# Conversation and Fun > Just Conversation >  Is the London attack........

## rep

the opening attack in the ultimate culture war?

If you think not read  and defend this very disturbing article.

The whimsy of cultural diversity may kill us all. 

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=8033

Rep

----------


## Bev Heishman

Hi Rep,
You knew me fairly well. I have attached a letter to our editor of two newspaperspapers in my area. We have this going on nationally as well as many things going on in our state. Our legislators opted to give them selves a raise which would make them the second highest in the country. Several including many Republicans and Democrats won't accept it but those who have been in office so long voted for it. Namely the individuals in my areas, Dark Beak and Cronie.

----------


## rep

I commend your campaign, but is it enough?

As I watch cable news and the evacuation of Birmingham, I wonder if what the author of this article says is true?

Have we become so accomodating to those with cultural and religious differences that we are losing our own Christian-nurtured culture in the U. S., as Britian and Europe have?

If, as many have already speculated, that the London bombing is the result of terror cells inside Britian, can anything but a backlash against the Islamic-nurtured culture be the end result? Is it not justifiable, based on the fact that other than Oklahoma City, all terrorist bombing throughout the world, have been linked to Islamic fundamentalist?

Having our government act against terrorist is one thing, but I am beginning to believe that we ourselves have a responsibility to participate against the war on terror. It should not be piled on just our military families. 

Can many say that the war on terror post 9/11 has changed very much in their daily lifestyles? What price have we personally paid for our freedom?

Call it what you want, I am beginning to believe that this is a "us against them" conflict and it will not be resolved until there is no longer any of "them" willing to lift arms against us. Therefore it's time to change the rules of the game. Raising son's and daughter's to lift arms against Americans and American interest must have a price that has yet to be paid. 

The appeasers be d***. Japan and Germany had their fanatical followers and only though the annihilation of a lot of their civilian population and their culture was peace established for the last 60 years and counting. The notion that radical elements of either of those two country would come the US to bomb Americans for invading their countries and destroying their citizens and culture is laughable. 

As the author states this may only be the beginning.

Rep

----------


## For-Life

It is getting bad.  Unforunately it is only a small percentage of Muslims, but it is becoming a strong small percentage.  Here is a list of all terrorist organizations and their causes:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908746.html

While I do believe that the US should have gotten out of these areas a long time ago some of these things will not be compromised.

I would like to see a compromise sought between Israel and Palestine but many groups on both sides will not rest until one eliminates the other.



What we can hope for is two things.  One, the countries breeding these groups will crackdown, ie: Saudi Arabia.  Another is that the people will rise on their own and force democracy, because democracy tends to hurt terrorism (terrorism from groups againsts its own government).

I think on the West we should encourage countries to become democratic (and real democracy, not corrupted where you stuff the ballot box) but only do it if they want our help and try not to get involved physcially.

----------


## rinselberg

> ... based on the fact that other than Oklahoma City, all terrorist bombing throughout the world have been linked to Islamic fundamentalists ...


Hello rep,

This is just an "aside" or "sidebar", but Islamic fundamentalists are not the only group that likes to kill people discriminately or indiscriminately with surprise or terror-like attacks. The IRA has done a lot of this and could conceivably start up again if things don't go forward in Ireland. There are out and out criminal gangs that may set off bombs from time to time. Japan had that crazy cult that attacked a subway station with nerve gas. But more to the point, some of the insurgents in Iraq are probably "Baathists" or remnants of the Saddam regime or reactionaries who would like to turn the clock in Iraq backwards to something like the old Saddam regime. These "Saddam" type insurgents would not be particularly Islamic fundamentalists. They are not that particular about their "brand" of Islam. They could be anything from Islamic fundamentalists to "not very much Islamic at all." That's my take.

PS. I don't draw a large distinction between the (suspected) Islamic fundamentalists that bomb a subway station in London, Vs. the Iraqi insurgents of whatever religious or secular stripe that attack a US military convoy in the Sunni Triangle. I think my interests dictate that ALL of these essentially terrorist parties be put down and put down hard.

----------


## chip anderson

It was amazing how small the percentage of Germans claimed to have been Nazi after the war. Amazing how few Japanese "really supported the Emperor" after the war. I am _sure_ it was only a "small percentage."

I am positive that all the other Moslems are constantly denouncing the extremist members of their religion. Never sending any money for their support. And eagerly calling the FBI when any terrorists are known to be visiting in the community. 

Yeah, right!

----------


## For-Life

Same with Mississippi White men and the KKK

----------


## rsandr

> the opening attack in the ultimate culture war?
> 
> If you think not read and defend this very disturbing article.
> 
> The whimsy of cultural diversity may kill us all. 
> 
> http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=8033
> 
> Rep


The article makes interesting reading. Its easy to slip into a worried frenzy.
But Muslims in Britain make up currently 3% of the population and i'm sure the vast majority of them would not condone terrorost attacks.
The infrequency of the attacks they have lain claim to is a tribute to their support/capabilities.
Also the figures assume that Muslims are likely to carry on wanting 6 kids each indefinitely, Im sure as their numbers rise, they become more involved in careers (something women in their countries of origin were unable to do) have a better way of life etc. the less likely that will be.

Is there anybody out there who thinks that some good may come out of all the integration the world is seeing? Or should everywhere tighten their borders?

Rick

----------


## RGC_man

I lived in London when the IRA were doing their worst. Luckily we didn't resort to anti-Catholic mobs and riots of previous centuries. Also, among the Jewish immigrants to the East End a century ago there were a small minority of anarchist terrorists. But integration did its work within a generation or two.

The more I have worked with Asians of several religious groups, the more I realise how much like us we are. Anyway, America might still be a Christian country, but Britain is about as secular as it is possible to be. Long may that continue. Bloody Christian fundamentalist freaks.

----------


## Bev Heishman

Rep & Others,

I do think this is only the beginning and to survive we need to be proactive not reactive. Unfortuneately writing editorials are limited to 400 words max. May be we all need to coordinate a way to make a difference. 

My next question...is this going to lead to a civil war as such in civilized nations?

My ancestors came pre revolutionary war and fought so hard to avoid the tryanny from where they came. It is a very hard thing to call but we all better get our acts in gear and move like we haven't in so many years or we will face the end of freedom.

----------


## chm2023

Re the article that started this thread:  one of the constants over history, trying times bring out the demagogues.  The Koran advised its adherents to build up to 10% of a nation's population and then make their move?  Would like to see this Koran reference.  And this dire warning stirs echoes of No Nothingism.  And of course, slurring all Muslims feeds into the terrorists' hands.  Thankfully Tony Blair sees the folly of this moronic approach.


Let's talk turkey:  the war on terror is unlike any we have ever confronted.  (Object lesson:  how did the British get the IRA to stop bombing London?  Food for thought).  There is no stationary target, the terrorists are not afraid to die--indeed they welcome it--and the support for the terrorists is hard to discern and prove at the nation level in the traditional manner (treaties, troops, occupation etc)--case in point, we invaded a country--Iraq--that had no hard ties to the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11, at the same time, we still have a close relationship with a country--Saudia Arabia--that spawned the terrorists who attacked us.  

This is the brilliance of this strategy--we don't know how to respond.  It's all well and good to huff and puff and suggest bombing all the terrorist cells.  The assumption that we know where these people are is absurd--remember bin Laden--beyond that, one thing we know about these groups is that they imbed in a larger community for cover and they are highly mobile.  

The critical needs are for intelligence (old fashioned infiltration especially), carrot/stick diplomacy with countries like Saudia Arabia and Egypt and others to denounce terrorists and cut off their $$$, and get the hell out of Iraq, Saudia Arabia and any other Muslim countries as soon as reasonably possible.

----------


## chm2023

[QUOTE=rep]

  Is it not justifiable, based on the fact that other than Oklahoma City, all terrorist bombing throughout the world, have been linked to Islamic fundamentalist?


Really?  The IRA?  The Red Brigade?  The Shining Path?  Renamo?  ETA?  All Islamic fundamentalists huh?  I had no idea.

----------


## spartus

> Is it not justifiable, based on the fact that other than Oklahoma City, all terrorist bombing throughout the world, have been linked to Islamic fundamentalist?


I'm curious to see where this particular meme's coming from. My uncle just tried to assert the exact same thing on Saturday.

By the way chm, add abortion clinic bombing to your list. It's fundamentalists doing it, sure, but I don't think they're Muslim.

----------


## rep

> I'm curious to see where this particular meme's coming from. My uncle just tried to assert the exact same thing on Saturday.
> 
> By the way chm, add abortion clinic bombing to your list. It's fundamentalists doing it, sure, but I don't think they're Muslim.


CHM2023

IF you had bothered to read the article you would have picked this up.




