here’s one">http://www.osamasaeed.org/osama/2007/06/terror-comes-to.html#more”>one: Osama Saeed, Scottish spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain.

-----

In conclusion: I don’t really know just what the terrorists want. But their method is to achieve it by instilling terror: a mindless state of mob fear throughout the population. They seem to be quite successful at that, aided by the media. What will the result be? A few random civilians will be murdered. Tragic for them and their friends and families, but more people die in traffic accidents. A number of racist hotheads will make “revenge” attacks on Muslims, or on people who look as if they might be Muslims. And the government will be able to pass more repressive laws.

What is it that we really want to defend? I believe it is our secular, liberal, democracy and our free market. We value these because they are the best way for large number of people to live together that we have found so far. What is the threat to our democracy? Is it bombs and revenge attacks? No, actually it is the government passing ever more repressive laws, in the belief that more laws are what we need. Even if the wackos get nukes, we only lose if our government does the crazies' job for them.

We don’t need more laws. We need to be determined and efficient to enforce the laws we already have, and we can’t do that if we all run around like headless chickens.

Norman how many cases have you heard about christian, jewish, buddist, doaist, hindu, scientologist, wiccian, druid, pagan, confcianist, athiest suicide bomber or suicide bomber traing camps?

How often do you hear any of these faiths teach 'conversion or death no other options'??

As I said wake up. There may be many muslim who abore the violence, problem is they wont say or do anything about it

luljp- So what do you suggest? Do you want internment camps? Should being Muslim be a crime? Or would you just kill them all? Failing to speak or act against a bomb attack is not a crime. Do you think it should be? Or only if you happen to be Muslim?
I share your sense of outrage - but what specifically do you propose?

... conversion or death no other options ... Actually I don't frequent places where this sort of thing is commonly said (apart from this board :-) so I don't think I have ever heard it first hand. Still, you can read it in the Koran. If someone is inciting others to break the law, then afaik a crime is being committed and should be dealt with by the legal system. And I will agree that prosecutions on this basis seem to be rare. I don't know why. Perhaps someone else with inside knowledge could explain? It could be that the security forces reckon it is better to infiltrate and control things that way.

The terrorist message is that now is the time for panic. With the media's help, they are getting their message across.

TO: Amy Alkon
RE: Not To Worry TOO Much

"I told her, 'Talking to you is like talking to a stuffed teddy bear.'" -- Amy Alkon

You've pretty much identified the nature of the individual you were dealing with quite accurately.

These people, for the most part, won't appreciate any situation that is a direct threat to them until someone actually points a gun or a knife at them. And then...well...it's usually too late.

RE: Iraq

"...I was against the Iraq war before I was against the Iraq war." -- Amy Alkon

Which would you rather?

A couple million dead in NYC or LA from a nuke developed by Hussein, or our good friend Ahmy, before taking action?

Or, would you rather try to fend that Hobbesian scenario off by taking direct action early? And thereby saving millions of lives while spreading the ideals of democracy?

RE: Iran

It's looking more and more like it's going to be a particularly 'hot' Summer in the Middle East. Especially if any of these attacks can be linked to Iran.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. - George Orwell]

TO: Norman
RE: What to Do?

"So what do you suggest? Do you want internment camps?" -- Norman

Some successful attacks against US, of a form we watched averted in the UK might require that. More than likely for their own protection, if the people feel the government is not doing enough to protect US from such attacks.

"Should being Muslim be a crime? Or would you just kill them all?" -- Norman

Both of which are against the Constitution of the United States.

"Failing to speak or act against a bomb attack is not a crime. Do you think it should be?" -- Norman

Actually, I think it IS a crime to know of a bomb or murder plot and not report it to the authorities.

"Or only if you happen to be Muslim?" -- Norman

Religion is not an issue with the previous item.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[When a man embarks upon a crime, he is morally guilty of any other crime which may spring from it. -- Sherlock Holmes]

Amy, you have exactly the right approach. Listen to all sides, read a wide variety of sources and most importantly, have the courage to accept the truth. They do want to kill us ALL, not just George Bush. It's all thru the Koran, it's all the Islamists talk and write about. Al Qaeda has written about the Etiquette of taking lives. Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/weekinreview/10moss.html?ei=5088&en=e46622bc4322a757&ex=1339128000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

You did say one thing that I'd like you to review:
"...but I'd vote for an autistic monkey before I vote for that fundamentalist, anti-science George Bush." Do you only oppose a fundamentalist, anti-science George Bush, or any fundamentalist, anti-science candidate? Are not Gore and Kerry 'fundamentalist and anti-science' in their own way?

BTW, I deny that Bush is fundamentalist or anti-science. You'd have to make that case for a reasonable response to be made.

I bet the Topanga lady would just write you off as a George Bush worshipper, who loves to kill and torture people for the sake of killing and torturing. Welcome to the club!!

TO: Norman
RE: Poor Thinking Skills [A Fisking]

“I don’t really know just what the terrorists want.” -- Norman

You’re not paying attention.

“But their method is to achieve it by instilling terror: a mindless state of mob fear throughout the population.” -- Norman

That’s one of their tools. They have a number of others. If you had been paying closer attention you’d know that by now.

“They seem to be quite successful at that, aided by the media.” -- Norman

Yes. The media is helping them. What are YOU doing about the media helping them?

“What will the result be? A few random civilians will be murdered. Tragic for them and their friends and families, but more people die in traffic accidents.” -- Norman

To put it back to you. Are you suggesting we make it a crime to drive automobiles? [Note: You seem to ask a lot of questions like that of other people. I just thought I’d return the favor.]

But back on topic...

So to the people who lost friends and/or family in 9/11, you say, “Too bad. Better luck next time”?

Buckie, I got news for you. I have a work associate who lost her daughter in the WTC. And your heartlessness sticks in my craw. From my perspective, your worse than the ‘teddy bear’ Amy was talking too.

So your life hasn’t been touched personally yet, eh?

Just wait....

“A number of racist hotheads will make “revenge” attacks on Muslims, or on people who look as if they might be Muslims.” -- Norman

That could well happen. Especially if people get the impression that the government is doing a good job of protecting US.

“And the government will be able to pass more repressive laws.” -- Norman

Yeah. Like more ‘gun control’.

“What is it that we really want to defend? I believe it is our secular, liberal, democracy and our free market. We value these because they are the best way for large number of people to live together that we have found so far. ” -- Norman

True. But what are YOU doing about it?

“What is the threat to our democracy? Is it bombs and revenge attacks? No, actually it is the government passing ever more repressive laws, in the belief that more laws are what we need. Even if the wackos get nukes, we only lose if our government does the crazies' job for them.” -- Norman

Actually, we’ve come full circle here. YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION.

It’s BOTH.

If they set off a nuke, you can bet your sweet bippie, buckie, that the government is going to ‘respond’. And things could well get more repressive.

So, it would be better to avoid their setting off a nuke. Don’t you think?

Or rather, based on what I’ve seen posted so far, that’s a silly question, because you do think, but you think poorly. Something to do with a lack of useful information on which to base your thinking.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[He knows nothing; he thinks he knows everything-that clearly points to a political career. -- George Bernard Shaw]

Chuck - Actually, I think it IS a crime to know of a bomb or murder plot and not report it to the authorities.

I think you are correct - but that is not what I was talking about. I was responding to a comment that Muslims don't publicly condemn violence enough.

For your other points, I am glad to see that you advocate the rule of law, which is what I also advocate (perhaps my writing style does not make that clear). Both national and international law.

TO: Norman
RE: The Silent Muslims

"I was responding to a comment that Muslims don't publicly condemn violence enough." -- Norman

There can be several reasons for that:

[1] They support the attacks.
[2] They're afraid the more militant will kill them.
[3] They just don't care.

I suspect it's more often items 1 and 2 combined.

Either way, they are behaving badly. They are not part of the solution. Which makes them what? And the end result is that we will have a longer and more bloody war.

So. What do YOU propose we do about the 'silent Muslims', who by saying nothing, aid and abet the terrorists?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.]

Chuck-

Thanks for the comments.

