Assholes.

I just got back from breakfast with a friend of mine, and there was a cute older couple in the next booth. The man was wearing a Korean/Viet Nam veteran's cap, so I bought their breakfast. They protested but I said to the man, "Please, let me. Thank you for serving our country." I honestly don't think this country has done enough for our veterans.

If 13-year old schoolgirls can be strip-searched by pervert principals looking for contraband Advil, then expecting hobbling elderly veterans to hand over their canes to be inspected for hidden explosives seems almost reasonable. I think it's the nearly universal Zero Thought policies that are costing you here, not Islamic nutbags. Think about it: if a suicide bomber wanted to blow himself up at the Statue of Liberty, then wouldn't the middle of the endless queue of frustrated visitors waiting to be inspected be the perfect place to do it?

2 years ago I'm going thru the checkpoints at the Dallas airport.
I see a guy pulled aside getting patted down and wanded. The look on his face was part disbelief and part sadness.
He was a Staff Seargent dressed in his Army BDU's (Camo). There were lots of GI's going thru the checkpoint, they were on leave, off a military charter from Iraq and going thru this checkpoint to reach their commercial flights home. This guy drew the short straw and got singled out for "additional screening".
Watching this got my blood boiling but I stopped short of doing anything. The TSA drone was just "doing his job" and I didn't want to cause a scene at an airport checkpoint.
I do regret not waiting for the guy to finish passing through the checkpoint and thank him for his service though.

Those veterans fit DHS's new terrorism profile, you know.

Not all the blame for these behaviors falls on Islamic terrorists. We are responsible for our pants-wetting reactions. Including implementing onerous and ineffective security measures.

No, Amy. This is what years of meddling in Middle Eastern countries has cost us.

No, Amy. This is what years of meddling in Middle Eastern countries has cost us.

Cody - history did not begin with the moment of your birth.

Islam has been at war with the concept of "Western Civilization" since the 600s. In other words, since its founding.

You would do well to research history before repeating the words of the enemy.

Cheezburg:

Not all the blame for these behaviors falls on Islamic terrorists. We are responsible for our pants-wetting reactions. Including implementing onerous and ineffective security measures.

Actually, you can blame forty years of pantywaist liberalism and nanny-state indoctrination.

After all, if we're not capable of deciding our fates on a day to day basis, how can we possibly be responsible for our own security?

Oh, and Cheez - The Supreme Court handed down their decision In re Ricci.

You were wrong. Title VII does not allow for the consideration of a possible legal action to be grounds for a disparate impact finding. Only a justifiable belief in a disparate impact liability will suffice.

And I (and most of the others beating you about the head and neck with blunt objects) had contended that given the evidence at hand there was no way that New Haven could possibly lose.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled topic.

Oh, please. Islam has been at war with the West since the 600s, so that MUST explain why kwazy Arabs are strapping bombs to their chests and blowing up planes. How convenient. Since we now have a convenient excuse for Muslim anger, we can easily excuse our meddling in Middle Eastern countries and our support for corrupt Middle Eastern governments.

We could do whatever we want over there and still come out of morally pure.

The Islam-did-it folks espouse a view which is the foreign policy equivalent of Intelligent Design.

No, Cody - the Blame America First crowd have no sense of history or reality. Your child-like view of the world is what leads to people getting killed. Kind of like Neville Chamberlain.

The fact of the matter is had nobody ever meddled in the middle east after World War I, sure, they'd probably be flinging poo at each other. Or not. Someone would have discovered oil there, and learned to extract it, and made these primitives rich. And in their jealousy, they would try to destroy that which created their wealth.

Which is the life story of Islam going back to the very beginning.

Muslim anger is a product of Islam, not a product of contact with the west.

You were wrong. Title VII does not allow for the consideration of a possible legal action to be grounds for a disparate impact finding. Only a justifiable belief in a disparate impact liability will suffice

I never once argued that the Ricci wasn't going to be overturned, or that it was a just decision. I only argued that the decision was consistent with 2nd Circuit precedent, which binds appellate justices but does not bind the Supreme Court. If you'll go back, you will find me stating explicitly that I expected the Roberts Court to overturn it. The reason the Supreme Court accepts cases is usually to overturn their rulings or to resolve disagreements between the lower courts. That's what happened here. I'm fine with the result.

Actually, you can blame forty years of pantywaist liberalism and nanny-state indoctrination.

I blame it more on the need to be seen as "doing something"; Schneier's security theater. Everyone was so shocked by 9/11 that the failure to take drastic actions to increase the sense of security (not necessarily the reality of security) would have opened the government up to all kinds of criticism. Invasive security makes people feel safe, without actually doing so. Most of post 9/11 security enhancements fall into this category.

We support the brutal rule of Hosni Mubarak, including supplying his government with military arms. The Military and Police have been known to attack the citizenry and torture suspects. If a dumb Muslim were to notice who was the prime supporter of this aggression and decided to do something about it, he would be motivated by his religion to act, not the actions by his government and the governments which support his own.

If this person were inculcated in the ethical practices of other religions, he would not act because only Islam is imbued with ferocious fighting spirit.

You have to live in a bizzarro world in order to take seriously the idea that Muslims are attacking the West because they are jealous or imperialistic, not because the Muslims' governments are the playgrounds of Western powers.

Cody -

How many Hindu terrorists have attacked anywhere in the west?

Q.E.D.

Cody:

If a dumb Muslim were to notice who was the prime supporter of this aggression and decided to do something about it, he would be motivated by his religion to act, not the actions by his government and the governments which support his own.

Remember whom the "Palestinians" voted in to power after Israel evacuated Gaza. Hamas. Even after Israel leaves, they continue to blame Israel for their failures.

And so what is the answer for them? Blame the Jews. Which they have been doing for 1,300 years.

And if you think Hosni Mubarak is a problem, you really have no clue what he replaced. I know, he's not perfect, therefore he sucks in your worldview.