> according to the scholarly studies by Professor Rohan Gunaratna, of St. Andrews Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence. Considered the world's leading expert on terrorist leader Osama bin Ladensal-Qaeda network, Prof. Gunaratna also is principal investigator for the United Nations' Terrorism Prevention Branch. He notes that except for the 1995 bombing of Americas federal office building in Oklahoma City,all major terrorist attacks of the past decade in the West have been carried out by immigrants. They were not just random immigrants, but invariably from a specific religious background. During the decade since 1993, of the 212 suspected and convicted terrorists in Europe and the United States, 86% were Muslim immigrants, and most of the rest were converts to Islam, according to Prof. Gunaratna.


When was the last bombing from any of these groups?




> The IRA? The Red Brigade? The Shining Path? Renamo? ETA?


Other than your personal opinion, do you have any reverences saying otherwise. Remember we are talking major terrorist attacks of the past decade in the West.

I am not personally concerned about the others, like you seem to be. 

Rep

----------


## Spexvet

> ...Call it what you want, I am beginning to believe that this is a "us against them" conflict and it will not be resolved until there is no longer any of "them" willing to lift arms against us. Therefore it's time to change the rules of the game. Raising son's and daughter's to lift arms against Americans and American interest must have a price that has yet to be paid. 
>  ...
> Rep


Rep,
Are you recommending a genocidal Jihad to eradicate the world of Muslims?

----------


## hcjilson

I tend to side with Rep on this one.I think that in order to have this (situation) come to an end, you must make the penalty so severe that no one would want to begin to think about conducting a terrorist attack. I realize by saying that, that innocent men women and children, through no fault of their own, will pay the price.

It must incorporate innocent people because the war on terror is ultimately going to end through the intervention of innocent people. Harry Truman knew that innocents were going to be killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thats they reason those targets were chosen. We wanted to send the message that we weren't afraid to use the A-bomb but we wanted to limit the loss of life while getting the message across.We could have chosen to put the two bombs in Tokyo which would have devastated Japan and killed a lot more people.We correctly chose restraint but still a lot of people died in a second, who had nothing to do with the war.

If the war on terror is to be won, it will require meeting each attack with something that is tenfold more horrible.If that doesn't do it, a hundred times more horrible and a thousand times if still unsucessfull. Anyone thinking we're winning the war on terror has their head in the sand.These attacks will continue until we start doing something about it.

I am not proud of what I have just written because it is a lousy testament to mankind, but that is, after all is said and done, the nature of war.

----------


## RGC_man

> If the war on terror is to be won, it will require meeting each attack with something that is tenfold more horrible.If that doesn't do it, a hundred times more horrible and a thousand times if still unsucessfull. Anyone thinking we're winning the war on terror has their head in the sand.These attacks will continue until we start doing something about it.


The war on terror? You mean like the successful war on drugs?

We invaded two countries and still the suicide bombers volunteer. That's because we gave Osama Bin Laden exactly the reaction he wanted.

Distasteful as it is, one day you and Israel will do like Blair in Northern Ireland: negtotiate and let the terrorists into government. Apparently you are already talking to them in Iraq.

----------


## hcjilson

The situation is totally different in Northern Ireland as well as it is in Palestine.The war on drugs can't be easily compared either.The bombings in Spain and London were not suicide bombings.If we are to believe what is widely reported, Muslim fundamentalists have had pretty much a free hand in England as far as fund raising, website recruitment , etc are concerned. I think you will find that a lot different from now on.

I too was surprised when the British press reported that the US was negotiating with terrorists in Iraq. I believe it was Bush who said we don't negotiate with terrorists.I believed nothing he said before the election so I am not disappointed in him.Appalled is a better word. His colors show through. I wonder why the conservatives in our group have failed to pick up on that.Now that its been reavealed that Carl Rove was the person who leaked the CIA operative's cover I wonder if the man who said he would fire the person responsible will actually turn coat and become a man of his word.

----------


## optispares

> The bombings in Spain and London were not suicide bombings


 It seems from the latest report that several of the bombers were suicide bombers after all . the police have identified four of the suspects three of whom are in pieces.and today have arrested another person in leeds  who they think may be linked.

----------


## cinders831

> I lived in London when the IRA were doing their worst. Luckily we didn't resort to anti-Catholic mobs and riots of previous centuries. Also, among the Jewish immigrants to the East End a century ago there were a small minority of anarchist terrorists. But integration did its work within a generation or two.
> 
> The more I have worked with Asians of several religious groups, the more I realise how much like us we are. Anyway, America might still be a Christian country, but Britain is about as secular as it is possible to be. Long may that continue. Bloody Christian fundamentalist freaks.


 Forgive me for being brass, I would like to spew horrible mean things at you for speaking ill of christians,  I am a christian and take offense.  Since God wouldnt want me to call you and A** Ill just say perhaps you should be nicer and consider that not all Christians are freaks....

----------


## hcjilson

> It seems from the latest report that several of the bombers were suicide bombers after all . the police have identified four of the suspects three of whom are in pieces.and today have arrested another person in leeds  who they think may be linked.


The story didn't break here until 1:26PM Msnbc- I was working on the news I heard on the way into the office today.I should have said "based on the latest information I had" but alas I've been in all day!

 Suicide or not, I wonder if the perps would have proceded if they had known that as a result of their action Mecca would be destroyed without warning and unfit for human habitation for a couple of hundred years?Where would they go for the  Haj  then?

I say this in the same vein of Johnathan Swift's "Modest Proposal" and to illustrate how the war on terror COULD be ended, not to advocate doing it.If there is no penalty for an act of terror, they will continue, and its a war that cannot be won.

----------


## shanbaum

> Forgive me for being brass, I would like to spew horrible mean things at you for speaking ill of christians, I am a christian and take offense. Since God wouldnt want me to call you and A** Ill just say perhaps you should be nicer and consider that not all Christians are freaks....


Oh, my, does it hurt to be painted with so broad a brush? Can you imagine yourself as a Muslim for about a tenth of a second? Do you see the problem here?

Of course not all Christians are "bloody Christian fundamentalist freaks" - but the writer of that article Rep posted may well qualify as one. I'm not sure if he's precisely a racist, or a fascist, or a religious fanatic, or a devil's brew of all of these; but in a word, he _stinks_.

This thread provides a delightful juxtaposition to those commentators who want to know why there are no moderate Muslim voices speaking out against the radical Muslims - you know, the ones who advocate killing all the _non-Muslims_? Well, where are the moderate Christian voices speaking out against the neo-Nazi poison that this writer spews, and which inspires otherwise-decent people to think that mass murder is actually a solution to something?

Perhaps another article of his reveals his fascist philosophy more clearly:

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=5652

Once again, we are in rep's debt for pointing out the kinds of warped and twisted people we have to watch out for.

----------


## shanbaum

> Suicide or not, I wonder if the perps would have proceded if they had known that as a result of their action Mecca would be destroyed without warning and unfit for human habitation for a couple of hundred years?Where would they go for the Haj then?


Harry, have you completely lost your mind? Destroy Mecca? 

Don't you understand that this would be a gift to bin-Laden beyond his wildest dreams?

----------


## shanbaum

> If there is no penalty for an act of terror, they will continue, and its a war that cannot be won.


_Unless there is no POINT to an act of terror._

----------


## chip anderson

Has anyone noticed that the British have stated that "appearently all the bombers were suicide bombers and were killed in the blast."
The British have also stated that they have recovered "timing devises" from the bombing sites.
Now, just what does a suicide bomber need with a "timing devise" on his bomb.  Want time to say prayers to Allah before it goes off?

Chip

----------


## shanbaum

> Has anyone noticed that the British have stated that "appearently all the bombers were suicide bombers and were killed in the blast."
> The British have also stated that they have recovered "timing devises" from the bombing sites.
> Now, just what does a suicide bomber need with a "timing devise" on his bomb. Want time to say prayers to Allah before it goes off?
> 
> Chip


Didn't you see _Animal House?_  "Everybody synchronize your watches..."

----------


## RGC_man

> Forgive me for being brass, I would like to spew horrible mean things at you for speaking ill of christians, I am a christian and take offense. Since God wouldnt want me to call you and A** Ill just say perhaps you should be nicer and consider that not all Christians are freaks....


Call me what you want and show your true colours. I didn't speak ill of all Christians or call them all freaks, only the fundamentalists. Muslim, Pagan, Hindu, Sikh and Jewish fundamentalists are freaks too. 

I'll tell you who I'd like to spew horrible mean things at, the bigots who use deaths in a city I lived in and love to spread their intolerance of faiths other than their own. If you ever bother to visit London you will find just about every faith, race, nationality and religion living side by side.

----------


## cinders831

> Oh, my, does it hurt to be painted with so broad a brush? Can you imagine yourself as a Muslim for about a tenth of a second? Do you see the problem here?
> 
> Of course not all Christians are "bloody Christian fundamentalist freaks" - but the writer of that article Rep posted may well qualify as one. I'm not sure if he's precisely a racist, or a fascist, or a religious fanatic, or a devil's brew of all of these; but in a word, he _stinks_.
> 
> This thread provides a delightful juxtaposition to those commentators who want to know why there are no moderate Muslim voices speaking out against the radical Muslims - you know, the ones who advocate killing all the _non-Muslims_? Well, where are the moderate Christian voices speaking out against the neo-Nazi poison that this writer spews, and which inspires otherwise-decent people to think that mass murder is actually a solution to something?
> 
> Perhaps another article of his reveals his facist philosophy more clearly:
> 
> http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=5652
> ...