Some of the reasons I don't know what the terrorrists want is (a) they don't all want the same, (b) they don't always make sense to me and (c) I don't really care too much what they want.

What do I do about the media? I write to the papers; I try to persuade people through this board, and I talk with my friends. I also try to think things through for myself.

So your life hasn’t been touched personally yet, eh? You're guessing, and you're guessing wrong. I lost a friend in the WTC. In a week my daughter will be travelling through Glasgow airport. So go empty your craw on somebody else.

Threats to our democracy: democracy withstood a heck of a lot bigger threats during last century, and it's still here, still quite strong. Back then, the motto when under attack was "business as usual." Millions died. Today, when no-one died in the recent attacks, the motto is at risk of becoming "someone's going to pay, and you look different, buddy, so it's you."

a lack of useful information on which to base your thinking Well, I didn't see any useful information in your post. Plenty noise and heat, but no actual information. Care to share?

TO: Norman
RE: Lost a 'Friend'?

"I lost a friend in the WTC." -- Norman

Must not have been much of a 'friend', based on your heartless (appearing) remark.

RE: What They Want

"Some of the reasons I don't know what the terrorrists want is (a) they don't all want the same, (b) they don't always make sense to me and (c) I don't really care too much what they want." -- Norman

As I said earlier, you don't seem to be paying attention.

Also, item c reinforces my observation regarding all of what I've said above.

RE: Still Kicking, After All These Years

"Threats to our democracy: democracy withstood a heck of a lot bigger threats during last century, and it's still here, still quite strong." -- Norman

Like I said, you don't pay much attention. Let's see what happens if a few nukes go off in NYC, DC, LA, etc. With your attitude, it'll be sooner rather than later.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[It is not my business to teach people who refuse to learn.]

If anyone is in any doubt about the danger Islam represents, go to an Islamic message board and talk to them.

Ask them what they think of democracy, secularism, women's rights, free speech, the rights of religious and sexual minorities.

And above all else ask them to explain the concept of "dhimmi" to you (as it pertains to the modern day). They are usually quite open about their beliefs on these boards and willing to talk about them.

Don't trust a bunch of "kaffirs", go get it straight from the horses's mouth.

"...since nobody out-P.C.'s my wheels..."

Ha-Ha, top this, ya wannabe...

www.gemcars.com.

All electric, no smoking up the atmosphere for me! Now that's a PC-mobile, it brings a smile to St. Al's visage, that is till he notes the "Strength through superior firepower" sticker on the back spat of my sweet e-ride. Then Al-Gore weeps when he sees the NRA sticker on the other side.

I just had to laugh at the picture, because even though the woman didn't intend this, "Use your words" is the exact phrase parents use to get their toddlers to stop hitting.

When I saw the photo, I immediately thought of Islamic terrorists as philosophically and emotionally stunted toddlers, and I personally would love to tell them to "Use your words!"

Amy,

"I don't think we should be the world's policemen"

So you'd rather the Russians take that role? The Chinese, maybe? Or best of all, the UN's completely ineffective-by-design Blue Helmets?

The fact of the matter is, somebody (or a very small set of equally-matched somebodies) is going to be on the top of the world heap. Nobody's perfect, of course, and we most certainly aren't, but I'd put our performance in that position over anyone else who's ever tried. Only the British come close...

If you want to understand Muslims you probably ought to start by understanding Mohammed, don't you think? There's actually been quite a bit written about him. For starters he was a man of violence, unlike Christ for example. Mohammed earned his livelihood attacking caravans on the trade routes near Medina and Mecca. He actively promoted killing his enemies,i.e., those who diputed his claims to an inside track to the word of god. And on top of everything else was a polygamist, indeed not rare in those times but he seemed to carry the practice to an extreme by having 15 wives, one of whom was 13. Quite a guy this leader of the world's second largest religion. It might be a good idea to have every citizen in every liberal democracy sign a simple, declarative statement of religious tolerance. Refuse to sign this statement and you are free to take up residence and citizenship where ever this critical value is not honored. A partial list of such states: Saudia Arabia, Iran, Syria, Palestine, Lybia, Seneca.

So Iraq is an immoral war, but we should send troop to Darfur?

The woman was right, and sputtering, hysterical Amy was wrong. The current major war we are in is Iraq, and the next war that the right wing is pushing for is in Iran. Neither country had a solitary single damn thing to do with 9/11, and either situation could easily have been handled with negotiations (Saddam let the inspectors back in before the war...and they found nothing).

The "all Muslims want to kill us" thing is a classic self-fulfilling prophecy. Treat them like crap because they're Muslim, and surprise, lots of them end up wanting to kill you. Our occupation of Iraq (which Muslims know damn well had nothing to do with 9/11) has been an ongoing recruitment program for fantaticism within the Muslim community.

Just like people like Amy claim that there is something inherently wrong with Islam that makes 'em want to kill Westerners, people like Osama bin Laden claim there is something inherent in the West that makes us want to invade and dominate Muslim countries. Iraq helped prove his point, Iran would be even worse.

Leave them alone, and arrest and execute those who blow things up over here. We have plenty of terrorism laws already, just enforce them.

(Note Afghanistan was different -- that invasion took place to actually get the people behind 9/11. But of course we ended up letting them go because we withdrew troops to go fight in Iraq).

No, it's not just "people like Amy" who claim there is something inherently wrong with Islam that makes them want to kill westerners. Take it from Hassan Butt, a former member of radical group Al-Muhajiroun, raising funds for extremists and calling for attacks on British citizens:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2007/07/why_so_many_mus.html

formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion. There is no 'rendering unto Caesar' in Islamic theology because state and religion are considered to be one and the same. The centuries-old reasoning of Islamic jurists also extends to the world stage where the rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) have been set down to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.

What radicals and extremists do is to take these premises two steps further. Their first step has been to reason that since there is no Islamic state in existence, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr. Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world. Many of my former peers, myself included, were taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief. In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians.

So Iraq is an immoral war, but we should send troop to Darfur?

I think the U.N. should be fixed, and we, along with the rest of the member states, should contribute troops to be part of an international force policing Darfur.

"I think the U.N. should be fixed"

Well, we'd all love to see the plan!

"Leave them alone, and arrest and execute those who blow things up over here. We have plenty of terrorism laws already, just enforce them."

Yeah, that'll work for suicide bombers. Parody yourself much?

So what did I miss? Just kidding.

Wow. Lots of new commenters here. Who linked to this post?

But, as for those who don't advocate it out loud (or in print), how do you suggest we identify these people?

That's what we have an FBI for.

Kishke - Even if you don't advocate it out loud.
Norman - Have you heard of thought crime?

It's not a matter of identifying criminals. It's a matter of identifying enemy aliens in our midst and deporting them. When I refer to those who don't advocate it out loud, I mean those who are not spokesmen making statements to the press, but who are known to hold by the Islamist views and to hate their host country. If they're not citizens (as many are not), they should be deported, whether they have committed a crime or no. The appropriate government agencies (FBI etc.) should be enlisting informers in their communities to identify these enemies of the state, and they, along with their families, should be deported. We owe nothing to hostile non-citizens.

> George Bush was and
> continues to be a
> failed businessman.

Amy, this is the United States, there's no such thing as a failed businessman here. We have only strivers whose ships haven't come in yet. "Failed Businessman" is how the (local) media described George Straight, a gunman who tried to take over Fiji a few years ago. Other countries don't get the essence of capitalist success: You keep improving your product until people can't resist it. We're all about second chances over here.

> how many moderates are
> truly moderate?

Good question. I think it works like this, and I hope people who disagree will speak up: Most Muslim Arabs in the west are here for a reason, i.e. because life is good here. They're no more naturally religious than anyone else, and happy to subsume any fanatic impulse to the practicalities of a life of peace and plenty. But life in Tulsa is different from life in the Middle East in a huge number of ways. And on occasions when they're feeling competitively disadvantaged (poor) or socially ill-attuned (lonely & horny) --which, given the vast social gulf is a lot of the time-- they're likely to feel kinship with extremists who make noise about the improprieties of the west... If only because video of men in prayer four times a day reminds them of home. This affinity has no accessible analog in Christian life. Certainly it has nothing to do with how moderate Methodists regard southern Baptists, or how Rome regarded Jerry Falwell (as John Paul II once put it in 1983, "Boyfriend be whack!").