But perfect is the enemy of good. And if we can get an incremental step towards self-rule and a lack of genocidal totalitarian kleptocracies, I'll take it.

How remotely relevant is that? So the Hindus are pussies and the Muslims are motivated to go beyond their borders to attack their enemies.

No, but wait! It's Islam!

Cheezburg:

I never once argued that the Ricci wasn't going to be overturned, or that it was a just decision. I only argued that the decision was consistent with 2nd Circuit precedent, which binds appellate justices but does not bind the Supreme Court.

As I recall, you also argued that the 2nd circuit was correct in handwaving the whole thing, and that the deciding court was correct in their interpretation of Title VII and the later legislation in 1991. They were not. This case should never have made it past the initial court. They should have found for Ricci based upon a plain reading of the statutory language.

Philip Weiss has done some amazing blogging on the Palestinian issue, and the ways in which the Israelis dehumanize and brutalize the Palestinians.

Israel acts like a thug because it doesn't have to worry about the consequences of its actions. Why worry when you have the biggest guy (i.e. the United States) watching your back?

Cody:

How remotely relevant is that? So the Hindus are pussies and the Muslims are motivated to go beyond their borders to attack their enemies.



No, but wait! It's Islam!

You argue like a 7 year old. Hindus are not pussies, your statement of that is further proof of your lack of historical knowledge.

The problem here is two-fold. First is the Islamic command to convert or destroy the infidels. Second is the unbelievable grudge-holding power imbued in people by their commitment to Islam.

You can snark all you want. It doesn't cure you of your ignorance or make you correct.

It just makes me want to neck-punch you for being a douchebag.

Hahaha. You want to neck punch me? Boy, I bet you're real strong. You must do lots of push-ups.

OK, you expect me to take someone who believes that what the Palestinians are engaging in is "peaceful protest" and calls for divestment from Israel seriously? Really?

What the fuck world have you been living in for the last 40 years?

Take this choice piece of industrial-strength stupid:

Israel acts like a thug because it doesn't have to worry about the consequences of its actions. Why worry when you have the biggest guy (i.e. the United States) watching your back?

The moment we pull our funding from Israel, they pave Gaza. You know it. Our funding of them is what gives us the right to tell them during the 1991 Gulf War to not retaliate against Iraq when the Scuds hit Israel.

The fact that you argue from a position of such incredible ignorance, and seem so proud of it bothers me.

You must be one of the 52% of retards that put the jug-eared moron in the Oval Office.

How does Isreal de huminse the palistinians Cody? Aside from leaving million of state of the art real esate behind for them to mindlessly destroy or calling ahead to warn civillians of an airstrike

What other horrible things do they do to such undeserving people who fire rockets at them all day?

As I recall, you also argued that the 2nd circuit was correct in handwaving the whole thing, and that the deciding court was correct in their interpretation of Title VII and the later legislation in 1991.

I'm pretty sure the main thrust of my argument was simply that the decision was an accurate application of precedent in their circuit. Further, court observers have noted that the decision today indicates that the majority opinion is adopting a new standard:

And Jews are so cute when you blow up their schools with rockets.

You wanna play the moral equivalence game, do you? Which side considers civilians to be legitimate targets? Which side acts repeatedly in contravention of the accepted laws of war? Which side routinely executes its own people on (unproven) suspicion of espionage?

You're on the wrong side of this argument Cody, and you know it.

North Africa/The Middle East has been at war with Europe since WAY before the 600s. Islam/Christianity is just the latest. Remember the Persians, Carthage, etc?

And Israel kills civilians same as the Palestinians to, and also contravenes modern warfare. Cody is NOT on the wrong side of this argument. I know there is this idea in our culture that Israel can do no wrong, but it simply isn't true.

Brian, have you spent much time in the West Bank and Gaza, outside of the settlements?

I am not saying I do not understand the problems Israel is facing. When you go take over a country as they did in the 40s (with the blessing of the West, of course), and if you want to keep it, you have to be brutal. Most Israelis today had nothing to do with the 40s, many weren't born, Israel is all they know, of course they want to keep it. Sadly, the Palestinians want it too. But I can't call Israel's position "moral". Understandable? Sure. But moral. No. I've seen the eyes of the men who've been tortured.

As to Hamas... unfortunately, Hamas is often on hand during moments of crisis, helping people out. Every time Israel bulldozes a farm or bombs a school, Hamas is on the scene, being helpful. The tunnels that smuggle in their weapons also smuggle in foods and goods.

This makes Hamas look good. Which is why they got elected. That, and corruption in the Palestinian Authority.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the Palestinians have a good government.

NicoleK:

And Israel kills civilians same as the Palestinians to, and also contravenes modern warfare.

Please note that "kills" is not a synonym for "targets".

Also, can you give an example of where Israel has contravened the rules of war? Last I knew they were using uniformed military, targeting military installations and personnel, under a declared state of hostilities.

This makes Hamas look good. Which is why they got elected. That, and corruption in the Palestinian Authority.

Somehow I suspect you would not give the KKK a pass were they to help people out during the rebuilding after Katrina. Why do you give Hamas a pass?

Cody is NOT on the wrong side of this argument. I know there is this idea in our culture that Israel can do no wrong, but it simply isn't true.

He is, and so are you. Nobody here is saying that Israel can do no wrong. But you have to face some unpleasant facts before you step into the debate ring:

• Israel was created out of whole cloth by the UN after World War II.
• The Arab world (see: Grand Mufti of Jerusalem) sided with the Axis powers during the war.
• They lost. Part of losing a war is you don't get to dictate terms.

And from the very moment of Israel's birth, the Arab nations have been attempting to dictate terms. Terms they have no right to dictate.

They chose poorly. Had they fought against the Axis powers, perhaps they would not be in the situation they are today. They chose their side knowingly, because Hitler was killing Jews, and they wanted to kill Jews, so it was a natural fit for them.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the Palestinians have a good government.