 As a matter of fact it does hurt, I realize the hatred spewed by those whom claim to follow Christ.  I also understand that those living in glass houses ought not throw stones.  See I think that some of the people whom push people farthest from Christ are like that man that wrote that article.  Ever heard there are two reasons people arent Christian, either they never heard about Christ or they met a Chrisitian.  That puts shame and saddness in my heart.  God never wanted things shoved down the throats of others I think he wanted people to learn and then choose God, not to be forced or persucuted.  So dont think because I take offense to hatred towards Christians that I applaud hatred towards others and non chrisitians.  Gods message was love and grace, mercy and forgiveness so to assume that I am one of the extreme Christians is rather off.. See it seems we agree on many points I just am proud to claim my faith.  Not shove or spew it, just claim it with pride.

----------


## hcjilson

I am guilty of letting my emotions run amok. I did temporarily lose my mind. Problem is I'm not sure I have it back yet so I'm going to sit here and watch without posting for a while.
My aplologies for ranting.

----------


## spartus

Another theory out the window: 




> *London bombers 'were all British'* 
> Detectives now believe the London bombings were carried out by four British-born men in what were possibly the country's first suicide attacks

----------


## Joann Raytar

> I am guilty of letting my emotions run amok. I did temporarily lose my mind. Problem is I'm not sure I have it back yet so I'm going to sit here and watch without posting for a while.
> My aplologies for ranting.


I have to admit I thought you had gone over the deep end when I read your post; that didn't sound anything like you.

Destroying Mecca would be the equivalent of destroying the Vatican - it would only further resolve and probably increase the number of individuals fighting for the cause.

Not intending to offend anyone here but ... would we even have had to fight most of histories wars if it weren't for religion?  Isn't religion the biggest reason throughout history for war, repression, discrimination, ostracism, genocide, etc and etc?

----------


## Spexvet

> If the war on terror is to be won, it will require meeting each attack with something that is tenfold more horrible.If that doesn't do it, a hundred times more horrible and a thousand times if still unsucessfull. Anyone thinking we're winning the war on terror has their head in the sand.These attacks will continue until we start doing something about it.


Harry,

How do you think Americans would react if the shoe were on the other foot? I think that if we had the lives that most common muslims have, we would fight like they have. The Boston Tea Party was certainly an act of terrorism. If the response to the Boston Tea Party was "tenfold/a hundred times/a thousand times more horrible", would it have stopped us? Or would we have fought back just that much harder?

So why do you think it will stop them? Why do you not think that they will fight back just that much harder.

Winning the war will mean giving up something. Some will think that's it's appeasement, but we can't have all the food and expect everyone else to beg at the table for scraps. And if we do, we'll have to give up much of our freedom, our wealth, and the lives of our young men and women. Is it worth it?

----------


## Spexvet

> Not intending to offend anyone here but ... would we even have had to fight most of histories wars if it weren't for religion? Isn't religion the biggest reason throughout history for war, repression, discrimination, ostracism, genocide, etc and etc?


yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. second and third are nationalism and greed.

----------


## chip anderson

Nope, most of the early ones were about money, power, women, land and ordinary stuff. The philosophy stuff didn't get mixed in until much later, and even then it was usually mixed in to cover the real motives (above). Men have always killed each other the motivations were seldom altruistic.

Saw a cute cartoon once where a lovely medieval bride was chiding her knight as he donned his armor: "Crusades Hell, you just want to go drinking and wenching with those darn Normans."

Hitler, The Emporah of Japan, Poll Pot, Genghis Kahn, Attila the Hun, Napoleon and most of the others I could name had little if any religious motivations. The English occasionally made noises about bringing religion to the heathens but their motivation was land, power and Empire. And we all know the Spaniards were after gold, even if they had some perverse concepts of Christianity they spread to the few they spared.

----------


## Joann Raytar

Well, I have to give you that one. Even many of the religious conquests were about money and land hidden behind religious interests. Believe it or not, that's where the western involvement in Vietnam started - Portuguese and French imperialism hidden behind political/missionary ventures. When it came down to it, it was all about trade, money and land.

(Sorry about throwing the thread off topic.)

----------


## rep

Replies starting backwards.

No Jo -Other than the crusades name one or better yet name one in the 20th century. Ditto Spexvet surely you know better, but it does fit in with your second favorite political position.

Spexvet - dumping tea in Boston Harbor so it won't be taxed, is equal to terrorism? What planet are you on? Winning the war means giving up something - what a wonderful blame us position - really glad you are not negotiating for the U.S. Typical hogwash about 9/11 being our fault and WE are to blame for hungry Muslums? Wow what a pantload. Name one time or place where appeasement has worked long term? No I am not advocating a civil war. I am advocating taking the war to the homefront of the terrorist and making it up close and personal. There have been many wars just like this. Most of them you never hear about because we deal with them up close and personal. 

Spartus - jury is still out regarding the British Bombers - my bet is that they were muslums, just from another nationality. Time will tell.

Harry - I don't think you were ranting any more than the jubberish in these other post. History paints a totally different picture of what has worked vs the speculative solutions of those who have not studied past situations. Despite the German and Japanese results there are those who still advocate that appeasement works. I just can't find anywhere where it has worked over the long haul and didn't increase the number of deaths ultimately.

Bev - Look for major changes in Britian. Blair began closing down the influx of immigrants in Feb. This will only speed up the process. France is also taking a second look since the London attacks, also watch what happens in Congress I am sure they already have the intelligence reports and a pretty good picture of how we are vunerable and what needs to change.

Rep

----------


## Joann Raytar

1. Stalinism
2. The Balkans
3. Northern Ireland
4. Maoism

----------


## rep

Jo

I can't agree that these should be included.

Stalin and Mao were forms of government/ dictatorships and thanks to Ronnie we didn't have to fight either one directly.

The Balkans was/is a cultural war between two ethnic groups that also involved muslums and christians as a subplot because one group was primarily muslum and the other christians (or non muslems) Not really even a minor conflict. 

Northern Ireland dosent even register as a skirmish in the overall picture of war in the world has known it. A conflict sure but in comparison to Gulf War I, II, Vietnam, WWI, WW2, Korea, not even a blip on the map. Even Grenada and Panama were bigger.


*The latest failure of appeasement happened today.* 

The peace loving Palestinians have decide to celebrate Israel's withdrawal from Gaza by blowing up a few Israelis. Lets hear it for appeasement When the Palestinians don't get what they want they blow up innocent Israeli civilians. When the do get what they want they blow up innocent Israeli civilians. 

Shambaum, Spexvet and RGC_ man this fits you all to a "T"

"The post-9/11 world is not primarily a war between civilisations  the West vs Islam  but a war within one civilisation: ours. Its a long existential struggle between those who believe that Western values  or, to be more precise, the values of the English-speaking world  are one of the great blessings of this world and those counter-tribalists who believe those values are the source of most of the worlds ills. The latter are a relatively small group but their numbers are bolstered by legions so immersed in the sappy therapeutic culture of the age that theyve been persuaded that the best way to celebrate diversity is to abase oneself before moral relativism and non-judgmentalism. The Islamists are merely the lucky beneficiaries of this syndrome. Its hard to fight a war in a culture that recoils from the very concept of an opposing side: there are no enemies, just friends whose grievances we havent yet accommodated."-- *Mark Steyn*

Rep

----------


## Spexvet

> ...
> Spexvet - dumping tea in Boston Harbor so it won't be taxed, is equal to terrorism? What planet are you on?


I'm on the planet that looks at things objectively. I am _not_ from the planet Jingo. 

Main Entry: *jin·go·ism* 
Pronunciation: 'ji[ng]-(")gO-"i-z&m
Function: _noun_
*:* extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...oism&x=22&y=17

Try thinking objectively.



> Winning the war means giving up something - what a wonderful blame us position - really glad you are not negotiating for the U.S. Typical hogwash about 9/11 being our fault and WE are to blame for hungry Muslums? Wow what a pantload.


Supporting repressive regimes in the middle east, exploiting common middle eastern workers by our multinational corporations, and putting military bass on Muslim holy ground had nothing to to do with their lashing out with terrorism? Wow, what an arrogant and limited perspective on international affairs. Keep up the same attitude and behavior, and you'll keep getting the same results (terrorism).

BTW, we *will* have to give up something, in fact already have. We've given up hassle-free boarding of an airplane, travelling to Canada without a passport, access to some government buildings, 1758 American military dead in Iraq, billions of tax dollars for homeland security, etc. I would rather come to an understanding with the enemy than try to beat them into submission - last week's London bombing shows that *IT DOES NOT WORK*. It doesn't work any better than trying to beat the US into submission. Remember: "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" - the Bush administration has shown their incompetence with this war.