(not really)

Amy's correct to insist that these Westernized muslims and Arabs explicitly pick a team. A culture run by the norms of a caliphate is incapable of improvement or anything you and I would call justice.

> You may be against the
> Iraq war, however we are
> killing Al Queada by the
> bucketful.

Maybe, but this needs to be heeded:

http://urltea.com/w44

From the morning of 9/12 onwards, government technocrats have used resistance to terrorism to further whatever interests they had in place anyway. This is repugnant, but we can't pretend to be surprised and we can't tolerate it.

I supported the war, believe that many excellent things have come from it, and absolutely refuse to throw the Kurds to the wolves. But our president and supporters of the war need to do a much, much better job of describing the outcome that they pursue. There's been too much graft and incompetence to give him the benefit of the doubt, especially when our best children's lives are being taken.

> We cannot leave Iraq
> to these butchers.

I appreciate the spirit, but we're not going to know when we've cut through the butchers and are maiming merely misguided citizenry.

> I don't think we should
> be the world's
> policemen.

We do it all the time: The internet, the high seas, aviation... Remember, a lot more Middle Eastern oil goes to Europe than to the States.

> we're not going to
> instill a democracy
> there...

Wanna know why George Bush was re-elected despite an unpopular war and all the rest? Because that sounds racist.

> Dear God, but it's
> still about Florida.

Grow up.

> Book-burning is not
> a good idea. Education
> is.

Education is politically incorrect. You OK with that?

> Note Afghanistan was
> different -- that
> invasion took place
> to actually get the
> people behind 9/11

I call bullshit. The predations of a reckless dictator threatened millions of neighbors in a region of global importance. By imagining we have to wait until we lose 3000 in Manhattan, you're basically saying we should put up with getting punched in the eyes so long as we're not stabbed in the heart.

> we ended up letting
> them go because we
> withdrew troops to go
> fight in Iraq).

Horseshit, and you can't offer a shred of evidence that any such thing occured.

(I can hear her now: “But it stands to reason! It would follow!”)

> the U.N. should be fixed

Throw out everyone who isn't a liberal democracy. Agreed?

> Who linked to this post?

Insta-lanch!

Whoops. George Speight was the coup instigator. George Straight is a country singer... Which is still pretty anti-social, if you ask me.

By the way, I think this was a great spur to a blog post. It's great that Amy called this woman's bluff. A person living a mommy-life in Topanga-ish setting is wrong to think that the routines of household discipline can be brought to bear on international relations. This is the same reason I get upset with people who speak about the leadership of presidents and politicians as if they were parents. Not every relationship in this life should be thought of in family terms. (Hell, the use of the word 'relationship' there may be part of the problem.)

I think the U.N. should be fixed, and we, along with the rest of the member states, should contribute troops to be part of an international force policing Darfur.

Well, that's wonderful.
We have less of a national and moral obligation to Darfur; we broke Iraq and should stay the course until she sets herself right (which is in our national interest as well).

I guess you feel more empathy towards black peoples as opposed to brown peoples.

...that sounds racist.

Doesn't make it untrue! (and I seriously doubt that was the reason GWB was reelected. Kerry seeming like a general-purpose wuss was.)

...and absolutely refuse to throw the Kurds to the wolves.

Yep, would be awful to shaft them again. Can't do that, especially since they seem to have their shit together. I'm about to the point where I think we should just step aside and let the rest of the Iraqis just go ahead and massacre each other 'till they get over it, though.

especially since they seem to have their shit together.

Do they? They seem to have the same misogynistic Islamic tendencies as the rest of the barbarians there. See here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=452288&in_page_id=1811

But they don't try to blow up our soldiers everyday! You take what you can get in the shithole that is the Middle East.

"The main danger is not the wackos but our reaction to them."

Until they get a nuke.

"Terror bunnies are all victim's by the way."

If victimization is a function of perception terrorists aren't victims; they're martyrs whose act of righteous sacrifice buys them 72 virgins in heaven.

"... a more important issue for our times than the Islamist threat. You certainly voted as if you do."

Lay off. Though I went with Bush my political calculus mirrored Amy's: lesser of evils.

"I see us fomenting terrorists in Iraq where they were none."

Saddam had terrorist training camps; we've turned Iraq into a terrorist death camp.

After 9/11 radical Islam was on the march, emboldened by their successful attack on the "Great Satan". All over the world fundamentalist Muslims demonstrated under the banner of Osama bin Laden (most infamously with Evil Bert looking over his shoulder). Palestinians danced in the streets, laughing and cheering while our people burned.

Now Osama and company hide in caves as their mid-level operatives get picked off day after day and their organization crumbles from an unsustainable loss of leadership. Once-proud Muslim fundamentalists are reduced to rioting over cartoons, as for 6 straight years Osama has given them nothing to cheer about.

Whatever you think the Iraq War has been for us, it has been an appalling disaster for Al Qaeda. They've lost prestige, popular support, manpower, leadership, money, secure bases of operation, and perhaps most crucially momentum. They're bogged down in a quagmire in Iraq. We're pouring money down a hole? That's the same drain our enemies are flushing their lives. That's a bargain we Americans can afford to make.

I believe it was Sun Tzu who said to give your enemy a target he feels compelled to attack. Iraq has proven the wisdom of that advice.

"I deny that Bush is fundamentalist or anti-science. You'd have to make that case for a reasonable response to be made."

Stem cells.

"So. What do YOU propose we do about the 'silent Muslims', who by saying nothing, aid and abet the terrorists?"

The press doesn't report the activities of loyal Muslims because those Muslims tend to support Bush. Bush's popularity in Kurdistan is higher than in Texas. Right-wing media sometimes reports on this; MSM doesn't. The "silent Muslim" is the one tipping off the FBI to bomb threats and terrorist plots; they're doing their patriotic duty and we would do well to remember that.

"... democracy withstood a heck of a lot bigger threats during last century, and it's still here, still quite strong."

If you're looking to history as a guide, realize we responded to those threats by crushing them. I'm 99% in agreement with you there (FDR loses me at internment).

"... the motto is at risk of becoming 'someone's going to pay, and you look different, buddy, so it's you.'"

Every time America gets attacked hatemongers like you somehow find a way to point your finger at ... us! It's as if getting attacked by terrorists turns us all into Duke Lacrosse players. Throwing around unfounded accusations of racism against the victims of terrorism makes you more nasty and bigoted than someone who [hypothetically speaking] becomes a racist because of terrorist attacks.

Laika, you're spot on except for the stem cell business. Unfortunately you've swallowed the MSM line there, but all that the Bush administration did was to prevent federal funding of embryonic stem cell research using new cell lines. Overall federal funding of stem cell research actually went up.

TO: Amy Alkon
RE: Democracy in Iraq

"From what I read of Muslim culture, we're not going to instill a democracy there...it's probably impossible." -- Amy Alkon

I'll bet there were people who said the same thing about Japan after Imperial Japan surrendered. However, today Japan is a great democracy.

Then again there's India.

It doesn't happen 'over night'. You're going to have to gird up you loins and be prepared for the long-haul. So set aside your need for instant gratification, i.e., get out of the California mind-set and come up to reality.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The best things in Life take time and hard work. Just like a good marriage.]

People like that are beyond reason. They don't care about minor things like facts or your background. I wouldn't suggest wasting your time on them.

I honestly would like to know what made Bush seem so vile that you would prefer Kerry. Was it the fact that he was religious? His horrible public speaking skills? The whole stem cell thing makes sense when you consider just how many people view it as murder.
I don't really view it as immoral, but I wouldn't want my tax dollars spent on it if I did. Adult and cord-blood cells have nearly the same potential anyway. Yes, it limits science, but science can't police itself. Science cannot tell if an act is right or wrong - you need a system of ethics to do that. The IRB process is not scientific - it is an ethical judgement of risks vs. benefits.

