DescentBB

Front Page Magazine suggests that Muhammad Atta's words to passengers on 9/11 would make a good slogan for the prevailing worldview of the media and intellectuals. "Stay quiet, and you'll be OK." That seems to be the worldview so many of the "elite" espouse: Don't identify the true enemy -- don't identify that Islam, as it exists today in much of the world, is the problem -- and everything will somehow work out.

Discuss.

Lothar wrote:don't identify that Islam, as it exists today in much of the world, is the problem

That's quite the loaded statement don't you think? Why does it have to be Islam? Why can't it be that there's a vacuum of power in the area that's being taken over by power hungry dictators? The poverty that's in the area? Or a thousand other socio-economic factors?

Maybe if you changed it "as it is being used today in much of the world" I might agree with you.

America has forgotten 9/11. It's bizarre because I'm sure the terrorists hoped we'd never forget. Probably the biggest fault I have with the media is it's unspoken ban on replaying the events of that day so as not to rile us up again. How sick is it that the first real reminder we get is from Mike al-Moore. There's something very twisted about that. I agree with your *stay quiet* charge against the media but you'll notice that it only applies to those who would use 9/11 to bring us together. The media gives its like-minded droogs on the left (domestic and foreign) a free pass to discuss terrorism as long as they blame America.

Lothar wrote: Don't identify the true enemy -- don't identify that Islam, as it exists today in much of the world, is the problem

Please fvcking tell me you're joking, Lothar.

And bash, do you *really* think that America has no role in the events of 9/11? Do you *really* think that it will help to not talk about what the consequences of America's foreign economic/political policies after WWII are for people around the world? Do you think that the killing will stop without some ideological reconciliation on our part?

Do you really think the root of all of America's problems is that it's too liberal?

Kufy, please explain how any part of America's foreign policy justified 9/11.

9/11 would have happened regardless of whether Bush or Gore had won. The root causes of the WoT have little to do with America, although the more liberal aspects of all Western societies seem to be what enrages the Islamists most. However, one doesn't hear conservatives blaming liberals for the attack. Ultimately, the motives and actions belong to the perpetrators and that's where the fault lies. The fact that some elements within Western society want to use it for political gain is unfortunate and dishonest.

Tetrad wrote:Maybe if you changed it "as it is being used today in much of the world" I might agree with you.

Lothar wrote:Islam, as it exists today in much of the world, is the problem

"as it exists" and "as it is being used" are equivalent statements. How it is being used is, simply put, how it is existing. If it was being used in a different way, it would exist in a different way.

Kuf, no, I'm not joking. Islam, as it exists in much of the world today, is the primary problem. The religion / ideology that says "kill the infidels", and whose leaders define all of us as "infidels", is the problem (and this is what Islam *is* in much of the world, unfortunately.)

With respect to America's foreign policy, I refer you to the IDL thread from 9/11/2001, and in particular, to my post toward the end of the thread, where I broke down the reasons for the hatred. While I was a little careless with my terminology (I used both "Arab" and "Muslim" where I should have said "Radical Islam"), the point I was trying to make stands: they hate us because of Israel, and they hate us because of our culture, and while both of those are things we should change some aspects of, neither of them are things we should pull into line with what would make them stop hating us. The problem is not us -- the problem is them. The problem is that they hate Israel and they hate Western culture, and, simply put, those aren't things we should change to please them.

Instead, the media would be put too much better use preaching Christian values and identifying that since, Islam is the problem, Christianity must be the solution.

We should not stop there, for it is long overdue that America casts a pre-emptive strike against the other religions of the world. The Buddhist heathens must also be brought to light, those who Monks who set themselves on fire in protest must know that this is just not the way of Christ. Those in Israel must also come to terms that our religious invasion is for their own good, as should the Muslims. We take no sides but our own. But wait, I am getting a head of myselfâ?¦

Redemption >> Condemnation

...oh well, screw it.

Lothar wrote:How it is being used is, simply put, how it is existing. If it was being used in a different way, it would exist in a different way.

The key point is that your statement is blaming the religion. Mine is blaming the people.

Tetrad wrote:The key point is that your statement is blaming the religion. Mine is blaming the people.

Actually, mine is blaming the ideology, which happens to be embedded within the religion by a particular set of people. As long as we refuse to deal directly with that -- as long as we refuse to deal head-on with the ideology that says "every person and every value that is not in line with religion X [which is, in this case, Islam] must be destroyed by force" that is being put forth by many of the leaders of much of the Islamic world -- we can't solve the problem.

Goob, that was a total straw-man and you know it.

kufyit wrote:Do you really think the root of all of America's problems is that it's too liberal?

This isn't a debate about "liberalism". It is a debate about right and wrong.

The notion that we should, and must, reconcile our ideology implies compromise. Fair enough. All diplomacy must by definition involve compromise. Only... some ideas, some ideologies, some individuals and some cultures do not honor nor respect compromise. They seize on it as weakness.

Witness Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi and his band of thugs. Do you believe that we should "reconcile" with folks of that ilk? That we should honor their methods and reward their strategic choices by considering negotiation? Shall we legitimize and encourage use of murder as a political tool? Shall we appease them?


This is a debate about folks who have abandoned the concepts of "Right" and "Wrong" and instead view everything as relative.