> Name one time or place where appeasement has worked long term?


It's not appeasement - you innaccurately call it that.



> No I am not advocating a civil war.


Who said anything about civil war? I asked you:



> Rep,
> Are you recommending a genocidal Jihad to eradicate the world of Muslims?


Would you care to answer that question?



> ...
> Rep


Regards,
Spexvet

----------


## Spexvet

> Its a long existential struggle between those who believe that Western values  or, to be more precise, the values of the English-speaking world  are one of the great blessings of this world and those counter-tribalists who believe those values are the source of most of the worlds ills.


Some of us believe that values just are. Ours are no better and no worse than anyone else's values, and certainly no more or less valid. Self-righteousness is a distasteful trait, IMHO.

----------


## chm2023

> Has anyone noticed that the British have stated that "appearently all the bombers were suicide bombers and were killed in the blast."
> The British have also stated that they have recovered "timing devises" from the bombing sites.
> Now, just what does a suicide bomber need with a "timing devise" on his bomb. Want time to say prayers to Allah before it goes off?
> 
> Chip


I would guess that having the bomb denotated remotely gives the design of the bomb "package" better cover for the bomb deliverer?  (If this is crazy, I am more than willing to stand corrected).

----------


## chm2023

> CHM2023
> 
> IF you had bothered to read the article you would have picked this up.
> 
> 
> 
> When was the last bombing from any of these groups?
> 
> 
> Rep


 
ETA? Yesterday, several car bombs outside Madrid. Read a real newspaper. IRA? As late as 2000 as I recall. Shining Path? Still terrorizing Peru, morphing into a drug cartel, same methods.

And hey, once I saw the reference in the article to these claims being backed by *scholarly studies*--whoooo--eeee!!!! Heart be still!

----------


## chm2023

Watched Bush's speech at the FBI Academy Monday night, his latest Iraq update.  Keep in mind this was a couple days after the London bombings, Bush stated:  "We will continue to fight the terrorists in Iraq so we won't have to fight them at home".  

Why this is a good strategy for the US but not so much the Brits is a mystery.  When the WH was asked about this statement, its insensitivity to our key ally, their response was that the speech had been written before the London bombings.

Think about that for a while.  I know I feel safe.:hammer:

----------


## rinselberg

> I'm on the planet that looks at things objectively. I am _not_ from the planet Jingo. Supporting repressive regimes in the middle east, exploiting common middle eastern workers by our multinational corporations, and *putting military bases on Muslim holy ground* had nothing to to do with their lashing out with terrorism? Wow, what an arrogant and limited perspective on international affairs.


Sometimes you really "kill" me, Spexvet!  :bbg: 

Take a close look and remark the details in this recent aerial photograph of some Muslim "holy ground" [sic] in Iraq.

Study the caption under the photograph.

"Holy ground", my a**!  :hammer: 



US CENTCOM-release: Aerial imagery of Shiite militia mortar positions on the eastern sidewalk of the Imam Ali Shrine, Najaf, Iraq, taken from RQ-1 Predator UAV. Imagery from August 23, 2004.

----------


## rsandr

> Are the British stupid?


Just the type of comment one loves to see in the aftermath of a bombing.
Many thanks, 
Rick

----------


## shanbaum

> Just the type of comment one loves to see in the aftermath of a bombing.
> Many thanks, 
> Rick


Please forgive Chip.  We have no choice but to let him out of the basement occasionally, and he posts; what can we do?

----------


## chm2023

> Just the type of comment one loves to see in the aftermath of a bombing.
> Many thanks, 
> Rick


I know I'm bewildered by the lack of Union Jack lapel pins. How can you tell who's patriotic and who's a traitorous scum sucker without visual aids????

Chin up.:cheers:

----------


## rep

> Who said anything about civil war? I asked you:
> 
> Would you care to answer that question?
> 
> Spexvet


 
No, I have stated that I think the military should change tactics. Nothing else.

Answering your question any other way is a federal crime punishable by life imprisonment. I am sure you know that -better luck next time, If you doubt it,  check todays paper.

Rep

----------


## RGC_man

> Northern Ireland dosent even register as a skirmish in the overall picture of war in the world has known it. A conflict sure but in comparison to Gulf War I, II, Vietnam, WWI, WW2, Korea, not even a blip on the map. Even Grenada and Panama were bigger.


In what way were Grenada and Panama bigger than Northern Ireland?

US conflict deaths: http://members.aol.com/usregistry/allwars.htm

Northern Ireland deaths: http://www.fortunecity.com/bally/sli...s_by_year.html

When you consider the small population, it is a huge conflict.

Despite the peace process, people are still being killed and maimed in punishment beatings.

----------


## shanbaum

> In what way were Grenada and Panama bigger than Northern Ireland?


They were not. As you may have noticed, rep is quite the ignoramus; it's a pretty typical characteristic amongst extremists.

----------


## spartus

> Spexvet - dumping tea in Boston Harbor so it won't be taxed, is equal to terrorism? What planet are you on? Winning the war means giving up something - what a wonderful blame us position - really glad you are not negotiating for the U.S. Typical hogwash about 9/11 being our fault and WE are to blame for hungry Muslums? Wow what a pantload. Name one time or place where appeasement has worked long term? No I am not advocating a civil war. I am advocating taking the war to the homefront of the terrorist and making it up close and personal. There have been many wars just like this. Most of them you never hear about because we deal with them up close and personal. 
> 
> Spartus - jury is still out regarding the British Bombers - my bet is that they were muslums, just from another nationality. Time will tell.


K, first: Terrorism : The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.

Tea, harbor, etc. 

I think the fourth definition listed there is the most accurate (The systematic use of violence to achieve political ends), but hey, that might just be me.

Then, in regards to what I said. Whether or not they were "Muslums" [sic] was not the issue with what you posted, it was whether they were immigrants. This begs the question: Do you believe all immigrants are terrorists or only immigrants can _become_ terrorists? If you agree with the second question, then how many generations does a family have to live in a country before they're no longer "immigrants"?

----------


## chip anderson

Rep:  Long enough to adopt the language, culture and beliefs of the adopted country.  This can be 15 min. or never.

----------


## Spexvet

> Sometimes you really "kill" me, Spexvet! :bbg: 
> 
> Take a close look and remark the details in this recent aerial photograph of some "Muslim holy ground" [sic] in Iraq.
> 
> Study the caption under the photograph.
> 
> "Holy ground", my a**! :hammer: 
> 
> 
> ...


Welcome out of retirement, Rinsey. I don't see any conflict with "stay off our holy land" and "we have guns on our holy land to keep you off".

----------


## rep

> In what way were Grenada and Panama bigger than Northern Ireland?
> 
> US conflict deaths: http://members.aol.com/usregistry/allwars.htm
> 
> Northern Ireland deaths: http://www.fortunecity.com/bally/sli...s_by_year.html
> 
> When you consider the small population, it is a huge conflict.
> 
> Despite the peace process, people are still being killed and maimed in punishment beatings.


Massive influx of troops and military reasources that resulted in and end of the violence? vs long drawn out appeasement and consessions.

Northern Ireland has been a long protracted conflict, some say since the 1921 peace accord. The average deaths per year during the period your chart covers is about 100. If you compare American and civillian deaths per year and average dollars spent per year for Grenada and Panama I think those conflicts were bigger. This is my point exactly regarding appeasement - Grenada and Panama would both be another Northern Ireland if the US had continued to appease the opposition. We went in took them out and restored peace. If the parties continue to appease in Northern Ireland the conflict will continue forever. 

I agree that the total number of deaths for Northern Ireland during the 80 years of the conflict total more than the other conflicts mentioned, but hey some people keep beating a dead horse. Remember I also said the more you appease the more you risk continued terror attacks, because to them it seems to be effective. 

Put things in perspective. There have been an average of 150 traffic deaths in Northern Ireland since 1997 vs 100 deaths due to the conflict.  Do you still think it is a huge conflict? -  or is it a small conflict that has gone on for years with an average annual death rate of 100.

http://www.psni.police.uk/index/stat...eaths_1997.htm

Shanbaum go back to fretting about O'Conner and wringing you hands about Rehnquist. 

Rep

----------


## rinselberg

> Supporting repressive regimes in the Middle East, exploiting common Middle Eastern workers by our multinational corporations, and putting military bases on Muslim holy ground had nothing to to do with their lashing out with terrorism? Wow, what an arrogant and limited perspective on international affairs. Keep up the same attitude and behavior, and you'll keep getting the same results (terrorism).





> Welcome out of retirement, Rinsey. I don't see any conflict with "stay off our holy land" and "we have guns on our holy land to keep you off".


Hello Spexvet,

I think that there is a real conflict between some of your own ideas about the Middle East and how the U.S. is involved with it.