"There wasn't much of a reason to block off the street in front of the White House when MAD was the name of the game - street barricades wouldn't stop a nuke."

Well, I'm disappointed. Clear thinking recognizes that in order to engage in theater war with a major power, attacking heads of state is imperative. And terror groups didn't get invented by al-Queda; neither did the weapons thereof.

The simplicity of flying a plane into tall buildings on the day having the number we call for help is a sign that maybe some more [i]thinking[/i], as opposed to reacting, is in order.

The Marine barracks in Lebanon was blown down with hexane. The Murrah building came down with fertilizer and diesel fuel.

Where is that semi on your street going?

The comparison between Iraq today and Japan and Germany post-WWII has a surface appeal, in that these cases represent circumstances where the U.S. and its allies conquered nations and then attempted to institute democracy, but there are fundamental differences.

Our efforts were successful in Germany and Japan because we were working with nation-states of people who wanted to get along and make their countries work again. In Iraq, we're dealing with a bunch of people who owe much greater allegiance to their own little groups than they do Iraq, many of whom are in thrall to religious zealots, and who have serious historical scores to settle with one another. Combine that with 1)lack of competent leadership on our part and 2) lack of a good plan to get the job done, and we're looking at a task that is herculean, if not impossible.

To all who say patience is needed in Iraq, I just have this question: When are things supposed to get better? We are constantly asked to wait another six months, and then wait again, ad infinitum. Currently, our soldiers are suffering casualties at record levels, Iraq's political 'leaders' are completely ineffective, and thugs like al-Sadr operate with near impunity. This is progress?

"Actually, truth be told, I didn't really think of Muslims at all."

Exactly - virtually no one thought of Muslims who wasn't a neighbor of one or some such. The fact is, the "all religions are the same" line is just an admission of ignorance by those who cleave to it.

Any person who is independently curious about what Islam means to the people who espouse it and what the societies are like where Islam has dominated will find that the rants of the terrorists that they see on television sound exactly like an uncomfortably large number of permanent Islamic authorities throughout that religion's history - beginning with Muhammad.

To test this idea, pick books about Islam not written during a politically sensitive period, and not dealing with the Israel/Palestine issue. I recommend, for example, Mark Twain's Innocents Abroad, or V.S. Naipaul's Among the Believers and Beyond Belief (contemporaneous with the period of Islamism's first metastisism and our complete ignorance/oblivion of it), or T.E. Lawrence's The Seven Pillars of Wisdom - and Lawrence clearly took great care to emphasize and praise what he loved of Arab culture. Read books like A History of the Byzantine State, the Aenead of Anna Comnenmus (about the Crusades); read Ibn Khaldun, the 14th century historian. Read Ira Lapidus's A History of Islamic Societies, or Karen Armstrong's Muhammad. Read the Quran, as many hadith as you can stand. And Qutb's Milestones, something by Maududi, and a dozen other books. Read Sir Richard Burton's Pilgirmage to al-Mekkah and al-Medinah. For God's sake though don't remain an ignorant parrot of political opinions designed for anti-anti-Communism when there is ample opportunity to acquaint yourself with the culture and religion that is so suddenly everyone's preoccupation.

I'm afraid what you will find is that "Orientalists" did not distorted the picture, that the pronouncements of al-Zawahiri are verbatim from the most esteemed sources, and that not taking this movement seriously as an Islamic variation of fascism, despite its many weaknesses, is a very grave error of judgment indeed.

"Combine that with 1)lack of competent leadership on our part and 2) lack of a good plan to get the job done"

Ah now this is my current favorite form of ignorance on the market. Lack of competent leadership? Like... "dismantling the army" that actually dissolved in mid-campaign because the mostly Shi'a conscripts were sick of getting blown to hell for their Sunni/Ba'ath/Tikriti masters by planes they couldn't even see? Or "de-Ba'athification," which replaced a fascist power structure and by the way was demanded by all the parties we were hoping would form a new government? Or maybe not shooting the looters - or perhaps one thinks having 300,000 US troops on the corner would keep people who knew they had no reason to fear them from taking what they could, when they could?

The bottom line is the Islamic world has to change, and it has demonstrated, for those paying attention, that it cannot change - and it has tried. Leaving them alone will result in Islamist governments; intervening may result in Islamist governments. Abandoning the one force that has shown itself capable of reforming nation-states that still require or like the presence of American troops is the biggest folly of all.

But I'm guessing these things are not actually well-studied by those who hold these opinions, and this is no place to go into basic strategy. Let me just ask whether people would prefer that we left Japan and let them rearm? Think that would be a way to more peace and prosperity or less? What do you think the Japanese and Chinese think? There are more "Sunni/Shia" divides in the world than people apparently care to remember or contemplate.

TO: Laika's Last Woof
RE: Internment, Anyone?

"I'm 99% in agreement with you there (FDR loses me at internment)." -- Laika's Last Woof

There is apparently more to the internment of the Nisei than merely rounding up people and putting them in a pen. I've picked up reports that the Army, after Pearl Harbor, wanted to declare martial law in areas up to 15 miles from the West Coast. But the governor of California refused to allow it. The fall-back position was the internment; which was very badly managed.

As for today, it may become necessary to do internment again. It all depends on the situation. If we start taking hits like the enemy has attempted in the UK, and they're more successful, it may be necessary to deport all non-citizens of Muslim belief. Internment in the interim.

As for the citizens, if they support terrorism, it would seem to me to be a criminal matter. If they are naturalized, I wonder if their citizenship can be revoked and they deported.

If native born, it's called 'treason' and is punishable under existing laws.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Be security conscious -- National Defense is at stake.]

TO: Radwaste
RE: Good Point

"The Marine barracks in Lebanon was blown down with hexane. The Murrah building came down with fertilizer and diesel fuel.

Where is that semi on your street going?" -- Radwaste

The Muslim doctors in UK are using gasoline, propane and nails.

The point here is that are the Brits and/or US going to impose gun-lawesque laws against against such?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Guns don't kill people; Islamists kill people.]

Ah now this is my current favorite form of ignorance on the market. Lack of competent leadership?

Hell yes, lack of competent leadership. If we would have gone into Iraq with enough soldiers to enforce martial law across the country and not allow it to fall into utter chaos after the fall of Saddam, we would currently be in a much better place. If we would have not re-opened Saddam's worst prison and tortured people there, we would be in a much better place. Our leadership totally understated the serious likelihood of civil war and sectarian strife. Etc. However well intentioned, we have made mistake after mistake in the Iraq venture. Everybody from the President, Secretary of Defense, Bremer - everybody in the senior leadership screwed up. They had no idea of what they were getting themselves into, didn't prepare adequately, and the people in charge still don't know how to fix it.

You think they did a good job with this? And I'm being called ignorant. Heh.

Word.

The war was worth doing, and there have been some good consequences. But it was a shabby effort, and I'm afraid we're not learning the lessons we'll need to learn next time.

whether or not one is against Iraq war, loosing in Iraq will be disaster. More fundamentalist Islamic state(s) controlled by Taliban or Iran created from the ash of Iraq near Israel will not be pretty.

"... the motto is at risk of becoming 'someone's going to pay, and you look different, buddy, so it's you.'"

Every time America gets attacked hatemongers like you somehow find a way to point your finger at ... us! It's as if getting attacked by terrorists turns us all into Duke Lacrosse players. Throwing around unfounded accusations of racism against the victims of terrorism makes you more nasty and bigoted than someone who [hypothetically speaking] becomes a racist because of terrorist attacks.

Don't be so touchy. Don't tell me you have no revenge attacks in the US. It's not just Muslims. Any time a religious leader says that homosexuality is a sin, some hothead takes it as a sign that they should go and beat up a queer for God. Anyone in a position of authority has to be very careful about what they say in case they promote this kind of thing. It's lynch mob mentality, and we've all got it.

Speak for yourself. Some of us don't do Oringal Sin.

But we enjoy Original Spellingz.

Laika - ... unfounded accusations of racism ...