No, but people are arguing that it's not their fault. It's always America, or Europe, or Israel that is at fault.

More succinctly, Saudi Arabia cannot outlaw the stoning of rape victims because Israel occupies the West Bank.

It's bullshit excuse making, and you and Cody are useful idiots for Islam the same way that Saul Alinsky and William Ayers were useful idiots for Stalin.

Hamas, the evil Muslim organization that wishes to push Israel into the sea, was helped along by the Israeli government as a wedge to use against the PLO.

I'm sure it made perfect sense at the time.

Here's the classic from Patrick Smith.

Before we so-called meddled in the Middle East Muslims were attacking US ships and taking Navy personnel as slaves, before 1800!

Before we recognized Israel, before we set foot in Arabia, before we deposed Saddam Hussein, before we overthrew the Ottoman Empire in WWI, before any affront to Islam, before any possible provocation to a single Muslim, Muslims attacked America as soon as we became a nation. Why? Because they were Muslims and we were not.

The US is the big Satan not because of anything we have done, but because of what we have the power to do: prevent the domination and subjugation of the infidel world by Islam.

George Bush was wrong: they hate us not because of our freedoms, but because we are the most powerful nation among the infidels; and through that power there will always be a dar al-Harb.

See The Difference Between Martyr and Shaheed

Sadly infidels do not realize that Muslims do not need an event to trigger Jihad; Jihad, or the striving in the path of God, means to subdue, convert or kill infidels wherever the faithful find them. There is no tit for tat. Those who think Muslims need a reason for attacking us are simply misinformed. Recall the story of the Scorpion and the Frog.

Muslims attacked America as soon as we became a nation. Why? Because they were Muslims and we were not.

Are you talking about Barbary pirates?

Before we became a nation, before we even meddled in Europe, before blah blah blah, the British attacked the United States? Why? Because they were British. That's why.

Things were bad in the Middle East. How is meddling and stirring the pot supposed to make things better?

Michael Scheuer, the make tasked with finding Osama bin Laden and someone who is hated by those on the left and right, has made it quite clear that we are being attacked because of what we do and not who we are.

I guess trotting out the whole Muslim argument makes one sound edgy and informed and speaking truth to ignorant power. The truth is, though, those who trot out the argument make themselves look silly, make themselves look blind to human action and response.

First of all, you would have to accept the premise that all Muslims everywhere are motivated by their religion to to kill, convert, or subjugate. This sort of mass calling strikes me at the core as absurd. More likely it is Islamic elites that are wrapping their religion around otherwise selfish acts.

Again, the excuse is convenient and overshadows whatever valid complaints a Muslim may have against the West or Israel. A Muslim simply cannot win an argument because from the outset he is suspect. He is motivated by his religion. In effect, he is less than human.

By the way, do any of you believe Israel is better off with having worked with Hamas in the past as a means of subverting the more-or-less secular PLO?

Here's a better question: how would any of you feel if a foreign power like, say, China were actively meddling in American politics, influencing elections, and, should the unthinkable happen, support an oppressive regime which actively oppresses the American public?

Now, if you decided to speak out about these abuses, you might be tortured and imprisoned by your government. To add insult to injury, no one outside your country would care one iota because they would be under the impression that you were motivated by nothing more than your religion.

By the way, do any of you believe Israel is better off with having worked with Hamas in the past as a means of subverting the more-or-less secular PLO?

Ancient Klingon proverb: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." They've also worked with Lebanon, Turkey, and Egypt against Hezbollah.

Michael Scheuer, the make tasked with finding Osama bin Laden and someone who is hated by those on the left and right, has made it quite clear that we are being attacked because of what we do and not who we are.

And he's wrong. Bin Laden told us what we need to do to stop the attacks. Number one on the list was convert to Islam. The middle east wasn't even in his first letter to the Americans. It only appeared in his second letter (after 9/11), and was really intended for Islamic audiences.

But since you didn't read either of those, you don't know that.

First of all, you would have to accept the premise that all Muslims everywhere are motivated by their religion to to kill, convert, or subjugate. This sort of mass calling strikes me at the core as absurd. More likely it is Islamic elites that are wrapping their religion around otherwise selfish acts.

Explain, then, why the bulk of muslims in the middle east say that they have an obligation to engage in jihad against the infidel?

I'd say that counts as a call to mass killing. You can call it absurd, but you'd be wrong. Consider also that the leaders of Islam in Saudi Arabia and Iran (Sunni and Shi'a respectively) consider muslims that assimilate into the nations they move to as apostates. To the leaders of the religion, the duty of all muslims is to Islam.

You can continue to believe that the west is solely to blame, but history is not on your side. I'm sure you believe that only events that have transpired in the last 100 years matter. But you would be wrong.

Do a little research on Bin Laden's demands. Pay special attention to the bits about the liberation of "Al Andalus". Make a mental note of when the Moors were kicked out of Spain.

And then tell me again how English meddling in the 19th century started all this.

Here's a better question: how would any of you feel if a foreign power like, say, China were actively meddling in American politics, influencing elections, and, should the unthinkable happen, support an oppressive regime which actively oppresses the American public?

Oh, you mean like the illegal donations to the Gore campaign in 2000, where any Republican who brought it up was dismissed as an ideology-addled imbecile who hated Democrats for petty partisan reasons?

Give it up. You're making yourself look like a fucking fool.

Do you have even the slightest understanding of what was going on in the middle east from about 1950 through 1990? There was this thing called the "Cold War". Bad things were done. Proxy wars were fought. Leaders were propped up and knocked down. The doctrine of "He may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he's our son-of-a-bitch." was in full force.

But all that aside, the muslims of the middle east would still be attacking the US, Europe, USSR, and China. But you're too stupid to comprehend that simple historically-backed truth.

I know what you are fighting so hard to not type, lest you give yourself away. And I'm not going to let you get away with driving there.

One thing Cody, NicoleK - civillians who willingly use their bodies as sheilds to furter Hamas' cuase are not civillians, they are combatants.