In the runup to the first Gulf War, the U.S. enlarged its military presence in Saudi Arabia to protect the arguably "repressive" regimes of the Arabian Gulf such as in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait against an even MORE repressive and dangerously expansionist regime in Iraq. Our military bases were established in the Arabian desert, with some presence in the cities -- but not in the holy city of Mecca. Was that trespassing on Muslim holy ground? For the extremists like Osama and his followers and the idiots who attacked the London transit system, there's no rational limit to the extent of "Muslim holy ground". THEIR concept of "Muslim holy ground" extends from North Africa eastward through the Middle East (and Israel!), across Iran and Afghanistan and Pakistan and all the way to the Philippines and Indonesia. The U.S. trespassing on "Muslim holy ground"? That's baloney!

The U.S. invaded Iraq in part to put an end to a regime that was SINGULAR in its repression of the two main Iraqi minority groups, Shiites and Kurds. That of course was the regime of Saddam Hussein. And you are now speaking in defense of a few Shiite extremists like that criminal nut Muqtada Al-Sadr and his Al-Sadr militia? An extremist minority within a larger Shiite minority that welcomes the U.S. presence in Iraq as a necessary and only temporary measure towards establishing a new and freer Iraq? If the U.S. had not moved to finally eliminate Saddam Hussein (it was long overdue), we would have been supporting a singularly repressive regime in the Middle East by default -- by doing absolutely nothing to change it. Yet by your logic, it was somehow understandable or OK for a few Islamic extremists to set up artillery tubes and then fire on Coalition personnel from inside the perimeter of the Imam Ali shrine in Najaf -- the most holy of (Shiite Muslim) "holy ground". GIVE ME A BREAK!

I think I've said enough -- for now.

Thank you for offering such a stimulating post to interest me and draw my response.

----------


## rinselberg

In my previous post (just above), I referred to the Iraqi Shiites as a "minority group".

The Shiites are by a wide margin the largest religious or ethnic population within Iraq.

So I correct myself, but I don't think that this has any bearing on what I was trying to put across in my post.

----------


## shanbaum

> The U.S. trespassing on "Muslim holy ground"? That's baloney!


It may be baloney to you, and for that matter, to me as well, but that doesn't matter in the least. The point is, that complaints of foreign occupation of Arab land (more specifically than _Muslim_ land) resonate extremely well amongst Arabs. You may recall that the principal reason that bin Laden gave for the 9/11 attacks was the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia. That may fail rational analysis, but it was almost certainly purposeful; the combination of the Arabs' experience of imperialism with the religious significance they have come to attach to property is very compelling to them. 

There was, for example, in a recent Time magazine, an interview with a would-be suicide bomber for whom the precipitative event in his decision to go down that path was not that America came to Iraq (which he apparently thought was OK) but that we _stayed_. That seems like a fine distinction when one is making that kind of decision, and I think it is; but it reveals something about their extreme sensitivity to occupation.

These kinds of things matter when formulating a foreign policy, even if they're irrational. I submit that knowing what we know now, it is simply impossible to imagine that the U.S. would have done what we did in the way we did it (if, indeed, we would have done it at all, which I doubt). At the very least, the degree to which Iraqi society would simply fly apart after the removal of Saddam was not anticipated. Had it been, I'd like to think that the powers-such-as-they-be would have done _something_ different to try to prevent it. If not, then _they_ would be the ones behaving irrationally.

Likewise, the import you impute to the presence of guns on "holy ground" is misplaced. You think it vitiates the assertion that the ground is holy. To them, it doesn't; I suspect that they see those guns as _holy guns_. It may not seem like a fair way to look at things - but, that's the way it is. Do you really think it would be sensible to take the attitude, "hey, you guys shoot up your mosques, so we should be able to, too." Maybe a _fair_ position - but it's going to have a predictable outcome, which will _not_ be positive.

Let's try a practical demonstration. Go out and find a bunch of young gangsta black guys throwing the n-word at each other, and join in the conversation; I mean, if they can call each other n*****, you should be able to, too, right? Let me know how that works for you.

----------


## OPTIDONN

> They were not. As you may have noticed, rep is quite the ignoramus; it's a pretty typical characteristic amongst extremists.


Hmm...are you stating a fact or are you just name calling? I think he has made several good points.

----------


## Spexvet

> Hello Spexvet,


Hello Rinselberg 



> The U.S. trespassing on "Muslim holy ground"? That's baloney!


Thank you, Robert, for your outstanding response. The only thing I would add, Rinsey, is: 

Would you have removed the military bases on their holy ground if you'd known it would have prevented 9/11? 

Would that have been appeasement, rep? 



> The U.S. invaded Iraq in part to put an end to a regime that was SINGULAR in its repression of the two main Iraqi minority groups, Shiites and Kurds. That of course was the regime of Saddam Hussein.


And yet we supported Saddam Hussein when it suited us. We provided arms when he was at war with Iran. We also supported repressive regimes like the Shah of Iran's. We provided weapons to the Afghan freedom fighters, when they resisted the Soviet Union - weapons that were probably used against us when we invaded Afghanistan. We have a close relationship with Saudi Arabia - hey, I hear they're actually going to let women have jobs there, soon. We support Pakistan, whose ideology impacted the young Brits who bombed London last week. So please don't pretend that we attacked Iraq out of some sense of good will.




> And you are now speaking in defense of a few Shiite extremists like that criminal nut Muqtada Al-Sadr and his Al-Sadr militia?


Absolutely not! I addressed rep's point the we Americans are blameless. We are not, IMHO.




> Yet by your logic, it was somehow understandable or OK for a few Islamic extremists to set up artillery tubes and then fire on Coalition personnel from inside the perimeter of the Imam Ali shrine in Najaf -- the most holy of (Shiite Muslim) "holy ground". GIVE ME A BREAK!


It's not OK, but I do understand it. I don't think that it's much different than the action we would take. Would you take action to protect your holy place, if you have one? If an foriegn army was occupying the US, would you fire upon them? The best way to keep our personnel safe is for them to not be there. I guarantee that no muslim insurgents would fire upon them if they were in Fort Hood.




> Thank you for offering such a stimulating post to interest me and draw my response.


It has been my pleasure.

----------


## shanbaum

> Hmm...are you stating a fact or are you just name calling? I think he has made several good points.


Really? What would those be? 

Sorry, but anyone who can write something as _deeply_ stupid as, "Grenada and Panama would both be another Northern Ireland if the US had continued to appease the opposition" is unlikely to be a reliable source of information about anything.

The only reason I bother to point this out is that rep persists in posting comments that are borderline skinhead. I want readers to understand that those kinds of comments come only from the profoundly ignorant and deeply disturbed. It's what I would have done had I been in pre-Nazi Germany in the early 30's (before hightailing it out of there, after my comments fell on deaf ears). In any case, it's the same kind of crap.

----------


## OPTIDONN

Could you pleases highlite some of his skin-head comments? I don't think that I have seen any. I do have one question. If you are passionate about something does that make you an extremist?

----------


## shanbaum

> Could you pleases highlite some of his skin-head comments? I don't think that I have seen any. I do have one question. If you are passionate about something does that make you an extremist?


In this thread:

"_The whimsy of cultural diversity may kill us all_."

"Have we become so accomodating to those with cultural and religious differences that _we are losing our own Christian-nurtured culture_ in the U. S., as Britian and Europe have?"

"Call it what you want, I am beginning to believe that this is a 'us against them' conflict and _it will not be resolved until there is no longer any of "them" willing to lift arms against us._ Therefore it's time to change the rules of the game. Raising son's and daughter's to lift arms against Americans and American interest must have a price that has yet to be paid."

"The appeasers be d***. Japan and Germany had their fanatical followers and _only though the annihilation of a lot of their civilian population and their culture_ was peace established for the last 60 years and counting."

The emphasized bits all advocate the commission of mass murder to achieve cultural purity. The achievement of cultural purity is itself a skinhead (or neo-Nazi) doctrine.

In addition, the article he referenced was written by a fascist, as can be seen more clearly in the article by the same author that I cited.

And no, being passionate about something doesn't make one an extremist; I am passionate about a number of things, about which I am not extreme: liberty, reason, and (tee-hee) moderation.

----------


## Spexvet

> No, I have stated that I think the military should change tactics. Nothing else.
> 
> Answering your question any other way is a federal crime punishable by life imprisonment. I am sure you know that -better luck next time, If you doubt it, check todays paper.
> 
> Rep





> ...Call it what you want, I am beginning to believe that this is a "us against them" conflict and it will not be resolved until there is no longer any of "them" willing to lift arms against us. Therefore it's time to change the rules of the game. Raising son's and daughter's to lift arms against Americans and American interest must have a price that has yet to be paid. 
> 
> The appeasers be d***. Japan and Germany had their fanatical followers and only though the annihilation of a lot of their civilian population and their culture was peace established for the last 60 years and counting...
> Rep


I'll alert the authorities...

----------


## RGC_man

> Put things in perspective. There have been an average of 150 traffic deaths in Northern Ireland since 1997 vs 100 deaths due to the conflict. Do you still think it is a huge conflict? - or is it a small conflict that has gone on for years with an average annual death rate of 100.