From today's Times:

On the streets of the Pollokshields suburb of Glasgow, home to Scotland’s largest Muslim population, there was a palpable sense of relief yesterday that the suspects being held in police custody for the terror attacks at Glasgow Airport and London were foreign nationals.

But there was also a lingering fear that the community would suffer reprisals simply for having brown skins.

Robina Chaudry, 39, a retail assistant who lives in the area, said: “I saw the bombings on TV and I feel really upset by it. White people looked down on Asians after the London bombings and I worry it will happen again. My kids go on the Underground every day and I fear for their safety.”

>>>

Not unfounded, then. When you add it up, Muslims are as likely to get blown up as anyone else, because the bombing is random. Plus, they (or anyone who "looks Muslim") are likely to be attacked in revenge. The group which suffers most from these attacks is actually the Asian minority in the West. They get hit twice.

Norman: huh???? Please note that the Times didn't quote white Britons threating foreign nationals and people who looked like them, carrying signs reading "Immigrants must go!" or "Those who insult the Queen must die!", for the simple reason that there weren't any such disturbances. Instead, the Times has to go looking from trouble where none exists, as even the folks they quote admit: "One retired man, who did not wish to be named, said that he had not heard of any backlash so far, but cautioned that the attacks could be used as an excuse for racism...".

So where are these legendary "reprisals"? Where are the Mosque bombings? The nights of broken glass, the herding into internment camps and ghettos, the forcing of Muslims to wear a yellow crescent symbol prominently on their lapels?

What? None of that happened? But ... but ... there's a "lingering fear that the community would suffer reprisals ..." Surely that fear is justifiably founded on hard evidence? But no, it's just more self-righteous hatemongers pointing their fingers at the victims and accusing them of racism.

Robina Chaudry was too busy accusing to be bothered even mourning the dead on 7/7. Yes, I do look down on people like her, but she lets herself off way too easy calling it "racism". This is personal. The bodies aren't even cold before she's preemptively complaining about being persecuted. What obscenely self-indulgent narcissism.

What does that say about you? Showing me evidence that Muslims in the press are quick to accuse others of racism whenever there's a terrorist attack proves my point, not yours. That many Muslims join you in blaming the victim isn't exactly a news flash. And someone should tell Ms. Chaudry that it's even more inappropriate to do it at a funeral.

A fair criticism. I stand corrected.

So where are these legendary "reprisals"? Where are the Mosque bombings? The nights of broken glass, the herding into internment camps and ghettos, the forcing of Muslims to wear a yellow crescent symbol prominently on their lapels?

Laika's Last Woof and Kirk get it exactly right.

And a correction of my own: I realized, as I was driving home yesterday, that I usually listen to KPCC (Frank Stolze, Larry Mantle, etc.). But, I do flip around the dial, too.

Searching for "Muslim backlash" led me to Human Rights First and their 2007 Hate Crime Survey - Companion Survey on Islamophobia. Skimming through it shows plenty of backlash examples, but on the whole I was less than impressed. For example, in 2004 (why is this is in a 2007 survey?) following the murder of Theo Van Gogh by a radical Muslim, there were 174 anti-Muslim incidents in a single month. I haven't dug deeper to see how the 174 were connected to the 1, however. (I have a day job besides researching this sort of stuff.)

One entry that caught my eye was the Muslim response to the Danish cartoons. (These were denounced as "intolerance" but it seems to me that publishing cartoons, however offensive, is a sign of tolerance; intolerance is shown by not tolerating something.) The quote I noticed is ... Mohamed Taha Mohamed Ahmed, the editor of the Khartoum daily newspaper Alwifaq, had published an article attacking the cartoons, but was denounced for having illustrated this with examples. On September 5, 2006, he was kidnapped from his Khartoum home and found decapitated a day later, decapitated. Although he may in fact have been murdered because of political and social commentaries published in this newspaper, for which he had previously received death threats, his murder has been laid to the Danish cartoons. The report doesn't say who did the laying, but I've yet to see a cartoon decapitate anyone.

In any case, if the cartoons were evil, then so was the Iranian competition for cartoonists to mock the Holocaust, which was "to test the boundaries of free speech for Westerners." I don't remember seeing the test results.

There does seem to be plenty of evidence for a backlash in this report, but nothing I saw suggests it is an organised backlash. So, no-one is forced to wear a yellow crescent, and there is no Kristallnacht. And there wouldn't be a backlash if there wasn't something to react to. But it is not something to be proud of, or to deny, or to ignore in trying to make sense of this mess.

TO: Crid
RE: [OT] Original Sin

"Speak for yourself. Some of us don't do Oringal Sin." -- Crid

Think of it as a Birthday Gift. You know. Like a hereditary illness, e.g., diabetes or gout or male-pattern baldness.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[To the dull mind nature is leaden. To the illumined mind the whole world burns and sparkles with light. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson]

P.S. AND 'dark'.....

TO: Norman
RE: Bull Pucky

"Robina Chaudry, 39, a retail assistant who lives in the area, said: “I saw the bombings on TV and I feel really upset by it. White people looked down on Asians after the London bombings and I worry it will happen again. My kids go on the Underground every day and I fear for their safety.”

>>>

Not unfounded, then. When you add it up, Muslims are as likely to get blown up as anyone else, because the bombing is random." -- Norman

Yeah. That's why the Doctor Bombers targeted nightclubs. All the booze and naked-meat women. Lots of devout Muslims would be hanging out there.

Or the Belt-way Snipers. They sure did a good job of getting as many Muslims as they did non-Muslims.

You are SOOOOoooooo disconnected from reality.

And, just as a final nail in the coffin of your latest....

....just because someone is worried, doesn't mean there are attacks going on.....YET. Or....show me the stats of non-Muslims attacking Muslims in Londonstan. Go on. I defy you. Then we can do a 'body count' compare and contrast.

Otherwise, you're so full of hot, unintelligent 'air', it's really quite humorous to see you spout this sort of drivel.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Prevaricator: A liar in the caterpillar state.]

TO: Norman
RE: Better

"A fair criticism. I stand corrected." -- Norman, replying to Laika's Last Woof's challenge for stats

But you're still not quite in step with reality, just yet. Just because you recognize there is a problem with your premise, i.e., nothing substantial to back it up, doesn't mean you have realized your logic has a serious flaw in it.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Prejudice: A vagrant opinion without visible means of support.]

TO: Norman
RE: Sources of Information

Human Rights First?

Never heard of them. What's their rating for accuracy and reliability?

RE: Evidence?

"There does seem to be plenty of evidence for a backlash in this report, but nothing I saw suggests it is an organised backlash." -- Norman

What evidence? From Human Rights First? Having never heard of them prior to your report, I have no way of knowing who runs their operations.

Look at Amnesty International. Of late they've been having SERIOUS issues with their credibility.

RE: Dhimmitude, Compare and Contrast

"So, no-one is forced to wear a yellow crescent, and there is no Kristallnacht." -- Norman

It's interesting to note that I'm of the understanding that dhimmitude requires non-Muslims under Muslim rule to wear certain colors so they stand out from Muslims.

Futhermore, I think we saw how a group of Coptic Christians in Egypt had their home church torn down by the Muslims; http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55683

And then there's THIS....

http://www.bigpharaoh.com/2006/04/15/breaking-new-alexandria-on-fire/

Hope this helps....

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Where there is no religion, hypocrisy becomes good taste.]

It helps ... in the sense getting hit by a sparring partner helps. I think I've had enough help now. I hope everyone else has gained from this exchange. :-)

TO: Norman
RE: Helping a 'Friend'

"t helps ... in the sense getting hit by a sparring partner helps. I think I've had enough help now." -- Norman

Good news.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend. -- Proverbs]

Chuck, I haven't got any idea what you're trying to say.

TO: Crid
RE: Were You Talking About 'Original Sin'

"....I haven't got any idea what you're trying to say." -- Crid

Or so I thought.

Regards,
Chuck(le)

What's with the corporate memos?

To: Chuck
Re: You're fired

Lighten up! Written communication is all about clarity, brevity and sincerity. You're one for three.

To channel Stan from South Park:

I think we've all learned something here: when someone hits you with an accusation of racism, hit back.