If somebody hates us, we MUST HAVE done something to cause it? Perhaps we did, perhaps we didn't. One doesn't automatically precede the other. Where we've done wrong things, things not in accordance with our values, our laws, we should and must correct these behaviors, but that has nothing to do with compromising with murderers and hateful ideologies.

Some of these folks out there are WRONG, kid. It is WRONG to grab civilians off the street and use their lives as political leverage. It is WRONG to slice their heads off with butcher knives. It is WRONG to film these murders and distribute the films as propaganda. It is WRONG to toss the severed heads out of car windows along a highway. It is WRONG for folks like that to be in charge of entire nations.

And it is morally weak to stand by and let these wrongs go unchallenged. And yet, if we challenge them, WE WILL MAKE ENEMIES.

That is why we are hated. We stand in the way of those who would rule the world through tyranny. Some grievances against us carry legitimacy, but those who hate us are attempting to confuse the two, to seize on our conscience as a weapon to use against us. We ought not allow them to be doing that, kid.


I'm glad Mayor Guiliani gave that Saudi Prince his ten million dollar check back in the days after 9-11, after he insulted us. Screw them and their money, if it comes attached to strings of blaming us for what happened. We don't need friends like that.

It is wrong to blame the victim. It is wrong to blame rape victims for wearing slinky clothing. It is wrong to blame mugging victims for daring to walk through a park at night. It is wrong to blame folks killed during bank robberies for choosing to work at a bank or going to the wrong bank on the wrong day. Maybe the victims did something unwise or provocative, maybe they didn't, but sole responsibility for choosing to commit crimes against them falls on the criminals.

It is WRONG to blame America for 9-11, to any degree. And it is sure as Hell wrong to blame the specific victims of 9-11, to say that they in ANY way shape or form deserved their fate just because they happened to be Americans.


Do you believe in right and wrong?

Lothar's on to something. The terrorists will lie to us, just like Atta did to those poor dumb souls on American Flight 11. Well, those folks did not know the situation and had no way to find out. But the folks on United Flight 93, which crashed a mere five miles from my house here in Pennsylvania, they learned. They got calls on their cell phones, and they realized what was going on, once news of planes crashing into buildings was shared with them. They got up out of their seats and fought those bastards, and the plane went down without hitting its target.

It only takes one side to make war, kid. That's a fundamental truth that far left thinkers today seem incapable of grasping. It takes all sides agreeing AND HONORING THE AGREEMENTS for there to be peace.

I'm tired of pie in the sky liberals who believe in appeasement. HELLO? PICK UP A HISTORY BOOK! Turn to your chapter on Neville Chamberlain.

We ought to be wary, because the other side has proven its willingness to lie to us, to cheat on its agreements. The word of Al Qaeda means nothing. You can hear that from Atta's own mouth on those recordings. THOSE PEOPLE ARE OUR ENEMY, and wishful thinking and sticking our heads in the sand is not going to change that. The only thing that will is to engage them and defeat them, on all fronts. Once the hard core enemies who cannot be reasoned with are destroyed, we can reconcile with everyone else, all the folks who would not only being willing to SIGN agreements, but actually to HONOR them too.

Where reconciliation is not possible, one would be wise to pack the larger arsenal, because neither God nor the UN nor anybody else is going to come save your @$$ when the butchers coming marching in.

As for the rest of the world, they can pick a side. Or they can sit back in moral cowardice and let the strong and the free carry the whole burden. They can refuse to judge Al Qaeda as an evil network, insult us to the core by equating us with terrorists, make a mockery of history by validating Al Qaeda's hatred and murder as in any way "legitimate", and wallow in the decadence that follows from the loss of a notion of right and wrong.


Nazi guards told Jews boarding trains bound for Auschwitz, "Stay quiet, and you'll be OK."


- Sirian

Well said Sirian!

I find the entire premise of this discussion wrong. The article shows a few examples of bad reporting, to which some have taken as a sign that liberals are appeasers!

What exactly is the problem? That we don't see the danger of islamic fundies? I think you would be hard pressed to find many liberals that don't see the danger posed by radical islamic fundamentalism. Is it that we're not out on street corners condemning them? Or is it simply the tactics and methods we prefer to use?

It's about more than just those liberals who, yes, don't see the danger of islamic fundamentalism.
It's about people everywhere who won't see it, or even worse, think it's simply the product of american policy.

V, I haven't referenced liberals at all, and neither did the article I linked to... so to say it's based on any sort of "liberals are ________" premise is invalid (unless, of course, you're saying the media is heavily liberally biased.)

The point is, those who are in a position to make it clear to the general public that radical Islam is the enemy -- and to make it clear *what sort of enemy* it is -- don't do so. And that's a losing strategy.

People need to know that radical Islam is the enemy. And they need to know that radical Islam is an enemy that doesn't negotiate, and it's an enemy that lies about its intentions over and over again. They need to know that when radical Islamic terrorists say "we're angry at you because of foreign policy X", changing foreign policy X isn't going to make them any less angry. People need to know that these are people who hate all Jews, and people who think women should not have any rights, and people who generally are stuck in the 12th century.