 Well that's OK then. All the killings, kneecappings, beatings banishments,  and gangsterism are no worse than road traffic accidents. That must be a real comfort to the relatives. You might as well say US WW2 deaths are no worse than deaths from smoking. Personally, I have more respect than to discount such suffering.

But Northern Ireland is a good comparison in another way. Would you rather live behind huge "peace" lines in religously segregated Belfast where you can be killed for pronouncing the letter H incorrectly (showing which side you're from). Or would you rather live in a tolerant city like London where you can be anything you want, as long as you mind your own business, and live and let live. 

The London bombing was not Islamists attacking the West. It was extremists attacking moderates, many of who were Muslims. Muslim and Christian fundamentalists sound like two side of the same intolerant coin. Still, it's amusing listening to nervous whites talking in code.

----------


## rsandr

> Has anyone noticed that the British have stated that "appearently all the bombers were suicide bombers and were killed in the blast."
> The British have also stated that they have recovered "timing devises" from the bombing sites.
> Now, just what does a suicide bomber need with a "timing devise" on his bomb. Want time to say prayers to Allah before it goes off?
> 
> Chip


Further to my last post on this matter, Chip, you brainiac :Confused:  , if you were going to carry a bomb onto a busy bus or train and you wanted it to go off at a specific time to co-ordinate with three of your accomplices how would you go about it?

Would you tap the guy next to you on the shoulder, ask him the time and then start to dig the device out of your rucksack?

Rick

----------


## rsandr

> Northern Ireland has been a long protracted conflict, some say since the 1921 peace accord. The average deaths per year during the period your chart covers is about 100. 
> Put things in perspective. There have been an average of 150 traffic deaths in Northern Ireland since 1997 vs 100 deaths due to the conflict.


OK Rep....
In the UK about 5000 people per year die as a result of MRSA, a hospital superbug.
So as long as I only kill 4999 people per year who I take exception to is that OK?

I mean dammit, im stll safer than the hospitals, right?

Rick

----------


## Joann Raytar

> Or would you rather live in a tolerant city like London where you can be anything you want, as long as you mind your own business, and live and let live. 
> 
> The London bombing was not Islamists attacking the West. It was extremists attacking moderates, many of who were Muslims. Muslim and Christian fundamentalists sound like two side of the same intolerant coin. Still, it's amusing listening to nervous whites talking in code.


Probably the closest post to what is actually going wrong and going on.

But even extremist foot soldiers are trapped.  All you need is a charismatic leader or group of leaders telling folks beaten down from decades of war, who don't know what their identities are because they keep being misplaced by one party or another that if they follow them everything will be fixed for their future generations - throw in the word of that cultures god/God and you have the makings for guerilla warfare.  That's how leaders big and small manipulate, Jim Jones, Charles Manson, David Koresh, not to mention all of the political leaders who got away with talking their people into commiting genocide.

We need to find these leaders and cut off the command centers.  We need better means of getting intelligence.

----------


## drk

My take on the religious aspect: 

There seems to be inheirent in Islam and the Arab world a desire to unite and form some sort of political/religious state (the so-called Pan-Arabic-whatever).  

(There are the militant Arabs, like Saddam [although he was nominally Muslim] that simply want power.  Nothing unique there, so they shouldn't be included in this discussion.)

A reasonably high percentage take their religion rather seriously, more so than in the soon-to-be completely secular West.  Their religion seems to have the tenet that all are to be Muslim or at least to live under their Muslim law (shar-something?).  Their sense of holiness dictates that.  It is a easily offended religion, I think, as recent history has shown.  

The religious Muslims seem to understand what western culture can do to destroy their holy laws/culture, and they take umbrage to Western presence and culture.  And I understand that: lots of popular Western culture, especially American, is trash.  Muslims and Christians would agree, here.

I don't have a problem if Islam wants to keep itself isolated from external forces, but that is increasingly unlikely to occur (same in the US/West).  It's how we interact with our neighbors that count, though, and these killers are giving Islam a very bad name, worldwide.  In segments of Islam, it's acceptable to kill the neighbors. 

(As a comparison, in defense of fundamentalist Christianity, its response to neighbors is to proselytize.  At least in Christianity, there is an understanding that Christianity is voluntary.  Yes, to those cynics that will complain of fundamentalist Christianity's attempt to interact with the world's culture, _it is voluntary._  So I would claim that at least fundamentalism in Christianity leads to no bloodshed [the rare wacko abortion-bomber is not a Christian].) 

What I'm preaching here, is religious tolerance.  If we could script the way the world works, I would recommend a situation where religions co-exist, and leave all the "fighting" to peaceful discourse between religions.  There's no need to kill in the name of religion.

Having said all that about religion, I would say there is at least an equal amount of worldly/secular/military/economic/power-related force behind the conflict between the Arabs and the Western Civilizations.  I would say even that's a conservative estimate. That's not to be ignored; a lot of bad stuff is done in the name of religion, and no matter how tolerant and respectful we might be towards their religion, that would by no means end the friction.

Warning!  Warning!  Warning!  Only read the below if you are not offended by a conservative:

Rush Limbaugh doctrine (and I paraphrase):  Regrettably, history has shown that peace rarely comes with negotiations and treaties, but rather from one side militarily enforcing it's will on another's.  

I fear that is true, and that that will never change.  We must be realistic.

----------


## cinders831

> My take on the religious aspect: 
> 
> There seems to be inheirent in Islam and the Arab world a desire to unite and form some sort of political/religious state (the so-called Pan-Arabic-whatever).  
> 
> (There are the militant Arabs, like Saddam [although he was nominally Muslim] that simply want power.  Nothing unique there, so they shouldn't be included in this discussion.)
> 
> A reasonably high percentage take their religion rather seriously, more so than in the soon-to-be completely secular West.  Their religion seems to have the tenet that all are to be Muslim or at least to live under their Muslim law (shar-something?).  Their sense of holiness dictates that.  It is a easily offended religion, I think, as recent history has shown.  
> 
> The religious Muslims seem to understand what western culture can do to destroy their holy laws/culture, and they take umbrage to Western presence and culture.  And I understand that: lots of popular Western culture, especially American, is trash.  Muslims and Christians would agree, here.
> ...


 I enjoyed reading this post.  I concur.

----------


## Spexvet

> ...
> (As a comparison, in defense of fundamentalist Christianity, its response to neighbors is to proselytize. At least in Christianity, there is an understanding that Christianity is voluntary. Yes, to those cynics that will complain of fundamentalist Christianity's attempt to interact with the world's culture, _it is voluntary._ So I would claim that at least fundamentalism in Christianity leads to no bloodshed [the rare wacko abortion-bomber is not a Christian].)


I was thinking how closely your description fit Christian fundamentalists. Please - voluntary? Trying to pass an ammendment prohibiting same-gender marriage? Taking away a woman's right to choose? Posting the ten commandments on our halls of justice? (as if it's illegal to covet!). YOU say abortion clinic bombers are not Christian, but they are, and they do it in the name of Christ.




> Rush Limbaugh doctrine (and I paraphrase): Regrettably, history has shown that peace rarely comes with negotiations and treaties, but rather from one side militarily enforcing it's will on another's.


And how's that working? War in Iraq and Afghanistan sure stopped the terrorism, didn't it? No?




> I fear that is true, and that that will never change.  We must be realistic.


When you continue to do the same old things, you get the same old results.

----------


## cinders831

> I was thinking how closely your description fit Christian fundamentalists. Please - voluntary? Trying to pass an ammendment prohibiting same-gender marriage? Taking away a woman's right to choose? Posting the ten commandments on our halls of justice? (as if it's illegal to covet!). YOU say abortion clinic bombers are not Christian, but they are, and they do it in the name of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> And how's that working? War in Iraq and Afghanistan sure stopped the terrorism, didn't it? No?
> 
> 
> 
> When you continue to do the same old things, you get the same old results.


 I will just say that NO they may claim to be christians but I am nearly sure that when they meet God he will say he did not know them,  God is of love and forgiveness and mercy not of killing people for thinking differently then you.  They are wackos claiming to be Christian just like there are wackos claiming to be muslim but I am nearly positive that they do there evils in the name of religion as a scape goat or because they really honestly have no idea the trueness and core of there religion.  I as a Christian dislike the anti abortionist tactics when blowing up buildings...I imagine there are muslims who dislike the behavior of those bombing people and places as well.  I cant believe that its hard to see that people need a reason for there craziness, its unfortunate but true...

----------


## OPTIDONN

WOW! I just have to say what a thread! Ranting and not making any points for pages can be really annoying but geeze! This is a few pages of some good thought provoking stuff!!:cheers:

----------


## Spexvet

> I will just say that NO they may claim to be christians but I am nearly sure that when they meet God he will say he did not know them, God is of love and forgiveness and mercy not of killing people for thinking differently then you. They are wackos claiming to be Christian just like there are wackos claiming to be muslim but I am nearly positive that they do there evils in the name of religion as a scape goat or because they really honestly have no idea the trueness and core of there religion.