The civillians who are forced to use their bodies as sheilds at gun point deservit for being such morons as to put trigger happy assholes in charge of their lives

I never insisted that the West is solely to blame. I am insisting, however, that the West is to blame for a lot of the tension and problems we face today with regards to the Middle East and Islam.

Lax immigration laws have allowed thousands of Muslims to stream into Europe, and given the cultural differences and tensions, and given the past grievances by former colonial subjects, there should be no surprise at the resulting animosities between Europeans and Muslims.

Not only are Europeans to blame for destroying the Middle East (e.g. the arbitrary borders which separate Arab countries, etc.), they are responsible for wrecking their own countries.

You can't blame Islam for something the Europeans have done. That's like blaming the gun instead of the person holding the gun.

The more you meddle, the more angry you make the people. Leave them alone and take up a defensive posture. Otherwise, we will continue to sacrifice more soldiers and more innocent civilians in wars we cannot win.

If Islam is the problem, then the course we are taking is the wrong one. Surely, then, mass deportations and mass killings should be solution for an otherwise obvious problem. If you believe Islam is the problem, then discrimination and mass deportations of Muslims should be the order of the day. Leaving them to reside in the West only spells disaster, like leaving a pile of toxic waste in central park. No Muslim can be trusted as all Muslims are potential time bombs.

So what are you saying, brian, meddling has unintended consequences of which we are dealing with today?

Incedentally NicoleK Isreal may have been "created" by the UN but they did BUY the land legally

Also there were over 400,000 immigrents to the area BEFORE anyone in america had ever heard of Hitler or the Nazis.

After Isreal was attacked by 5 much larger countries and lost Jordan was in charge of the west bank and Egypt was in control of the Gaza strip.

And as for AMerica holding the position that Isreal can do no wrong - we forced them to withdraw after the captured the Suez canal from Eygpt.

As brian said to you and Cody you need to learn some history. At the very least bother to read something on the subjet just before you post

The more you meddle, the more angry you make the people. Leave them alone and take up a defensive posture. Otherwise, we will continue to sacrifice more soldiers and more innocent civilians in wars we cannot win.

We meddled plenty in Central Asia and East Asia. How many Chinese have driven a car-bomb into a KFC in Shanghai? When is the last time there was a Japanese airline hijacker? How many Indians have engaged in international terrorism (no, the Tamil do not count. Although their methods were unacceptable, their grievance, like the IRA was legitimate.)

Not all terrorists are muslims, but the vast majority of terrorist acts in the last fifty years were committed by muslims for religious, not political reasons.

If Islam is the problem, then the course we are taking is the wrong one. Surely, then, mass deportations and mass killings should be solution for an otherwise obvious problem. If you believe Islam is the problem, then discrimination and mass deportations of Muslims should be the order of the day. Leaving them to reside in the West only spells disaster, like leaving a pile of toxic waste in central park. No Muslim can be trusted as all Muslims are potential time bombs.

Islam as it is practiced by it's most fervent practitioners is the problem. The only places you find Jihad-Johhnys in the US (excepting the few tranplant seeds) is where Saudi-funded madrassas have been formed, or where Saudi-funded imams have infiltrated the prison chaplain system.

This is because of a fundamental difference in integration theories.

A foreigner that emigrates to France can never become French, no matter how hard he tries. Anyone can become an American.

I know muslims in this country. They have no desire for jihad. They are, by their religion's own laws, apostates.

I have said many times that I see three solutions to the problem between the west and Islam: Reformation, Isolation, Annihilation.

Islam was created to be hostile to Western civilization. It can either give up the hostility and learn to live in peace, we can build a big wall around the Islamic world, or we can pave it.

But there is no way we are going to submit.

Europeans may submit, since they seem fine with mass immigration. The United States will eventually succumb to the harsh realities of trying to impose order from without.

Having Islam reform by bombing Muslims is like asking a girl out of a date by grabbing her tits and flicking your tongue.

We could try to isolate ourselves from the Muslims, but how are you going to convince all Westerners to cease all contact from the Muslim world? Who are you to tell me whom I can and cannot exchange goods with?

Annihilation, well, I knew the anti-Muslims were genocidal mademen.

Cody, I gave you a link that shows that Muslims attacked us because we were infidels. As counter-argument you say "the British attacked the United States? Why? Because they were British. That's why." But without any link to any book or authority stating that as being true.

I write something, I give a link.

You counter with nonsense. Is that supposed to make you look intelligent?

Not one historian in the world has ever asserted that the British despised the colonialists for being non-British, obviously because the colonialists were in fact British citizens. But in order for you to counter my argument you have to write some inanity. Stop being silly.

A French Christian thinks of himself as a Frenchman. A French Muslim thinks of himself as a Muslim. Sadly, you do not understand this fundamental difference between Islam and all other religions.

While we in the west think of nations subdivided into religions, Muslims think of a religion subdivided into nations. That is why even moderate Muslims have the audacity to ask us to accommodate to their religion. That is why they will take jobs at US checkout counters and refuse to handle pork.

You show your ignorance of Islam by baby-talking blah, blah, blah the British attacked us because they're British. I write a linked-to truth and you write an absurdity.

Have you no shame?

So what are you saying, brian, meddling has unintended consequences of which we are dealing with today?

Try reading comprehension. No, I said that regardless of the meddling, we would have problems.

The interference in the region that was central to the cold war (control of the world's biggest petroleum assets) certainly created the specific manner in which they manifested themselves.

But the dynamic there has always been inherently anti-everything. There was no American or British meddling that caused the Barbary Wars.

That does not follow that meddling did not cause the litany of problems we are facing today.

The Barbary Wars and Islam may be consequential to some, but having your friends, neighbors, and family abused by your US supported dictatorship may in fact be more consequential.

Brian:

You rock.

how would any of you feel if a foreign power like, say, China were actively meddling in American politics, influencing elections, and, should the unthinkable happen, support an oppressive regime which actively oppresses the American public?