TO:Crid
RE: [OT] Look Who's Talking

"You're fired"????!?

"Lighten up!" -- Crid

I think you're projecting.

RE: [OT] Format

"Written communication is all about clarity, brevity and sincerity. You're one for three." -- Crid

That's what my formating is all about. Brevity, as I address who I am communicating to, clarity, as I cite the verbiage that I'm talking about...just in case some character can't remember things more than 5 seconds ago..., sincerity, as I don't lie AND simplicity.

If you've got problems with that, it sounds like, as some Army types would tellyou, "A personal problem."

RE: [OT] As we WERE discussing....

....what's your problem with understanding "Original Sin"? And that whether you like it or not, you've got it.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Death: To stop sinning, suddenly.]

On a distant planet, that probably makes great sense

TO: Crid
RE: [OT] Well...

"On a distant planet, that probably makes great sense." -- Crid

...we're on a Planet we call "Earth" here.

Where are you from, that Earth is so 'distant'?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Anytime you're willing to (1) get back On-Topic or (2) answer my question about your misunderstanding of 'Original Sin', in as much as you think you don't have it, feel free to communicate again.

This pussy-footing around about my style is just so much BS on your part. If you don't care for it, tuff nuggies.

If you don't care for it, tuff nuggies.

Noogies, not nuggies!

If there was a question in there, I didn't see it. Be CLEAR, boy

Amy, I thought of your "Use Your Words" conversation when I read this Instapundit post today (click on my name for the whole thing):



Our words, images, arguments and skills can’t stop the killing. Only the rough soldiers and their guns can solve the problem, and we won’t admit that fact because the admission would weaken our influence and our claim to social status.



As the Prof would say, read the whole thing...

Thanks, Marion.

TO: marion & Amy Alkon, et al.
RE: Indeed....

"Our words, images, arguments and skills can’t stop the killing. Only the rough soldiers and their guns can solve the problem, and we won’t admit that fact because the admission would weaken our influence and our claim to social status." -- marion

...it is the truth. However, I'd suggest a slight modification....

"Only the rough soldiers and their guns can solve THIS problem..."

The problem being that our enemies have chosen war as the remedy to THEIR problem, i.e., the Western democracies.

When our enemies tire of war, maybe then we can get back to the primary use of 'words' and 'ideas'.

Looking back at history, it seems to me that the Islamist approach to Islam, i.e., the non-intellectual/pro-violence approach, arose from the 13th Century conquest of the Middle East by the Mongols.

Up to that point, Islam, and the major cities thereof, were centers of culture and learning. But the Mongols, with their bloody-minded approach to conquest, i.e., slaughtering every living soul in a conquered city, wiped THAT approach out. It left behind a vacuum that the less high-minded survivors from the rural areas moved into. THEY converted Islam to what it is today.

In truth, Islam has always been a bloody-minded religious belief. Mohammed's first 'miracle' was to knock over a caravan. [Note: Compare that to Jesus, the Christ. His first 'miracle' was to turn water into wine for a wedding feast. I think the difference is 'significant'.]

This war, from the long-view, has been raging since the 8th Century, with the conquest of Africa, India and Spain by expanding Islam.

It was stopped at the battle of Tours c. 802, when Charlemagne defeated their effort to cross the Pyrenees into France.

The West's counter-offensive was the Crusades.

The next Muslim offensive was begun by the Ottoman Turks, moving through the Balkans into Europe. It was stopped at the gates of Vienna in the 17th Century.

The next 'counter-offensive' was during WWI when the Brits and French seized upon the collapse of the Ottoman Empire to move into the Middle East.

This latest activity, starting in the late 20th Century is the latests offensive by Islam to overrun the West. This time, through the use of Fabian tactics. Fabian tactics as they know they cannot win in a stand-up fight.

As in any such conflict, it is a test of wills. Either you have it or you (1) convert or (2) become a dhimmi or (3) die. [Note: Only Christians and Jews can choose option 2. That's why, I suspect, the American Indian mother captured by the Muslims with Jessica from that ambushed Maintenance company was butchered. She was suspected of not being a member of the 'People of the Book'. Jessica was a cute blonde who would make a nice addition to someone's harem.]

I'm reminded of the Chronicles of Riddick and the Necromongers; Convert or Die.

And, only those with confidence in Christ will have the 'will' to resist, even unto death. All others, when the 'question', Convert or Die?—with a dull knife to their throat—will probably convert, spineless folk that they are.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[One of the blessing of virtue is a disdain of death. -- Montague.]

The problem being that our enemies have chosen war as the remedy to THEIR problem, i.e., the Western democracies.

Their real problem, as Joe, a regular commenter who is very knowledgeable about Islam and Muslim countries (having lived in one or more), says, is their collective low self-esteem. The way to raise it, in my view, would be globalization -- the fetishization of progress over deathcult-hood...and, in turn, the subsequent adoption of enlightenment values. Read Satoshi's Kanazawa's work on why Muslims are suicide bombers, linked here:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2007/07/why_beautiful_p_1.html

He just put out a book that goes into it in greater detail. Also at the link.

The thing about globalization is that it doesn't automatically inculcate a taste for the working life in new cultures. I mean, we can't even get Russia into the habit of delivering an honest, entrepreneurial eight hours a day. And then there's Africa and Oceania and all the rest. It's not that people in the Middle East and these other places don't struggle to survive, it's that they can't work for another person without accumulating a lot of resentment... Working for the man is a personal affront, and not just the means to an end. I think this problem is a kissin' cousin to De Soto's thoughts about the importance of formal transaction recording.

The Santa Claus-mocking Mexican telephone magnate has surpassed Bill Gates as the world's richest man. I think this is horrible. Whatever you want to say about him, Gates is not a zero-sum thinker, and it was nice to have a guy like that in the Big Chair.

TO: Amy Alkon
RE: Their 'Problem'

"Their real problem....is their collective low self-esteem." -- Amy Alkon, vis-a-vis 'Joe, a regular commenter'

I do not see where this contradicts my understanding.

As I said, they have a problem. Their remedy-of-choice is 'war'.

It does not matter that their problem is one thing, i.e., EXTREMELY low self-esteem, or economic collapse or their religious philosophy. Whatever it is, they've chosen 'war' as their solution to the problem. However, the problem is probably much more than any ONE factor; low self-esteem, economic collapse, religious philosophy, whathaveyou. Indeed, it's probably a combination of a lot of such problems; extremely low self-esteem would likely be in the set.

The role of the Western democracies only provides a parameter against which they can measure the depth and breadth of their 'problem'.

As an adage goes...

Good can tolerate the existence of Evil. However, Evil cannot tolerate the existence of Good, because it will always be a reminder of its failings. Therefore, Evil will always attempt to destroy Good, in order to eliminate the comparison.

RE: The 'Way'

"The way to raise it, in my view, would be globalization -- the fetishization of progress over deathcult-hood...and, in turn, the subsequent adoption of enlightenment values." -- Amy Alkon

It would help, but as they are currently in a state of war, you cannot, as you pointed out in this thread's initial posting, expect to use words very effectively.

Not that we shouldn't try.

I see it as a matter of 'carrots' vs. 'sticks'.

Or as someone once said, "The beatings will continue until 'morale' improves."

RE: It All Boils Down to 'Sex'?

"Studies demonstrate unequivocally that men are far more interested in short-term casual sex than women. In one now-classic study, 75 percent of undergraduate men approached by an attractive female stranger agreed to have sex with her...." -- Satoshi's Kanazawa

I know men have problems with 'sex'. But then again, so do women. They're just 'different' problems.

As for the problems that Muslim men have with sex that leads them to become not-so-smart-bombs, I'm well aware of that too.

But this does not stop the murderous nature of these young men. And, if they get these ideas of perpetual sexual bliss by blowing themselves up, while murdering a number of other people....

....does that mean we have to eliminate Islam? In order to stop the 'madness'?

I don't mean we have to exercise genocide, but maybe theocide.

Based on what you just said and with my understanding of their religious beliefs, I get the impression you're leading up to that.

Or are you trying to get at something else here?

Is Joe around? Maybe he could 'contribute'....