Sounds like George W Bush

----------


## drk

Word to the wise, judge any religion apart from those who profess to adhere to it.  Adherence is the tough part!

Spex, you surely see the distinction between Christians using the legal and governmentally-approved means to promote their positions versus using violence, don't you?

----------


## rep

I posted an article and asked some questions. I never said they were my views but that I wanted some comments. I also made some statements in response to those who responded. 

Here are the responses from Robert the self proclaimed Optiboard "moderate": 


> "I am passionate about a number of things, about which I am not extreme: liberty, reason, and (tee-hee) moderation"





> rep is quite the ignoramus; it's a pretty typical characteristic amongst extremists.





> rep persists in posting comments that are borderline skinhead.





> those kinds of comments come only from the profoundly ignorant and deeply disturbed.





> we are in rep's debt for pointing out the kinds of warped and twisted people we have to watch out for..


*and the ultimate sign of reason and moderation.......link someone to being a Nazi.*



> It's what I would have done had I been in pre-Nazi Germany in the early 30's (before hightailing it out of there, after my comments fell on deaf ears). In any case, it's the same kind of crap.


Reason and moderation? Right.....................

Thanks for the lesson.


Rep

----------


## shanbaum

> Reason and moderation? Right.....................
> 
> Thanks for the lesson.
> 
> Rep


Refer to my post #62 above.  Were these not your statements?  Do you _not_ advocate cultural purity?  Did you _not_ say that a "backlash" against Islamic culture is "justified"?

----------


## rep

> Would you have removed the military bases on their holy ground if you'd known it would have prevented 9/11? Is this appeasement?


Since you seem to like definitions so much
*ap·pease·ment*  (-pzmnt) 
_n._ *1.* *a.* An act of appeasing.
*b.* The condition of being appeased.

*2.* The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.

Once you start down the slippery slope of appeasement to potential enemies there is no end. Any time you conceed to threats of violence you lose and someone else is in control.

*A question back to you*.
Would you advocate abandoning the defense and foreign aid to Israel if the Islamic terrorist threatend to blow up New York subways if we do not comply?





> I addressed rep's point the we Americans are blameless. We are not, IMHO.


Where have I said, any where, any time, any place, that Americans are blameless? 
You are making things up again and you are better than that, most of the time. 

Rep

----------


## rep

> Refer to my post #62 above. Were these not your statements? Do you _not_ advocate cultural purity? Did you _not_ say that a "backlash" against Islamic culture is "justified"?


 
so quit posting words I have never used (cultural purity)

Again you are trying to link outlandish views of your own to me.

I posted the statement "The whimsy of cultural diversity may kill us all".
I believe that. When the guidelines for screening individual comming into our country are altered in order to appease liberals striving for cultural diversity. I think we are in extreme danger. That does not advocate cultural purity only reasonable screening.

We are at war remember. It is - us against them. I am advocating that we change strategy that includes those who support, supply, house and feed terrorist who advocate and direct violence agains the US and its interest. 

This is not advocating cultural purity unless you feel that terrorist who advocate and direct violence against the US are now a new culture that needs and deserves protecting.

The comments regarding the Japanese and Germans also do not advocate cultural purity. It was a historical reference to those who stated that this is a war different from all others and propose appeasing Islamic terrorist who have sworn to kill us because *we* won't comply to *their* political and religious beliefs.

*back·lash*  (bklsh) 
_n._ *1.* A sudden or violent backward whipping motion.
*2.* An antagonistic reaction to a trend, development, or event: _"As the backlash against divorce progressed, state legislatures . . . called for a rollback of no-fault divorce laws and even for premarital waiting periods"_ _Walter Kirn._
*3.* A snarl formed in the part of a fishing line that is wound around the reel.
*4.* The play resulting from loose connections between gears or other mechanical elements.


Note the second definition. It advocates a legal backlash to a developing trend. 

In another post on this thread I stated that Blair would attempt to reintroduce provisions similar to our Patriot Act that were squashed by British liberals prior to the London bombings. It's a backlash, its happening now, but it's not violent and is not advocating cultural purity.



Rep

----------


## shanbaum

So, let me get this straight: you're _not_ promoting violence when you write, "Call it what you want, I am beginning to believe that this is a "us against them" conflict and it will not be resolved until there is no longer any of "them" willing to lift arms against us. Therefore it's time to change the rules of the game. Raising son's and daughter's to lift arms against Americans and American interest must have a price that has yet to be paid."

What is the "price" you are proposing that must be "paid", how do you propose we eliminate all those "willing to lift arms against us", who do you think they are, and where do you think they are?

----------


## Spexvet

> Spex, you surely see the distinction between Christians using the legal and governmentally-approved means to promote their positions versus using violence, don't you?


Absolutely! But you said "voluntary". To me, this doesn't mean just "not forced to by means or threat of violence". It also means "not compelled by law". Radical fundamentalist conservative Christian extremists, and those who may not be so radical or extreme seem to think that everyone in the US should have the same values that they do, ie Christian. Promoting one's religion is different than imposing one's religion.

----------


## drk

Spex, Spex:

You live in the US, and we are compelled under the law, regardless of how the law came into effect. There is no need to blame whichever group or philosophy had the influence on the lawmakers. That's the American Way: we elect our lawmakers (or they are appointed by elected officials), and if we don't like it, we vote them out.

If any group promulgated a law and it was ratified fair and square, any opposing group has it's recourse in due time.

You could, of course, be a Libertarian, but then your beef is not really with Christians.

Don't be so scared of the Evangelical Christian Right Wing. They are good for this country, and I truly believe that.

As to Christians imposing their beliefs on others, the only example I can think of would be in regards to life-and-death issues: abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research. Those values are meant to be imposed, for sure, but it's in order to protect someone who is unable to protect themselves. That's not so bad. (I know the disagreement is what the definition of "someone" is, though: Is a fetus a person? How about an Alzheimer's patient who wants to die?)

Otherwise, though, I can't conceive of Evangelicals trying to force anyone to go to church on Sunday, or dress more moderately, or donate more to the poor, or clean up their language. 

I can see Evangelicals trying to reduce the profanity, nudity, sexual content, etc. in the media (grocery store checkouts, movies, music, internet, etc.), but that should be completely voluntary and market driven, IMO. If the public wants smut, then they have a right to it, but it ought to be something that doesn't smack your 8 year-old kid in the face every time he/she turns around. We should have the right to be protected from some stuff.  I think we may be developing tastes for things that are unhealthy for us, as a society.  Profit motive may be out-pacing community responsibility.

Bottom line: Don't murder! And don't tolerate murder. There are certain standards in civilization, and all societies are to be judged by some basic standards that we all agree to. Not many societies advocate terrorism, and as such, all terrorists are to be brought to justice, as are any govenments that support terrorism (Bush Doctrine).

----------


## Spexvet

> Spex, Spex:
> 
> You live in the US, and we are compelled under the law, regardless of how the law came into effect. There is no need to blame whichever group or philosophy had the influence on the lawmakers. That's the American Way: we elect our lawmakers (or they are appointed by elected officials), and if we don't like it, we vote them out.
> 
> If any group promulgated a law and it was ratified fair and square, any opposing group has it's recourse in due time.


That's fine, just don't call it "voluntary".:cheers: 




> Don't be so scared of the Evangelical Christian Right Wing. They are good for this country, and I truly believe that.


They  :Eek:  Scare  :Eek:  Me  :Eek:  . They will take away my freedom! :finger: :angry: I don't want to live by their rules.

----------


## Spexvet

> shanbaum][/b]
> _Refer to my post #62 above. Were these not your statements? Do you not advocate cultural purity? Did you not say that a "backlash" against Islamic culture is "justified"?_







> so quit posting words I have never used (cultural purity)
> 
> 
> Rep


Rep, Robert is only asking questions, the same way you started this thread.

----------


## drk

From Frontline's website:

Bush Doctrine : The 33-page document presents a bold and comprehensive reformulation of U.S. foreign policy. It outlines a new and muscular American posture in the world -- a posture that will rely on preemption to deal with rogue states and terrorists harboring weapons of mass destruction. It states that America will exploit its military and economic power to encourage "free and open societies." It states for the first time that the U.S. will never allow its military supremacy to be challenged as it was during the Cold War. And the NSS insists that when America's vital interests are at stake, it will act alone, if necessary.

----------


## drk

> They  Scare  Me  . They will take away my freedom! :finger: :angry: I don't want to live by their rules.


That's one of the most honest statements that can be made in a discussion such as this.

Specifically, what is it that you fear you'll lose? 

I know just what you're feeling, because I've been there, but if you analyze it, you will probably come to the conclusion that it's more of an emotional fear than a rational one. You are probably 95% in agreement with Christian morals and standards.