What makes you think they arent, heard about the ricin in pet and human food? The lead poisioning of children?

And yes any muslim, or any member of any religion, who belives that god wants you to kill people who wont worship him should be deported.

And not all muslims are time bomb, only the ones who are faithful

Having Islam reform by bombing Muslims is like asking a girl out of a date by grabbing her tits and flicking your tongue.

Worked for Gene Simmons.

We could try to isolate ourselves from the Muslims, but how are you going to convince all Westerners to cease all contact from the Muslim world? Who are you to tell me whom I can and cannot exchange goods with?

Try exchanging goods with Iran today. You cannot, at least without risking jail time. Who am I to make such a demand? The same one who has the authority to demand you don't rape my daughter. We live in a representative republic. Our representatives come up with the laws. Obey them or don't, but if you don't like them you can bitch, or you can try to have them changed.

Annihilation, well, I knew the anti-Muslims were genocidal mademen.

I don't know if the "mademen" is a keyboard slip or a freudian slip, but nice try anyhow.

Look, stating that something is a possible outcome is not the same as advocating for it. I could say that it would take a free steak dinner to make me happy. That doesn't mean I'm advocating stiffing a restaurant tomorrow evening.

Here's a better question: how would the Japanese feel if a foreign power like, say, the US were actively meddling in their politics, influencing elections, giving their women the right to vote, and even telling them not to worship the Emperor?

I'll tell you: by sucking up to the fact that they lost a war and taking the humiliation.

Ditto the Germans.

And we're still in their goddamn countries.

Now what say you, Cody? Why couldn't the Palestinians simply submit to the occupation and turn their economy into similar ones to Germany and Japan? Know why they didn't? Because Muslims cannot handle not controlling the world. Israel once belonged to the Ottoman Empire and once a piece of land belongs to Islam it belongs forever (just as once a Muslim always a Muslim). That is why Bin Laden in his Fatwa against the Americans mentioned the destruction of the Ottoman Empire as a reason why it is the personal duty of all Muslims to kill Americans wherever he finds them.

For someone who propounds the silly notion that our meddling is the cause of Muslim discontent, you somehow missed reading Bin Laden's fatwa.

It is not meddling that stirs the Muslim pot, it is that we are the most powerful nation on Earth and they are not. If there were no America, if the world were made up of petty states like Russia and China, there would be nothing standing in the way of a world Caliphate.

Cody, SHUT UP. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Brian, I love you. But you knew that. o.O

Brian:

You rock.

Thanks Skipper, that's the nicest thing anyone's said to me all year.

Brian, I love you. But you knew that. o.O

Sorry Skip, you just got knocked to second place.

Thanks Flynne.

Oh, Groan. I wish I had my own groupies.

This is hilarious. We are the most powerful nation on earth. But we still have no defeated the Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we probably won't. Liberal social engineering projects have shown themselves to be failures in the United States; I see no reason for why they should work in other countries, especially those with no history of popularly supported liberal-democratic institutions.

The Muslims will continue to resist, and they will ultimately triumph for simple reason that we can leave and they live there.

Yes. We'll win this war, if only the Muslims would act like dishonorable cowards and submit.

Good luck on that.

This is hilarious. We are the most powerful nation on earth. But we still have no defeated the Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we probably won't. Liberal social engineering projects have shown themselves to be failures in the United States; I see no reason for why they should work in other countries, especially those with no history of popularly supported liberal-democratic institutions.

Nes flash for Cody - WE FUCKING WON IN IRAQ, BITCHES!

Oh, and Egypt has been something approaching stable for a few decades. And even with the worst intentions of the Muslim Brotherhood, Turkey hasn't fallen to the Islamists yet.

So that's another thing you're wrong about.

I thought you were heading one way with this, but you went the other. It's not that they can't get their shit together because of some conspiracy, it's that they can't get their shit together because they're arabs.

Lemme tell ya something. Arabs (actually a poor choice of words, but it will suffice for the region) had their shit so together it hurt. Then this asshole named Mo comes along and says "Dudes, I just got this book from the Archangel, and Allah's pissed. He wants us to take over the whole joint. He even gave me instructions for every detail of living our lives so we can be victorious."

Now, why they didn't just say "You really gotta put the spliff down, Mo." is beyond my ken. But that's when it all started to unravel. Sure, people try to claim that it was "muslims" that invented algebra, but it was a MINO (actually a Persian, who aren't arabs and will kick your ass for saying they are) who rediscovered the work of the early Greeks.

The middle east went from being the center of world capitalism to being a fucking shithole in less than 500 years. Meanwhile, the Europeans they did so much work to ass-rape during the dark ages handed them their asses and told them to get bent in 1492. When they didn't stay bent, Europe launched a few Crusades up their asses to make the point. Europe never looked back, and the Islamic world never forgave them for putting a boot up their ass.

There ya go - a one minute primer on world history.

That's simple economics, Amy. The materials of which the greenhouses were made of were more valuable than what the greenhouses could have produced for the commons.

The greenhouses could have produced a lot of food in the future. But when you are poor and have nothing, a few looted materials from those greenhouses could provide you and your family with other needed items now. Being poor, with all things being equal, often means having a higher time preference (i.e. preferring something now rather than later) than being rich.

That's simple economics, Amy. The materials of which the greenhouses were made of were more valuable than what the greenhouses could have produced for the commons.

Yeah, because home-made rockets are more important to the commons than food.

You just don't get it. Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt - all of these countries could have taken in the displaced "refugees" if they wanted to. But they saw an opportunity to use the Palestinians as a means to finally wipe out the Jews that they had been fighting for 1,200 years.

And we were peacefully buying the oil from the middle east until they started getting the idea that they could use oil as a way to get the REST of the world to get rid of the Jews for them.

Peacefully. Yep.

Now that's a strong foreign policy. Nothing demonstrates a man's masculinity like toppling another government. Arghh.