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Religions revolve, madly, around sexual issues.]

P.S. You've just suggested a new interpretation of that old adage.

"War is politics by other means."

-- Clausewitz

Words, ideas, and violence are tools as similar as they are different. The purpose of all is to maximize gain, however "gain" might be defined by the cultural context of the agents involved. To the open-minded intellectual they're also not mutually exclusive.

Al Qaeda are "using their words" quite effectively, thanks to a complicit MSM. They're ALSO using force. Irrational religious fanatics though they may be, they don't place artificial barriers between "talk" and "action".

"Either / or" is a false choice. We should use every tool in its proper time and place to prevail over our opponents. That means using our words AND our military. They complement each other.

There is nothing more valuable in gaining cooperation than credibility. Credibility is the magic ingredient that makes "using your words" effective. Without a powerful military option and the wisdom to select it against defecting conflict partners we lose credibility and our words stop working. I find it truly shocking that the very people who see themselves as masters of the word don't seem to grasp the fundamental element which gives words their power.

Even "reasonable" arguments only hold force when "reason" (freedom of inquiry, thought, petition, criticism, rule of law, etc.) is something we defend with force. Were we not willing to defend reason with violence "reasonable" arguments would cease to function, however reasonable they may be, as the unreasonable used violence to establish themselves in power.

"[D]oes that mean we have to eliminate Islam? In order to stop the 'madness'?"

I've put a lot of thought into that question. By my calculations if we could but extinguish the idea of "Sharia" as a legitimate political authority we don't have to fight a Holy War against all of Islam.

I draw upon Shintoism as my historical example. The Japanese still go to their shrines and make offerings to their Kamis like they have for thousands of years, but nobody prays to Arahito-Kami for world conquest anymore.

For those of you born after 1941 Arahito-Kami is the "God-Emperor" whose destiny is to rule the world at the pleasure of the racially superior Japanese. It was a deadly mix of Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler as ugly as anything the Nazis came up with.

I'm not Japan-bashing here -- by 1946 they'd suffered enough -- but as a historical example it does seem to illuminate a path to reconciliation with Islam.

By extinguishing one aspect of Shintoism we were spared from having to commit theocide. It's akin to burning the village in order to save it, but in war difficult choices are unavoidable.

This seems the most logical frame through which to view Islam, although I don't really have enough information about Sharia to be sure I'm right, and Muslims don't like to talk about it. There's another major difference, too: Shintoists almost universally believed in Arahito-Kami, so we could remorselessly firebomb them until they changed their minds, but quite a few Muslims aren't out to impose the Sharia, they just want to live in peace and freedom. We can't kill Sharia by firebombing Baghdad.

Although I'm not sure how you exterminate Sharia without unacceptable collateral damage to the moderates, bringing democracy to Iraq sounds like the best idea yet. If anyone can sort out the saints from the Sharias it would be Muslims themselves, so it seems critical to me to get as many moderates as allies as we can.

TO: Crid
RE: Gate Is 'Good'

"Gates is not a zero-sum thinker, and it was nice to have a guy like that in the Big Chair." -- Crid

From that I surmise you, as does Bill Gates, hate the Bill of Rights.

Nice to know that about you.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Bill of Rights....void where prohibited by law.]

P.S. And where Bill Gates likes to do business.

Chuck - Is that an invitation to inquire breathlessly what the fuck you're talking about? Listen, I'll squabble with anybody over anything, but do it in english... I don't like you enough to work to understand you. But I looked up "mannered" on Google, and it said "unlifelike idiom." (via Princeton.)

> "War is politics by other means."
> -- Clausewitz

Oh yeah?

"Clausewitz is full of shit! (paraphrase)"

-- Keegan (http://urltea.com/wr1)

> illuminate a path to
> reconciliation

For my part and that of my loved ones (especially the women), I prefer war to reconciliation... If Islam wants to reconcile itself to modernity, that would be just ducky. If it's to survive, it has zero options.

> by 1946 they'd suffered
> enough

Tell us more about your arithmetic.

> they just want to live in
> peace and freedom.

Per Joe, we define these things much differently.

TO: Laika's Last Woof
RE: Compare & Contrast

Interesting idea that; compare and contrast modern Islam with WWII Imperial Japan.

I think I even touched on it myself (above), when I was discussing how it took some time to straighten out Imperial Japan from what it was before WWII to what it is today.

I think it could work, if we had the time and will to accomplish it. However, there are some other factors involved here that might preclude success on our part. Factors of a nature that are, for the most part, beyond the ken of Amy. It might take, literally, "an act of God" to settle them down.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Jesus astonishes and overpowers sensual people. They cannot unite him to history, or reconcile him with themselves. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson]

LLW: No need to exterminate sharia. All that's needed is to deport the enemies we've allowed into our midst and stop letting new ones in, and then beat the crap - militarily and economically - out of our Islamic enemies abroad, as we're doing in Iraq and should be doing in Iran.

Let them practice their murderous sharia all they like, so long as they do it on each other in their own countries, not here.

TO: Crid
RE: Clauswitz

"'Clausewitz is full of shit! (paraphrase)'" -- Crid, citing John Keegan

So....

...tell us when YOU graduated from the Command and General Staff College.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. I graduated in '86

Didja follow the link?

I tried, but there is no link.

TO: Crid
RE: Follow My Leader

"Didja follow the link?" -- Crid

Yeah.

And I suspect I've got more books by Keegan than YOU do.

RE: Answer My Question

When did YOU graduate from the US Army Command and General Staff College?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Amateurs study tactics. Professional soldiers study logistics.]

P.S. I graduated the US Army Logistics Management College's toughest course in '92.

This is why I'm a "neoconservative". The paleo-positions of "nuke Mecca" or "seal the borders" are completely unrealistic.

Waging a vast and bloody world war against all of Islam would be expensive and would alienate Muslim allies such as the Kurds.

Sealing the borders and letting the religious fanatics build their bombs and burkas in peace leaves the problem of Islamic terrorism unsolved for the next generation. Even if we somehow managed to seal the borders they couldn't stay that way forever, and our children would suffer their generation's 9/11's because we didn't take care of the problem on our watch.

"... by 1946 they'd suffered enough ..."

"Tell us more about your arithmetic."

War crimes - (firebombings + nukes) = 0

> there is no link.

Here it is again- http://urltea.com/wr1

> I graduated the US Army
> Logistics Management College's
> toughest course in '92.

And your heart has apparently been beating to a technocratic rhythm ever since. Maybe this explains your fondness for memoranda. There's a stereotype out there of the gung-ho soldier who doesn't know when to stop soldierin', who tries to conform his social and family contacts into military deportment, that simpler realm where boundaries and authority are explicit. These fellows tend to be made fun of... Deservedly.

While all of us are happy for your achievement, I'm not terribly impressed, no more so than if you'd graduated a tough MBA program (or maybe even a middling one). Rare is the taxpayer who'll genuflect before a military bureaucrat; few of us believe we're getting sufficient value for our defense dollar. I'm certainly not therefore going to trust you about when we should kill people. And so to the matter at hand...

I found Keegan convincing, and am glad the book came several years before these crises. I think his thesis that men often fight war for reasons having little to do with their greater political and economic interests has worn nicely through these years. (And through his newspaper commentaries on them.)

Carry on... Smoke if ya got 'em.

> War crimes - (firebombings + nukes) = 0

Huh?

(Is it me? Is anyone else having trouble reading these guys?)

Awright, I woke up and did your math.

I don't think war is useful as a retributive tool... Just like the rest of life, there are crimes people can and do commit for which no justice can be delivered. Yes, this stinks. But if I'd lost family in Nanking --or had a senior woman in the family who was a Korea comfort woman, or had lost an uncle or grandfather in Bataan-- you'd not be able to convince me that Japan's debts had been paid. And you'd know better than to try.

Every now and then there's talk about reparations for American slavery as there were for Japanese Americans in the 1990s. Sane enthusiasts of such payouts ask that they represent payment in full on some social debt. African Americans seem unwilling to agree to this, which is a big reason they haven't happened yet.

Some debts can't be paid.