Instead, people are having this picture painted for them of... well... go read the 9/11 thread I linked earlier (from the IDL forum) and pay attention to Birds' post. People are being told exactly what Birds said there -- the problem is with us; if we change our foreign policy they won't hate us, and they'll want to live in peace, but we brought it on ourselves. People are being told that they hate us for a reason, and that it's a good reason, so we should change accordingly. This is not a winning strategy -- people need to know what the enemy is and what the enemy wants in order to be able to fight the enemy effectively.

Vander wrote:The article shows a few examples of bad reporting, to which some have taken as a sign that liberals are appeasers!

We don't need articles to inform us that some liberals are appeasers. We can get that straight from the talking points of the Democratic National Committee.

On the other hand, many liberals are not appeasers. Senator Joseph Lieberman comes to mind, and there are many many more.

There are extremists on both sides of the aisle. Instead of turning this into Yet Another Partisan Fingerpointing Match (TM), how about we discuss the merits of the issue.

What exactly is the problem? That we don't see the danger of islamic fundies?

Some clearly do not.

There are lots of buzzwords and political phrases flying around. Typical doublespeak. Boolsheet American style, as we do so well. I'm more sensitive to the spin coming from the left, but I wouldn't object to criticism of spin coming from the right, too. Spin is by definition a distortion of fact, a slant. If we can agree on separating fact from spin, agree that distortions themselves are a mutual enemy, then we'd have a foundation upon which to converse.

Here's a buzzword I find particularly offense:

"Internationalize"

That's John Kerry liberal code for "turn our sovereignty over to the UN and let France dictate to us." It's BS. Worse, it's an insult to the allies who are already with us: Britain, Australia, Poland, Italy, and a couple dozen others. What? Without France and Germany, an alliance cannot be truly "international"? Give me a break.

Besides, even if it were a legitimate issue, it would still be wrong. Sometimes doing the right thing means standing alone and making hard choices. If not for Churchill's adamant resistance to the Nazis, through dark times when the USA wasn't even with him (until he attacked and sank the FRENCH fleet to keep it from falling into Nazi hands, and managed to fight off the Luftwaffe against all odds), we'd all be speaking German today.

NEWS FLASH TO SELF-ABSORBED AMERICANS: we were not the great defenders of freedom in WWII. It was the Brits who stood utterly alone and refused to yield, then the Russians who died by the millions absorbing the elite of the elite of Hitler's panzers, who did the hardest work. Our lands just happened not to be scarred, because of geography. Our greatest contribution to defeating Hitler was the bombing campaign. D-Day might have been the greatest invasion ever, but it would never have stood a chance if Hitler had had the patience to keep his pact with Stalin in place and eliminate the Brits before attacking Russia. His own hubris made his defeat possible.

That we learned the lessons exhibited by Churchill is to our credit, however. Reagan remembered them in the 80's, while most of Europe was calling him a cowboy and an idiot, and claiming he would start WWIII. (Sound familiar?) Instead the Soviet Union moved toward reforms and eventually broke apart.

I think you would be hard pressed to find many liberals that don't see the danger posed by radical islamic fundamentalism.

Talk is cheap. Where's the beef?

If some are not willing to act against threats, one might argue they don't see the danger. That would not be anything new for America. We've had our head up our *** for most of our history. We didn't get involved in either major world war until the threat came home to us directly, and that would hold true for what is now World War III. Until they HIT US and KILLED US, we just didn't take it seriously. Well here's another parallel to history: we didn't start any of these world wars, but by god we've got the will to finish them! "Don't tread on me!" is burned into our very souls.

Or is it simply the tactics and methods we prefer to use?

Some prefer to use appeasement as a "tactic". Some prefer to "defend" against the terrorists, as if we could ever hope to accomplish that when all they have to do is get it right once and it's a major disaster, while we have to get it right 100% of the time or we "lose".

Them aren't odds I would accept in a Descent match. "Well, you kill me every time, and never let me kill you, and then you win. Otherwise I win." Maybe I'd try that in a match to 3 points. Maybe against a particularly weak opponent, I'd accept that in a match to 5 points. But a match to 20? To 100? To 1,000,000? No way! That'd be stupid.

Well that's what I think of "tactics" that ask us to wait and wait and wait, and let them have the initiative, to choose the terms of the fight, to let them gather their strength with impunity, to let them have safe harbor, to have allies like Saddam's regime, and pretty much stick our head back up our *** and pray they ignore us. That's not much of a strategy in my view.


Now if that's not a fair description of YOUR game plan, then my remarks wouldn't apply to you. Tell me what you think we ought to be doing, and I'll tune in and see what I think of it.


- Sirian

Lothar wrote:
Instead, people are having this picture painted for them of... well... go read the 9/11 thread I linked earlier (from the IDL forum) and pay attention to Birds' post. People are being told exactly what Birds said there -- the problem is with us; if we change our foreign policy they won't hate us, and they'll want to live in peace, but we brought it on ourselves. People are being told that they hate us for a reason, and that it's a good reason, so we should change accordingly. This is not a winning strategy -- people need to know what the enemy is and what the enemy wants in order to be able to fight the enemy effectively.