Cody -

The alternative was allowing Iran to become a Soviet client state. You can discount the "domino theory", but our unwillingness to get our hands dirty in Viet Nam condemned millions to death and deprivation at the hands of Soviet-style socialism.

I don't think too many people understand just how deeply the cold war fucked things up. If the Soviet Union hadn't been on an expansionist tear from 1948 onward, a lot of the problems we have in the world today wouldn't exist. We'd still have muslims self-detonating in the streets, but we probably wouldn't have wound up with the kind of bullshit we have, especially in Central and South America.

You are implying that the materials looted from the greenhouses were used in the construction of the rockets. You have no proof of that.

Even if some of the materials did indeed go toward the construction of the rockets, that does not mean the most of the materials, gathered in a carry-as-much-as-you-can melee, did not go toward providing basic living stuffs.

We could take in the refugees if we wanted to. Greece could do it. Turkey could do it.

If I were Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, or Egypt, I wouldn't want thousands of refugees lingering in my country either. Mass immigration is inherently destabalizing. The influx of Palestinians in Jordan led to an insurrection. The Palestinian inflow into Lebanon was one of the many reasons for the start of the Lebanese Civil War.

It's somewhat ironic, but Israel is the product of mass immigration. Mexico may not have lost over half of its country had it not allowed Anglos to settle in the Texas territory.

Today, we might find ourselves with another problem in the American Southwest.

"Mass immigration or an influx of refugees" should replace "Mass immigration" in the second sentence of the fourth paragraph.

That's simple economics, Amy. The materials of which the greenhouses were made of were more valuable than what the greenhouses could have produced for the commons.

God your fucking stupid - They were give state of the art modern fully stocked greenhouse which could have started selling food(depending on what was grown) in as little as a week

Had they continued selling the same flowers the ews were they could have had quite the share of a mulit million dollar industry.

They didnt tear them down becuase they materials were more economically sutible for barter

And just what does shards of broken green house glass fetch you in grain these days?

Or smashed computer componets for potatos?

And how many apples can you get for a sprinkler nozzel?

What does a bulldozed pile of concrete and twisted metal get you in cattle?

They were torn down becuase they were built and used by the jews. Their mindless hatred of people whos only sin was to work hard to provide for their famillies was more important to the palistinians then eating, more important than making enough money to buy their children medical supplies and all the 'comfort' the jewish people enjoy

Are you really so stupid?

Mexico's problem is simple: the central government is racist and corrupt.

Solution: Annex Mexico. Fuck the Meztizos right in the ass.

We gain a hundred million new citizens (most of whom are highly motivated to do productive shit if only someone would come up with something productive to do). They gain a stable country in place of a kleptocracy.

The single biggest problem in the middle east today is that nobody ever made the Palestinians feel the effect of losing the war.

We fucked Germany up the ass. We beat Japan until it screamed. And we didn't to jack shit about the Palestinians. We just left them to think they actually got away with being on the losing side of a war.

I don't agree with a lot of the decisions made after World War II. I understand that hindsight and 60 years distance make most of my opinions useless on the matter. But if only a few things had gone differently at Yalta, for instance, we would have never had the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Viet Nam war.

Momentary pragmatism has caused much pain in this world. But believing that just walking away and leaving someone be will cause them to reciprocate is playground foolishness.

And with that, I bid you good evening. I must sleep now.

Neener, neener, neener. Do you really eat your boogers?

Dude, it's fucking 11:40 PM. I've gotta be on the other side of the state for 8 AM. Cut me some slack, I'm only human!

That wasn't directed at you; it was directed at the other booger eater, lujlp. ;P

They were give state of the art modern fully stocked greenhouse which could have started selling food(depending on what was grown) in as little as a week

Had they continued selling the same flowers the (J)ews were they could have had quite the share of a mulit million dollar industry.

Luj is quite right. They were given a way to earn an income. They weren't interested.

Well, the spots have finally appeared.

"I am insisting, however, that the West is to blame for a lot of the tension and problems we face today with regards to the Middle East and Islam.

Lax immigration laws have allowed thousands of Muslims to stream into Europe, and given the cultural differences and tensions, and given the past grievances by former colonial subjects, there should be no surprise at the resulting animosities between Europeans and Muslims."

This should be illustrative of the problem: it's Europe's fault that Muslims appear and make demands, because their immigration laws are "lax".

This is the trumpet that declares you're confused.

I googled that very article before you posted it, Amy. And it is very illustrative of my point in the previous post.

The point being that shards of glass, bits of tarp, bits of metal and rubber hoses of no practical use to them were of more value to them then practically automated food produceing machines?

That show monumental stupidity, no only on an individual level but a national level as well, why do they keep electing officals who either can not, or will not, provide for the people as opposed to their war machine?

This is why I think the anti-Muslims are ravenous bunch of fucking retards. They have an overarching explanation for everything such that no alternative explanation given is acceptable. Economic reasoning of the most elementary of sort is boiled down to the Palestinians' religion and their hatred for Jews. Fuck, that's retarded.

Gray-area property rights, poverty, lack of trust in the central government, high time preference, and the incongruent marginal utilities between Israelis and Palestinians have all attributed to looting of the greenhouses.

The value of any good is subjective. You would value water differently in a desert than you would by a river. The materials of those greenhouses are obviously valued differently by the Palestinians than by the Israeli settlers. That's the subjective theory of value.

When you are poor (and I would know about this, having spent a few times as a kid homeless with my family), you tend to value objects differently than when you have money. A box of cereal is more valuable to a poor person than a rich person, for instance.

It must be real hard to lecture the Palestinians about the need to wait and allow the greenhouses to operate and produce while the Palestinians are in need of things now.

Contributed, no attributed.

Les put it such a manner that you might acctually comprehend it.

Suppose yo and you own a house, it was given to you by your faher, and given to him by his father who bought it originally.

One day people show up and tell you to leave, its their house - and thouh your grandfather bought it leagally these people say he never deservedd t buy it from their grandfather.