TO: Crid
RE: Where My Heart Is....And Yours Isn't [a fisking]

“And your heart has apparently been beating to a technocratic rhythm ever since.” -- Crid

Wrongo, buckie. It was beating that way from around ‘69; when I took a course with HS teachers in COBOL and Fortran, as a Summer ‘lark’.

“Maybe this explains your fondness for memoranda.” -- Crid

Wrong again. I took that up when I started blogging and wanted to communicate more accurately with people like you.

“There's a stereotype out there of the gung-ho soldier who doesn't know when to stop soldierin', who tries to conform his social and family contacts into military deportment, that simpler realm where boundaries and authority are explicit. These fellows tend to be made fun of... Deservedly.” -- Crid

Look whose talking.

“While all of us are happy for your achievement, I'm not terribly impressed...” -- Crid

As if I cared what you think of me. I’ve been abused by the best. And you, youngster, don’t hold a candle to ‘No Slack’ Stack.

“....no more so than if you'd graduated a tough MBA program (or maybe even a middling one).” -- Crid

But the question remains, what have YOU ‘graduated’ from? I’m beginning to suspect you haven’t got a diploma from a reputable high school yet.

“Rare is the taxpayer who'll genuflect before a military bureaucrat; few of us believe we're getting sufficient value for our defense dollar.” -- Crid

Yeah. But what have YOU done for ME lately? Let alone anyone else around here; Amy, Laika, whomever. So far, you’re just another leech on the system.

“I'm certainly not therefore going to trust you about when we should kill people. And so to the matter at hand...” -- Crid

Well....I know planeloads of men who trusted me with their lives. How many people would trust YOU with such? I think it’s probably less than a planeload of paratroopers.

“I found Keegan convincing, and am glad the book came several years before these crises.” -- Crid

I think his work titled The Face of Battle was better.

“I think his thesis that men often fight war for reasons having little to do with their greater political and economic interests has worn nicely through these years. (And through his newspaper commentaries on them.)” -- Crid

I don’t think so. Economics has, more often than not, been the driving force of war; one way or another.

Keegan is good. But he’s not ‘perfect’. Everyone has an ‘off day’ now and then. Case in point, you seem to have more than the average man.

“Carry on... Smoke if ya got 'em.” -- Crid

I always do. Usually a fine cigar. I prefer A. Fuente’s Hemingway Signature line.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[I was jumping C130s before your father learned how to jump a prom date.]

P.S. What you fail to grasp, about the relationship between economics and nation-state diplomacy—probably because of inexperience, ignorance and/or worse—is the relationship between corporations, politics, international-affairs, diplomacy and war.

> I started blogging and wanted
> to communicate more accurately

Try naval semaphore; it's no less effective but not as pretentious.

> But he’s not ‘perfect’.

Who said he was? I said he was 'right.' (Actually, just persuasive.) A strapping, handsome, uniformed buck like you wouldn't resort to Straw Man, would he?

> [I was jumping C130s before
> your father learned how to
> jump a prom date.]

Sure, kitten, but do you have a large penis?

Aha!

See also: http://urltea.com/x8u

Also, remind me what we're fighting about. I couldn't remember during the commute ("the anger hour"), and it was unnerving.

TO: Crid
RE: Going for the Yuks

"Sure, kitten, but do you have a large penis?" -- Crid

Funny.

But you'll have to ask her. But is it really a matter of size? Or is it more a matter of how much a man can pleasure a woman?

Look upon it as a challenge to see how long one can keep a balloon bouncing....is 45 minutes long enough?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. But 'inspiration' is an important factor. Go watch the movie Life Force. She reminds me of the female lead in that movie.

P.P.S. Eat your heart out, kid....

TO: [Kid] Crid
RE: Other Issues, You Have....

"Also, remind me what we're fighting about. I couldn't remember during the commute ("the anger hour"), and it was unnerving." -- Crid

Suffering from short term memory loss? Too much nose candy? Or maybe you should change the color of crayon you're smoking.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[You don't see any old drug addicts. - Rev. Ted Noffs]

You don't remember either

TO: [Kid] Crid
RE: War and Rememberance

"You don't remember either" -- Kid Crid

Oh. I remember. As in, I remember how to scroll up the page to see where it was you got side-tracked.

Too bad your 'issue' doesn't allow YOU to do as much.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[A good memory does not equal pale ink.]

"I think his thesis that men often fight war for reasons having little to do with their greater political and economic interests has worn nicely through these years. (And through his newspaper commentaries on them.)” -- Crid"

This is what I was waiting for. I am reminded of this:

"Certainly men have always fought well in defense of their homes, and this does not require much explanation, but over the centuries men have fought equally well in foreign wars. It is fatuous to suggest that men can be expected to die for an ideological cause. Ideology is all very well, but it is of little interest to a corpse. It may be said that men have put their lives on the line for religious beliefs which provide eternal bliss as a reward for a hero's death, but the religious motive is certainly not ever-present in warfare. I was thoroughly involved in the war in the Pacific from before the beginning until after the end, and I never met a man who felt he was fighting for any sort of cause. And he certainly was not fighting for defense of his home. Moreover he was not fighting because he had to, since I am speaking here of heroes rather than reluctant dragons. I have seen men perform feats of valor which were quite astonishing, and I have heard accurate accounts of hundreds more. The question still stands as "Why?"

The Countess has a simple answer - "testosterone." Men fight because that is what men do, and while no one enjoys the hardship, the boredom, the privation, or the pain, most men light up like a Christmas tree when the guns crash and the trash flies.

We hear inspiring speech about giving "The last full measure of devotion," but I do not believe that many men actually do that. In battle they do not give up their lives voluntarily, they take as many lives as they can, and - dreadful as it may seem to say - they enjoy it hugely. This is the nature of mankind, and there is no purpose in wringing one's hands about it.

The subject is worth going into at great length, and I look forward to it with pleasure." - Jeff Cooper, in "Cooper's Commentaries", October 1996

This is congruent with the extreme sexual repression typical of an Islamic state - a sort of codified insanity.

TO: Radwaste
RE: Interesting Ideas....

#1 There is no national ideology in war-making.

Actually, on occasion, there is an ideology in almost every war. The question is whether or not it is the primary motivation.

#2 Why Men Fight

Ever read S.L.A. Marshall's Men Against Fire?

As for the idea that men do not give up their lives voluntarily, but wish to take as many of the enemy out with them....

....please explain combat medics to me again. They are unarmed. They throw themselves into the field of fire with nothing more than a red-cross emblazoned on their uniform to fend off enemy fire.

There are exceptions to every 'rule'. I just pointed out one of them to you. There are myriad others strolling about on the modern battlefield. Another example are combat engineers conducting a breach of an enemy barrier or an opposed river-crossing.

Indeed, there are as many reasons why men fight and die as there are men on the field of battle.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[If the enemy is within range, chances are you are too.]

How men feel when they fight is less important than what they're fighting for. It doesn't matter if the Marines in Fallujah thoroughly enjoyed what they were doing or thought it was a terrible thing; they did their duty and completed their mission, and that's what matters. The war is an extension of the political will of the people. Osama bin Laden is right about that: he and Al Qaeda are at war with all of us and most of us are at war with them. We're his real enemy, although he'll have a hard time getting to us as long as our military is in the way.

"... you'd not be able to convince me that Japan's debts had been paid. And you'd know better than to try."

We nuked them for crying out loud. We're going to demand an apology after that?

No rational person fights wars of retribution, but when the war becomes so brutal that retribution is attained as a side-effect I don't think it out-of-line to acknowledge that.

The firebombings and nuclear attacks killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese. Hundreds of thousands. We did what we had to do, but after that much killing can't we just call it even?

We do need to remember things like the Bataan Death March if only to keep at bay the revisionists who crawl out of the woodwork every year around the anniversary of Hiroshima to accuse us of being the real villains. I actually found it more instructive to learn of the Shinto religion and the true nature of Arahito-Kami, but for most people Pearl Harbor and Bataan are enough to put our fighting methods into context.

Even if you were captured by the Japanese, we nuked them. Why isn't that enough?