Lothar, this is what the Chomskies of the world want people to believe. In my opinion these are the physically weak people with large intellects that are very far removed from the warrior class. They must have serious self image problems deriving from a pathelogical fear of street corner bullies picking on them. So their only tool to fight back is to hide in secluded universities and write learned treatsies on why strong individuals (America) that can stand up to or not even be bothered by bullies, are really inferior to those of weak stature. A strong individual has to be cut down to size and the only way to do that is through a good intellectual whipping. That is why the strongest country on earth is deserving when it's nose is tweaked (no matter 3000 people die in the tweaking). America represents strength which is anatheum to the handwringers and fault finders. They gloat when America gets its comeuppance and hurrah for the underdog who orchestrate it.
There is more than just muslum extremeist. Saudi Arabia promotes wahabism. Mullahs across all the arab and non arab countries teach children to hate westerners and that killing them is religiously correct. The hate does not come from anything America has done, rather we are the strongest and if America falls so will the rest of the world. We are infidels and infidels must die. With the availability of WMD's, certain islamists now see a way to to bring us to our knees. What the Chomskies of the world don't realise is that they'll be the first to be eliminated as the fundamentalist will view intellectualism as a threat. By then of course, there will be no room for debate.

"V, I haven't referenced liberals at all"

And I'm sorry if I implied that you did.

"The point is, those who are in a position to make it clear to the general public that radical Islam is the enemy -- and to make it clear *what sort of enemy* it is -- don't do so."

I summarized this as "bad reporting." You'll get no argument from me that the press, in many cases, serves us very poorly. I think that most people understand the dangers of radical Islam, even if it is not spelled out for them at every opportunity. If your complaint is that people seem to be waivering in support of the application of force against radical Islamic fundamentalists because of the media, well, we've been in Iraq.

I haven't seen the IDL post, so I can't speak about whatever Birds said 3 years ago, but I thoroughly disagree that changes in our policies cannot be part of a "winning strategy."

Sirian, good to see you.

First, let me say that I wouldn't have to go all the way to France to find someone that thought that going into Iraq the way we did was a stupid move. I thought it was a bad move at the worst time. Our attack on Afghanistan, which I supported, had unmatched international support, even those slimey French and Germans were right there with us. I know all the theories on how a democratic Iraq will transform the Middle East away from radical Islam, but that's all a debatable crap shoot. Being a critic of that gamble does not make one soft on radical Islam.

So I think you are in error in assessing the level of support for direct force against radical Islamic fundamentalists by reading the level of support for our actions in Iraq. "Internationalize," as my super-secret liberal decoder ring states, is getting everyone back on the same page we were on before Afghanistan to work together to thwart violent Islamic fundamentalists.

"Now if that's not a fair description of YOUR game plan, then my remarks wouldn't apply to you. Tell me what you think we ought to be doing, and I'll tune in and see what I think of it."

I think there should be changes to some of the policies that have either angered muslim populations or made us slaves to their product, while at the same time we should be attacking those who are attacking us. We need to show strength that is honest and just, as well as kindness and understanding. One will not work without the other. And we must have consistancy in their application.

Basically, I'm not interested in instigating an all out fight with Islam because some people think that fight is inevitable. Hows that for wishy washy?

Vander wrote:I thoroughly disagree that changes in our policies cannot be part of a "winning strategy."

I never said changes in policies cannot be part of a winning strategy.

Rather, what I said is that changes in policies alone do not make a winning strategy, and that in particular, even if you take the naive view that "they wouldn't hate us if we changed our policies" (as if Bali was attacked because of its foreign policy), the changes you'd need to make just to satisfy the naive view would be unacceptable. Yeah, maybe we can change our stance toward Israel *some*, and we can change our culture *some*, but in order to even begin to appease the Islamikazes, we'd have to change those policies unacceptably much.

So, rather than focusing on policy change and blaming ourselves, as Birds' post 3 years ago suggested and as many still suggest, we should first understand the enemy, and after that, focus our attention properly -- with an appropriate amount of attention paid to making our behavior less offensive, but probably significantly more attention paid toward actually destroying the structure under which terrorism thrives and replacing it with structure under which individuals thrive.

I basically agree with all that.

Our attack on Afghanistan, which I supported, had unmatched international support, even those slimey French and Germans were right there with us.

That's a rather bald rewriting of history.

What I remember is much ado about how nobody had ever succeeded militarily in that region, and how the USA would be bringing body bags home by the tens of thousands. I remember France in particular and the UN in general urging that we NOT attack. It was only after the removal of the Taliban had become a fait accompli that they shut up and accepted it, but even that came only grudgingly.

Unmatched international support? I'm left to wonder if we lived through the same timeline.

I know all the theories on how a democratic Iraq will transform the Middle East away from radical Islam, but that's all a debatable crap shoot.

Prejudicial language.

That's a strategy. Any strategy involves uncertainty. The strategy to let the Brits stand alone against the Nazis turns out to have been a rather risky move. WE GOT LUCKY. The Brits held up, and then the Japanese drew us in. And thank goodness for that! If we hadn't been awakened, perhaps things might have gone very sour for all humanity.


A democratic Iraq will transform nothing. What it will accomplish, however, is to establish that democracy is POSSIBLE for Arabic peoples -- to rid us once and for all of the soft bigotry that believes "those people" are incapable of such sophistication -- a position and belief firmly embraced by most left wing elites.