They then proceed to thow rocks and bottles thru your windows, they fire at you and your familly randomly with guns, they try to set it on fire

What would you do? Give it back to he decendents of the people your parents bought it from simply because they are criminal thugs intent on killing you?

Or would you defend ourself and your familly?

Somehow I doubt you'd lay down and die to appease your attackes as your advocating the jews to do.

I used to think Ireal pulling out of Gaza was a good thing - it showed the world that they were willng to give peace a chance.

Their thaks? They are told to give up even more land, and willfully ignorant peice of shit morons like you think they are evil for doing nothing more then defending their right to live.

"Economic reasoning of the most elementary of sort {sic} is boiled down to the Palestinians' religion and their hatred for Jews. Fuck, that's retarded."

No, it's the actual expression of those Palestinians. Dog knows where you're getting the ideas you have, such that you're hell-bent on excusing them for everything!

cody is a prime example of the BO apologist movement. We are to blame for all of the world's woes. What complete liberal bullshit

Me? A liberal? Hahaha.

That's not the first time I've been called a liberal, which I find offensive, by the way.

The truth is, I'm a right-winger, not to be confused with conservative--there's very little I would like to see conserved in this society.

I do read a lot of Murray Rothbard and Steve Sailer. That may explain my odd behavior.

Ah, a Ronulan. That explains everything.

Disband the military, close the borders, build a wall, and disconnect from the rest of the world, right? Ron Paul gives libertarianism a bad name.

You are not interested in war, but war is interested in you.

Those names are so cute--"Ronulan." Let me guess, you listen to Mark Levin?

Who's that?

No, I got that from the comment section at Ace's.

Look, if you're an acolyte of Ron Paul, we have nothing to talk about. I am not interested in debating the finer points of foreign policy with xenophobes and isolationists. I am not interested in discussing fiscal policy with goldbugs and Fed conspiracy theorists. And I'm not interested in talking about trade with protectionists.

Ron Paul's views are completely incompatible with mine, and his most ardent followers are neither going to convince me of their rightness, nor are going to be convinced by me of the validity of my positions.

Ron Paul and his acolytes are convinced that if we just completely disengage from the world, that nobody will pester us.

We tried that once. As a result, December 7, 1941 was a complete shock.

If you truly value individual liberty, then you value it for all men, not just Americans.

Oh, hrumph!

Well, take that!

I'm not interested in debating the finer points of an ideology which posits that democracy and individual liberty can be easily transferred to a foreign society by the barrel of a gun. Pointing out that it was done to Germany and Japan does not support your argument. Germany and Japan are not Iraq and Afghanistan or any other society in the Middle East. For one, Germany and Japan are fairly homogeneous societies. And aside from that, the citizenry from both countries desired to be more Western in orientation. The Middle East, by contrast, is tribal in its social organization; diverse in its demographic makeup; and the people, aside from the rich elites, do not wholly desire to adopt Western social practices.

A more sober individual would view exporting democracy and nation building as "social engineering." It's a bad thing when a liberal does it here in the United States; it's not so bad when the US military does it with bombs and bullets, at least according to so called conservatives.

Forcing someone to be free and modern does not endear them to you.

Individual liberty should be for all, not just Americans. That is true. But it is better to spread the idea of individual liberty through peace instead of war.

If war finds us, then we can fight. Preventive war is the most evil of all wars. It is the only form of war that is waged on a possibility instead of a reality, as is the case in defensive war.

When preventive war is the order of the day, any excuse can be made for the bombs to drop; the slightest pretext is all that is necessary to end the lives of thousands.

Your view of the world is inherently liberal. It's a belief system which is grounded in the abstract, an abstraction which is constantly confounded by the particular.

I'll leave you with a fascinating article by Steve Sailer:

Cousin Marriage Conundrum: The ancient practice discourages democratic nation-building

Cody -

Answer this question - Was 9/11 an act of war?

Yes. And guess who voted for it in congress?

I supported the initial Afghan invasion, and I still believe it was necessary action. Supporting a military reprisal is a far cry from supporting an audacious, poorly planned and informed nation building project.

One final thing before bed.

If by liberal, you mean classical liberal, then I'm guilty as charged. If you mean modern American progressive liberal, then no, I'm afraid not.

You argue that we meddled in the middle east. Does that mean that we deserve anything that comes our way, and that we ought to just sit back and take it?

Or do you (foolishly) believe that regimes like North Korea and Iran will be deterred by the threat of annihilation?

This isn't the Cold War. The Cold War was never going to turn hot for one reason - the Soviets didn't want to die either. The leadership in Iran and North Korea are perfectly willing to let every citizen of their blighted nations die for their (the leaders') beliefs.

I also note you're back to the "Arabs are not capable of democracy" meme. Well, if that's the case, then we really don't have many choices, do we? We can force the rest of the world to stop buying their oil (that we extracted from their dirt with our technology and sweat, and then paid them for) and wait it out. Unless you're keen on nuclear genocide, that's the only option you leave yourself with.

Do you really want to have a showdown with China over access to middle eastern oil? Do you think that will turn out well? And do you honestly think that the middle east will allow such a thing to happen without a massive amount of damage being wrought?

You and your fellow isolationists share the same shallow thinking. You don't even look one move ahead.

I'm betting you're not very good at chess, either.

I supported the initial Afghan invasion, and I still believe it was necessary action. Supporting a military reprisal is a far cry from supporting an audacious, poorly planned and informed nation building project.

Then you don't understand the point of the Iraq invasion.

What's between Iraq and Afghanistan?

What was Iraq's role in the battle for middle-eastern hegemony through the 1980s and 1990s?

You understand that the reason we supported Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war was because we could not allow for either country to gain control over the region and hold the entire world hostage to either country's particular madness, right?

The invasion of Iraq was simply a show of force to the greater middle east. Iran is continuing its path toward an atomic weapon. Once they have it, they will use it. And once they have the ability to make more, then the Saudis and Jordanians are going to want them to keep Iran at bay.

You do not want nuclear weapons in the hands of so many insane people.

And you cannot stop the flow of contraband. Can. Not. Be. Done.

So the only thing you are left with is to cure the madness.

That's what the Iraq war of 2003 was about.

And if Obama had the balls to stand up to Ahmadinejad instead of sucking dick, it would have paid off and the Mullahs would be swinging.

Instead, people are being slaughtered in the streets by axe-wielding madmen.

So much for a hands-off foreign policy.

You argue that we meddled in the middle east. Does that mean that we deserve anything that comes our way, and that we ought to just sit back and take it?

I don't believe that; Ron Paul doesn't believe that; and others who hold my views don't believe that. The much derided Ron Paul has put forward a convincing explanation for why the United States was attacked by Islamic extremists. It was exactly that--an explanation. That's different from saying we deserved the attacks.

I don't believe we will be 100% safe. In the long run, we will have to keep our guard up and respond to any attacks upon our nation. I do believe, though, if we abandon the Middle East, the Muslims will be more preoccupied with the near enemy than to be bothered with the far enemy.

---

Several years ago Gregory Cochran (the co-author of the recent and excellent book, 10,000 Year Explosion) wrote an article for The American Conservative which gave some much needed perspective on the so-called craziness and irrationality of our enemies. Here's a small excerpt:

The usual suspects say that some state may eventually give terrorists an atomic bomb. That is, give the crown jewels of its national power into hands it doesn’t control, in much the same way that the great powers at the end of the 19th century were always handing out battleships to anarchists. Except that it’s worse than that: any state that hands out atomic weapons to jihadists seals its doom. And I mean real doom, not just turning its capital into radioactive slag. That’s the least that would happen. I figure that, if attacked, we’d inflict a fate worse than death—turning the nation responsible into animals that remember being men. We could, you know.

The second kind of threat is the rogue Islamic state with nuclear weapons. The usual argument is that many Muslims are willing, even eager, to die for jihad, that the prospect of 72 woefully inexperienced virgins makes the entire Muslim world undeterrable and therefore highly dangerous. Since a handful are willing to die for a cause, the people running Arab/Muslim governments must be too—even if they’ve never shown the slightest sign of it. Again, the focus has been on governments that had nothing to do with 9/11 and in fact opposed fanatical Wahhabi Islam. Somehow such states are considered especially likely to go crazy.

But Muslim rulers don’t act like that. In fact, they never have, not even in the early days of Islamic conquest. People who aren’t afraid to die lose wars: the enemy is always happy to oblige them. Patton knew this.

Yuck. That last post was total fubar. Here's the excerpt and the link again.

The usual suspects say that some state may eventually give terrorists an atomic bomb. That is, give the crown jewels of its national power into hands it doesn’t control, in much the same way that the great powers at the end of the 19th century were always handing out battleships to anarchists. Except that it’s worse than that: any state that hands out atomic weapons to jihadists seals its doom. And I mean real doom, not just turning its capital into radioactive slag. That’s the least that would happen. I figure that, if attacked, we’d inflict a fate worse than death—turning the nation responsible into animals that remember being men. We could, you know.

The second kind of threat is the rogue Islamic state with nuclear weapons. The usual argument is that many Muslims are willing, even eager, to die for jihad, that the prospect of 72 woefully inexperienced virgins makes the entire Muslim world undeterrable and therefore highly dangerous. Since a handful are willing to die for a cause, the people running Arab/Muslim governments must be too—even if they’ve never shown the slightest sign of it. Again, the focus has been on governments that had nothing to do with 9/11 and in fact opposed fanatical Wahhabi Islam. Somehow such states are considered especially likely to go crazy.

But Muslim rulers don’t act like that. In fact, they never have, not even in the early days of Islamic conquest. People who aren’t afraid to die lose wars: the enemy is always happy to oblige them. Patton knew this.

Let's say for the sake of argument that China has exclusively rights to Middle Eastern oil. Given that China is a massively expanding economy, it needs most of this oil in order to support this rapidly growing economy.

What are the consequences?

Since Middle Eastern oil constitutes part (albeit a large part) of the world supply of oil, and since China has exclusive rights to Middle Eastern crude, the worldwide supply of available oil would decrease, therefore causing an increase in the price of oil.

Now we live in a world in which gasoline prices are through the roof; groceries cost much more than they used to; and the basic necessities of existence take up a larger share of the budget.

If the basic necessities of life now take up a larger share of our budget, then we would spend less on other things, such as electronics, toys, etc.

Since China's economy is still export dependent and will be so for years to come, and given that consumers in the West are spending less on non-necessities, China's exports would drop and its economy would begin to contract.

What hurts us will eventually hurt them.

But since the price of crude oil would be so high, oil fields in points across the globe would suddenly become magically profitable. Nations outside the Middle East would increase and expand oil production. Continued support for legislation which prohibits drilling in ANWR and off the coast of the US would be politically unfeasible.

Life would hurt at first, but a little pain beats sending sailors, soldiers, airmen, and marines to their doom in a war that would not be necessary.

Let China have the Middle East.

Alright. It's obvious from those last two posts that I need to head to bed.

But since the price of crude oil would be so high, oil fields in points across the globe would suddenly become magically profitable. Nations outside the Middle East would increase and expand oil production. Continued support for legislation which prohibits drilling in ANWR and off the coast of the US would be politically unfeasible.

Rational actor fallacy, multiple times.

Unless the Democrats are deposed at all levels of government, there will be no new oil exploration or extraction inside the boundaries of the United States.

The dirty little secret about the middle east is that they are pretty much at maximum extraction capacity.

And any move to do what you say will cause schmucks like Chavez to either shut off his wells in spite (yes, he's just that stupid), or attempt to take other countries by force to gain control of their oil.

I like how you advocate world-wide depression though. That's a winning tactic. Stick with it.