Once that myth has formally and finally been debunked, the strategic situation changes. Doesn't it?

The same types of elites declared that the Japanese were incapable of democracy.

Being a critic of that gamble does not make one soft on radical Islam.

Indeed. But I have not drawn any such connection. The connection I've drawn is with those who find no fault with the UN passing resolutions but DOING NOTHING ABOUT IT when they are ignored... That creates a huge, gaping credibility shortfall for the UN and for anybody advocating reliance upon the UN for anything strategically important.

Vander wrote:So I think you are in error in assessing the level of support for direct force against radical Islamic fundamentalists by reading the level of support for our actions in Iraq.

Straw man.

My argument is that those who were unwilling to hold Saddam accountable for his treaty obligations, international commitments, obeyance of international law, adherence to UN Security Council resolutions, and a long list of other legal and moral boundaries for which he had not a shred of regard, is IN ITSELF a form of appeasement. The leap I follow from there to the war on terror is that appeasement for Saddam will extend to appeasement of terrorists. If someone believes in appeasement, they're not going to contain that belief to this opponent but not that one.

That confronting Saddam's regime and taking it down might play a major role in the war on terror is a second issue. To answer THAT issue in lieu of facing up to the more direct questions involving Iraq is to address a tangent only. To pretend addressing the tangent serves as rebuttal of the entire issue is logically flawed.

"Internationalize," as my super-secret liberal decoder ring states, is getting everyone back on the same page we were on before Afghanistan

Fantasy. We were not on the same page to begin with. Therefore how do we "go back" to a place that never existed?

To wit, the "do nothing" United Nations, who talked and talked and talked and talked, rendering its endless prattle to Saddam, but proven IMPOTENT when he called their bluffs and dared them to back it up... THAT'S THE PAGE YOU WANT US TO GO BACK TO?

No thanks. The UN has no backbone and no credibility, no will and no strength. It's the League of Nations 2.0, nothing more. That is not a page I want to be on, no matter how many others like it there.

Bush went to the UN and gave them every opportunity to show some backbone. We -tried- to work through the UN. But since Saddam's strategy of calling their bluffs worked so well, we thought we'd try it, too. We gave them the opportunity they begged for, called their bluff, and they did nothing with it. Saddam was found in material breach of 1441 AND NOBODY AT THE UN GAVE A SH*T. Did they? They just wanted to keep pushing back the deadlines, softening the language, giving Saddam a 19th and 20th and 21st try.

They're a laughing stock.


Better to be alone and getting something done than with the group and going nowhere. THEY NEED TO GET ON BOARD WITH US. Not the other way around. And if they refuse, that's OK. Their sovereign right. But it is our sovereign right to act in our own self defense, rather than seek their permission and consent before we dare make any move.

Being together is not the most important thing. Doing the right thing is more important.


- Sirian

woodchip wrote:In my opinion these are the physically weak people with large intellects that are very far removed from the warrior class. They must have serious self image problems deriving from a pathelogical fear of street corner bullies picking on them. So their only tool to fight back is to hide in secluded universities and write learned treatsies on why strong individuals (America) that can stand up to or not even be bothered by bullies, are really inferior to those of weak stature. A strong individual has to be cut down to size and the only way to do that is through a good intellectual whipping. That is why the strongest country on earth is deserving when it's nose is tweaked (no matter 3000 people die in the tweaking). America represents strength which is anatheum to the handwringers and fault finders. They gloat when America gets its comeuppance and hurrah for the underdog who orchestrate it.

Was that tongue-and-cheek? I can't tell. If that was serious, then I'd suggest you give this more thought. The parallels between your diatribe and what the Nazis believed about Germany and the rest of the world run deep. I'm just glad you'll never run for office.

As for the original topic of this thread, pointing the finger at Islam is an interesting approach, but I wonder why the finger isn't pointed at religion in general...? Actually, there are probably a lot of different places you could point that finger - there's a lot of uncertainty here! One certainty I *can* give you, is that starting a holy war is a misguided recipe for disaster. Much like our invasion of Iraq, only scaled up monstrously.

When was the last time the Presbyterians beheaded someone, Kai? But I agree, starting this Holy War will be a disaster for Islam as it is now. But it's been long overdue for a reformation. Unfortunately for Islam, however, the world moves at a pace faster than when the other great religions reformed and liberalized themselves. Islam doesn't have that luxury so the doctrinal rocking of the boat will likely be much more violent. Unfortunately for the rest of us, modern weaponry provides Islamic extremist with threats the non-Islamic world cannot ignore.

There's no course I can see to prevent it. It's coming and we can either be prepared to side with the Islamic reformists in this war with whatever assistance we can provide or fall into bin Laden's trap of an all out war on Islam.

Most reformations are internal but with Islam's intertwining of political and religious doctrine it's inevitable that reform is going to be *helped* greatly along by external forces, ready or not. Therein lies many of the problems in the West in understanding Islam. It is equated to the religions we're familiar with as a stricly spiritual path. Islam also incorporates political and judicial functions. Islamic clerics are not like priests or ministers as we understand them but more closely resemble politicians and military officers.

What we're seeing, I believe, is an internal struggle within Islam for the right to interpret the Koran. The reformation is underway. By involving the West the hope is to unify the forces of extremism by presenting the Muslim world with an *outsider* as the enemy. Armies are formed only when a common threat is perceived. How those armies are controlled is up to the generals.

The sudden shift toward attacking KSA (the very heart of Islam) shows that despite all the talk, Al-Qaeda is not as patient as it's been posing. The war was always designed for taking over the Middle East initially. Despite attacks on Western nations, first goal is a Middle Eastern caliphate and to build from that unified base. Hence the great fear of division that a democratic Iraq instills in the hearts of the extremists.

That is why I would also expect to see terrorists attacks on the West to cease for a time (except in cases where they beleive than can affect the outcome of an election). Now that the extremists feel they have established a common enemy, a unifying threat, I would wager the largest hope for these organizations is that we'll back off and let them get on with consolidating their power base in the ME. To provoke us further is not in their best interest. Unfortunately for the US it's going to once again put us in bed with some unsavory folks, namely KSA and Pakistan, until we've beaten back the threat or reversed our image as the common enemy of Muslims. Isolationism, however, is not the way to change attitudes, as the Euros would like, because the extremists will just keep pounding on that theme in our absense to a fever pitch. Talk is cheap for the West, engagement and assistance, welcome or not, is the way to change the situation for a long term peace. Best friend, worst enemy.

Anyway, it's going to be a fine line to walk trying to update a major religion, empower it with self-respect and pride that doesn't require blood for proof and maintain that sense of alliance with *infidels* while slowly killing off the extremists. Any talk of appeasement or isolationism will lead only to postponement and not a solution.

Therein also lies what I feel is the great danger of leftists taking advantage of the political situation and feeding the fears of Muslims; that selfish determination falls nicely into the plans of Al-Qaeda to turn us into the perception of a unified enemy bent on destroying all Muslims.

bash wrote:When was the last time the Presbyterians beheaded someone, Kai?

Nobody's ever been killed in the name of Christ? And our President, self-proclaimed Believer, has sentenced record #'s to death row when he was governor. Was he Christian then?

And let me get this straight: was Islam evil before oil dollars allowed Mideast states to get rich?

My simple answer here is that simple answers ALWAYS belie more complex truths.

That people once killed for Christianity is ancient history to us. Centuries ago and the statute of anti-Christian limitations ran out long ago for the purpose of the present discussion. *Western* religions can be thought of as long rehabilitated. Continuing to throw past transgressions into the face of anything or anyone whose been rehabilitated is a hollow charge simply because there was admission of mistake and corrections were applied.

And for the record, Bush never sentenced anyone; he simply let the sentences be carried out. I'm certain he gave each due consideration but ultimately the judgement had already been rendered by either a jury or a judge prior to execution. His belief would ahve more relevance were that it was Bush that solely decided the fate of the condemned. As it stands he was upholding laws he didn't write so blaming him for Texas' history of capital punishment is unfair.

Fundamental Islam never before tried to make it our problem until recently. But this goes to my contention that 9/11 had the dual purpose of raising the self-esteem of the emasculated Arab culture as well as what I stated above in that it was meant to unify. Never forget, this WoT was brought to us first. We're exercising our right of *second swing*. So asking whether it was evil before is a bit disingenuous. Maybe it was but it wasn't parading American heads as far as I recall. Evil is only evil in action. They can think about beheading Westerners all they like and I don't see that as justification for an armed response. However once it transcends from hate fantasy to actual murder then I do consider it evil and would advocate taking a more active role in stemming it's spread.

"I remember France in particular and the UN in general urging that we NOT attack."

And I remember France in particular sending troops and bombers to aide in the attack. I hardly think it is rewriting history to contend that international support for an attack on Afghanistan, and the Al Qaida militants was far more substantial than what is currently garnered by our attack on Iraq.

"Prejudicial language."

Said the guy that claims Kerry wants France and the UN to dictate our Foreign Policy.

Like I said, I've read and understand the theories/hopes of what a democratic Iraq might do for us. I'm sorry, but I've just never seen it to be likely, even if it were being carried out by an administration that is not unserious and incompetent like this one is. Call me a pessamist.

The effectiveness of the UN is, of course, debatable. I do not state that UN consent is mandatory for US defensive action. I think that relying solely on the UN to solve the worlds dangers is an ineffectual mistake. But even in the face of Saddam's flaunting of UN resolutions, the choice between overthrowing him and persuing less extreme measures is not as black and white as you paint it.

"Being together is not the most important thing. Doing the right thing is more important."

It is only your opinion that invading Iraq was the "right thing." But that really was an argument for 2 years ago. Now that we've unzipped our fly, we pretty much are forced to bang the broad. That is why I'm not in with the Kucinich crowd, who would cut bait and leave. I think we have to follow through and do all we can to give Iraqi's their best chance at claiming democratic power, even if that means reassessing some of our strategic goals. We need to make concessions to western allies who don't see eye to eye with us on Iraq. We need to try and make the best of the course of action we have been set into.

Peace.

"Nobody's ever been killed in the name of Christ? And our President, self-proclaimed Believer, has sentenced record #'s to death row when he was governor. Was he Christian then?" M.Y.

What does being a christian have to do with a states govenor not commutating a death row inmate sentance? Ever think the condemned committed such a horrendous crime that no one would want to save him. Unless of course you are one of those who believes all life is sacred and shouldn't be taken...no matter what the circumstances.

As to my earlier comments, how do they tie in with Hitler? Germany at the time Hitler came into power was destitute from the winning nations from the 1st WW stripping it (Germany) of everything not bolted down. There were hardley any dissenting voices in Germany raising a hue and cry against the path Hitler was taking their country now was there? Like a good little liberal MehYam, you are quick to raise the comparitive nazis flag when no one is around to salute it and as such you think herr Hitler comments are valid.

bash wrote:*Western* religions can be thought of as long rehabilitated.

Ireland?

woodchip wrote:What does being a christian have to do with a states govenor not commutating a death row inmate sentance?

Something about thou shalt not kill, and something else about turning the other cheek.

woodchip wrote:What does being a christian have to do with a states govenor not commutating a death row inmate sentance? Ever think the condemned committed such a horrendous crime that no one would want to save him. Unless of course you are one of those who believes all life is sacred and shouldn't be taken...no matter what the circumstances.

Dude, you are such a dope. Why try to hijack this into a death penalty thread? And it's funny how you prejudge me as "one of those people who...". You know s**t about me!

woodchip wrote:As to my earlier comments, how do they tie in with Hitler?

I'll quote you... you said "these are physically weak people with large intellects far removed from the warrior class". They said (paraphrasing) " Jews are physically weak people with cunning intellects far removed from the pure Aryan class". Then your ramble about "America represents strength" hums to the same tune of "{Nazi} Germany represents strength". Especially in the context of this thread, which singles out groups of people, pointing to them as the cause behind a complex problem.

I think the problem is people who don't think about things.

woodchip wrote:There were hardley any dissenting voices in Germany raising a hue and cry against the path Hitler was taking their country now was there?

Many were afraid to, but there were dissenting voices.

woodchip wrote:Like a good little liberal MehYam, you are quick to raise the comparitive nazis flag when no one is around to salute it and as such you think herr Hitler comments are valid.

You're a fool. If anyone's being a good little anything, it's you - anti-liberal! I have political views that span the spectrum, because I try to approach questions without bias. Ever tried that? Don't bother, you probably wouldn't like it.

MehYam wrote:

woodchip wrote:What does being a christian have to do with a states govenor not commutating a death row inmate sentance?

Something about thou shalt not kill, and something else about turning the other cheek.

One of which is a misquote ("Thou shalt not murder"), and the other of which is a misapplication (a command given to individuals, not to a government). I'm firmly anti-death-penalty, but I don't see any reason to think that other Christians would have to be. I don't think there is a clear position that all Christians have to take on the issue.

I think the problem is people who don't think about things.

There are lots of people in the world who don't think. But when's the last time someone from the flat-earth society beheaded someone, or committed a suicide bombing?

A while ago, you were asking why you shouldn't blame "religion" as an abstract entity. But then, I'm pretty sure it's not the buddhists, presbyterians, or atheists doing all the beheadings and suicide bombings. So now you blame "people who don't think" -- but it's not the flat-earth-society or the Larouche-for-president people, either.

It's pretty clear who the enemy is. Don't try so hard to point the finger away from Islamic extremism.

Lothar wrote:It's pretty clear who the enemy is. Don't try so hard to point the finger away from Islamic extremism.

So you're not saying that all of Islam is the problem, just the extremist portion of it? That wasn't clear from the previous posts, even though there was some back and forth about it.

Of course extremism is a problem. I believe that to say that one particular thing is the problem, though, is a mistake - 'cause you lose sight of the complexity, and trade the creative solutions and alternatives that are out there for drastic solutions required by the problem.

Sorry for the philosophy, but I get pissed and can't put the book down.

You're stretching, Kai. Both Catholics and Protestants are Christians, afterall, and IIRC the Irish weren't fighting over biblical interpretations or that one side should convert to the beliefs of the other. The problems in Ireland had much more to do with Irish nationalism than religion.

MehYam wrote:So you're not saying that all of Islam is the problem, just the extremist portion of it?

Lothar wrote:Islam, as it exists today in much of the world, is the problem... (my first post; clarified in my second post by saying "as it exists" and "how it's being used" are equivalent.)

the ideology that says "every person and every value that is not in line with religion X [which is, in this case, Islam] must be destroyed by force" that is being put forth by many of the leaders of much of the Islamic world... (my third post -- a description of the ideology, which is pretty clearly the ideology of radical Islam, and not of all of Islam)

radical Islam is the enemy (my fourth post, on Jun 24, 2004 6:47 pm)

It should be noted that your first post in this thread was after that post. So yes, I'd say that's what I'm saying, and I have a hard time seeing why it wouldn've have been painfully obvious by my fourth post, meaning by the time you started posting in this thread, that should've been made clear.

Now, you're right to say that it's a more complex problem than that -- of course there are other things that contribute. But it's pretty clear that radical Islam is the *core* problem, and that continuing to ignore it and focus on peripheral problems is not a good way to win the war they've declared on us.

The problem with Ireland is that Anglicanism was, until the Parliamentary reformations of the 1830's, the only way to make your voice heard in the government. The franchise laws expressly forbade Catholics from voting, which just added fuel to the fire, as the Irish weren't too happy that the British had just decided to take them over in the first place. In short, the problem with Ireland is that, gasp, religion was cemented to politics, and politics was the issue but religion was the reason given, the veneer used to give the conflict a greater justification to both sides. This is the exact situation with Islam. The real reason for the existence of terrorists is not Islam. It's politics, plain and simple. Fundamentalism is highly intertwined, because it's the tool that bin Ladin, al Zarqawi, and all the other ringleaders use to get around the human mind's disgust at murder.

The Catholicism vs. Protestantism debate has historically been about allegiance to Rome. That was even the KKK's reasoning up until very (the official KKK position is now no longer anti-Catholic). Even during Kennedy's election campaign the question kept coming up. Notice how ridiculous this sounds now, and think about it. The fear of allegiance to the pope taking precedent over allegiance to one's country is a purely political fear. It's a fear that someone from the outside is working through spies to corrupt your family, your village, your country. This is the fear the middle eastern Islamic fundamentalists have of Western society. They think that we are actively conspiring to wipe them and their culture from the face of the earth. The reaction? It's like a pendulum, coming back with full force in the other direction. Since we're obviously trying to dominate their society, they must dominate ours.

It's the Islamic Crusades, ladies and gentlemen. While in the 1200's we (meaning Catholics, as I am a baptized Catholic) worked to restore Christendom in Constantinople, Islamists are trying to restore Islam to the glory days of the 1500's. Unfortunately, it's a thirteenth-centry concept fought with twenty-first-century technology in a twenty-first-centry world.

wow it must be the political-religious extremist's week!

Come on guys, just accept that you're wrong, and we can close this thread already. :p

they'll never admit they're wrong Kai.. even with a mountain of facts facing them. It's their crusade.

When al Qaeda starts calling Scotland Yard like the IRA did to warn in advance of the bomb to ensure that civilians aren't killed then I'll agree that they are as "rehabilitated" as the Irish 'religious' terrorists.

Until then consider that distinction just one of many that seperates them.

And until I see the majority of this so called 'peaceful' religion rise up and rat out the supposed 'few' bad apples I'm not buying this 'peaceful religion' crap anymore!

What are you guys, five? Way to crap on a thread.

MehYam, first you reply without any particulars:

"The parallels between your diatribe and what the Nazis believed about Germany and the rest of the world run deep. I'm just glad you'll never run for office." MehYam


" "these are physically weak people with large intellects far removed from the warrior class". They said (paraphrasing) " Jews are physically weak people with cunning intellects far removed from the pure Aryan class". Then your ramble about "America represents strength" hums to the same tune of "{Nazi} Germany represents strength". Especially in the context of this thread, which singles out groups of people, pointing to them as the cause behind a complex problem. " MehYam

Nice try kiddo. Corallaries aren't even close. Hitler was segregating by percieved racial homogeny. If you were really thinking things out you would have oresented how the jews were always a scapegote for a countries ills as they were generally as a group more successful in business and their religion had no problems with money lending. so a good way to satisfy a debt to a jew was to initiate a pogrom and kill them all. No where in my comments did I suggest the effete liberal intelligensia had to be segregated out and terminated. All I did suggest was by their anti-sole super power status that america has and intellectualising how everything Bush does is bad (unless of course a democrat gets in...then everything is hunky-dorey), is making the war on terrorism harder to win.


woodchip wrote:
What does being a christian have to do with a states govenor not commutating a death row inmate sentance? Ever think the condemned committed such a horrendous crime that no one would want to save him. Unless of course you are one of those who believes all life is sacred and shouldn't be taken...no matter what the circumstances.


"Dude, you are such a dope. Why try to hijack this into a death penalty thread? And it's funny how you prejudge me as "one of those people who...". You know s**t about me!" MehYam

Well, I certainly didn't hijack this thread into christianity. Too bad you suffer from alzheimers:

bash wrote:
When was the last time the Presbyterians beheaded someone, Kai?


"Nobody's ever been killed in the name of Christ? And our President, self-proclaimed Believer, has sentenced record #'s to death row when he was governor. Was he Christian then? " MehYam

You are right about one thing though...I don't know s**t about you and don't particulary want to.

woodchip wrote:No where in my comments did I suggest the effete liberal intelligensia had to be segregated out and terminated. All I did suggest was by their anti-sole super power status that america has and intellectualising how everything Bush does is bad (unless of course a democrat gets in...then everything is hunky-dorey), is making the war on terrorism harder to win.

I think bad choices are making the war on terrorism harder to win. And I didn't suggest you were proposing violence. But your argument is one where you pin blame in such a way that all else falls to the side. It's a conspiracy theory, and although the outcome will be quite different, it's similar to those fostered in pre-WWII Germany.

woodchip wrote:Well, I certainly didn't hijack this thread into christianity. Too bad you suffer from alzheimers

I offered Christianity as a counter-example to the idea that the only religion with bad/extreme elements was Islam. People simply disagreed with it. Issue over.

woodchip wrote:You are right about one thing though...I don't know s**t about you and don't particulary want to.

I'm so hurt.