Some examples, off the top of my head:
Do not kill
Do not steal 
Honor your parents
Turn the other cheek
Don't cheat on your spouse
Don't lust after money (greed)
Help your neighbors


Which Christian beliefs are you opposed to?

----------


## shanbaum

drk, how do you square "Don't murder! And don't tolerate murder!" with the "Bush doctrine", which, in its willingness to use preemption, risks precisely that? After all, what do you call the deaths that result from a preemptive military strike against an enemy that turns out not to have posed any threat? I mean, that could happen, couldn't it, y'know, theoretically?

----------


## shanbaum

> Some examples, off the top of my head:
> Do not kill
> Do not steal 
> Honor your parents
> Turn the other cheek
> Don't cheat on your spouse
> Don't lust after money (greed)
> Help your neighbors


'Scuse me!  'Scuse me!

_Jewish_ morals.

(OK, with the exception of the cheek thing).

----------


## drk

OF COURSE, Shanbaum.

I understand this is touchy to some Jews, but Jesus was born Jewish and all his apostles were Jewish.  Jesus deepened or internalized much of the Law, but He upheld it to the highest degree.  Western civilization and the whole world has benefitted from the Jews' special relationship with their God, YHWH, the true God.

----------


## shanbaum

> OF COURSE, Shanbaum.
> 
> I understand this is touchy to some Jews, but Jesus was born Jewish and all his apostles were Jewish. Jesus deepened or internalized much of the Law, but He upheld it to the highest degree. Western civilization and the whole world has benefitted from the Jews' special relationship with their God, YHWH, the true God.


I was teasing, but that was nice.

----------


## drk

> drk, how do you square "Don't murder! And don't tolerate murder!" with the "Bush doctrine", which, in its willingness to use preemption, risks precisely that? After all, what do you call the deaths that result from a preemptive military strike against an enemy that turns out not to have posed any threat? I mean, that could happen, couldn't it, y'know, theoretically?


This is a critical question, and one I have not heard a completely satisfactory answer to.

It has something to do with an individual's action of murder, and the right of a country, in aggregate, to defend itself. 

Obviously, homicide as we all understand it is wrong. Is what the French did to defend their country from invasion murder? Probably not. If you took a strict, personal, Christian stance, though, I would think that if someone is about to stab you in the guts with a bayonnet, and you prayed for them as they eviscerated you (see: "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do"), I think you demonstrate your faith in the Father to everyone's benefit. I think that's actually what God wants, more than us preserving our temporary way of life here on Earth.

Nonetheless, it would NOT be fair for GWB to take a pacifist stance as Commander-in-Chief of the USA, because not many are willing to lay down their lives for their enemies. He is discharging his duty, to the best of his ability, to protect the citizens of this country, and probably the world. "We" voted him in precisely because he seemed better qualified to do so.

----------


## rep

> So, let me get this straight: you're _not_ promoting violence when you write, "Call it what you want, I am beginning to believe that this is a "us against them" conflict and it will not be resolved until there is no longer any of "them" willing to lift arms against us. Therefore it's time to change the rules of the game. Raising son's and daughter's to lift arms against Americans and American interest must have a price that has yet to be paid."
> 
> What is the "price" you are proposing that must be "paid", how do you propose we eliminate all those "willing to lift arms against us", who do you think they are, and where do you think they are?


I am absolutely supporting violence and the total elimination of Islamic terrorist!, as I defined them in the previous post. Don't you? If not what's you solution other than submission and appeasement?




> What is the "price" you are proposing that must be "paid"





> how do you propose we eliminate all those "willing to lift arms against us""


 
Same answer both questions-

Totally elimination or at least hounding them to the ends of the earth, to the end of time.




> who do you think they are, and where do you think they are?


*US* - Americans and American interest

*Them* - 


> terrorist who advocate and direct violence agains the US and its interest


 AND 


> those who support, supply, house and feed those terrorist.


World Wide - including here in the US. 

For the example. CNN Just reported the individual the British think is responsible for constructing the bombs in London was recently attending a North Carolina University.

Anothere example. A radical muslum leader in the US was convicted of advocating violence against Americans. He was given life imprisonment when some of his followers took his advise. 

Surely your not defending these misguided souls,    or are you?

If you read the post again you will recall that I said changing the law is not violent. 

Rep

----------


## shanbaum

> Nonetheless, it would NOT be fair for GWB to take a pacifist stance as Commander-in-Chief of the USA, because not many are willing to lay down their lives for their enemies. He is discharging his duty, to the best of his ability, to protect the citizens of this country, and probably the world.


Well, that's an interesting answer, but I take exception to your using preemption and pacifism as antonyms - by which standard, every prior president was a pacifist.

We could probably agree that our collective actions should reflect our collective values, no?

----------


## rep

> From Frontline's website:
> 
> Bush Doctrine : The 33-page document presents a bold and comprehensive reformulation of U.S. foreign policy. It outlines a new and muscular American posture in the world -- a posture that will rely on preemption to deal with rogue states and terrorists harboring weapons of mass destruction. It states that America will exploit its military and economic power to encourage "free and open societies." It states for the first time that the U.S. will never allow its military supremacy to be challenged as it was during the Cold War. And the NSS insists that when America's vital interests are at stake, it will act alone, if necessary.


that 9/11 changed American foreign policy forever.

I personally am leaning towards the Isralli methods of retalliation.

Send bombers against our people - we flatten your house like a pancake.

Up close and personal.


Rep

----------


## drk

> Well, that's an interesting answer, but I take exception to your using preemption and pacifism as antonyms - by which standard, every prior president was a pacifist.
> 
> We could probably agree that our collective actions should reflect our collective values, no?


I can understand the disagreement with a preemptive policy.  We could take a more reactionary approach, and err on the side of caution when it comes to protecting our "image"/diplomatic standing in that part of the world, and caution when preserving foriegn lives.  Or, we could take the more aggressive stance that we have, in the hopes that we will err on the side of protecting American lives.  That's probably the calculation that has been made, and whether it will work or not will have to play out over the next 4 yrs, at least.  It could be a mistake, and lead to more strife and death, or it could be a language that the terrorists understand.

I think after 9/11 the (large) majority was looking for "something" to do to combat the events.  GW gave it to them.  He was (however narrowly) affirmed in the 2004 election for doing so.

I think our actions should reflect our collective values, like you.  It's just becoming more difficult to collectivize anything in America, anymore.  It's not just multiculturalism, its primarily because there are two predominant, conflicting, world views in America vying for dominance.  These world views are in conflict like never before: Secular humanism is on the rise, and the Judeo-Christian ethic is on the decline.

----------


## shanbaum

> I am absolutely supporting violence and the total elimination of Islamic terrorist!, as I defined them in the previous post. Don't you? If not what's you solution other than submission and appeasement?
> 
> Surely your not defending these misguided souls, or are you?


Look, rep, I wish you could make yourself more clear; maybe you wouldnt sound like such a lunatic. You may not realize that when you spoke of the whimsy of cultural diversity  I suspect you meant the folly of cultural diversity  you spoke not of an immigration policy, but a social doctrine that holds that diverse societies cannot succeed; that only homogenous ones can. 



Now, an immigration policy that seeks to keep terrorists out is only common sense. But how does such a policy work? Do we just close our borders altogether? Is that really practical? Do we not admit swarthy bearded men? What about me? Would such a policy really produce desirable outcomes? One thing we should be able to see from the London bombings is that keeping foreigners out of England would not have prevented the bombings  those guys were born there. Do you think the British should throw out everyone who is not - what - white? (Note: that would be a skinhead idea). Let me guess: you think they should just throw out the terrorists? OK. All we need is a terrorist detector. Wouldnt that solve a mess o troubles?



Likewise, its only common sense to have a policy of finding terrorists and neutralizing them. However, were you to spend a little more time reflecting on the practicalities of the task, you would realize that eliminating all terrorists is really not something that translates directly into action; nor is hounding them to the ends of the Earth, and for all time  in fact, the two arent really even the same class of object. The former is an objective, and the latter would be a tactic, if it were anything more than rhetoric (that is, how, exactly, does one do that?). Its certainly not a given that the objective of eliminating all terrorists is well-promoted by trying to inflict extreme pain on even just the terrorists  after all, threatening a suicidal maniac with death isnt likely to be particularly compelling, is it? I think hes really not going to be persuaded by such a threat. And threatening harm to the people around the terrorists is almost certain to be counter-productive. If they werent inclined to the dark side before, they will be after. Unless, of course, theyre dead, in which case, their next of kin seek vengeance. Do you see why its a vicious cycle?



And while there might be something real satisfying about the Israeli solution, it really hasnt worked particularly well for Israel. 



You seem very angry and frustrated, and you direct that anger and frustration at liberals who want to appease the enemy. Well, no one wants to appease the enemy, at least, Ive never heard of anyone who does. I certainly dont. Thats one reason I oppose Bushs approach  I think hes giving the enemy exactly what he wants, and is in fact creating _more_ terrorists in the process (which, of course, was bin Ladens objective). Now, thats just my opinion, but I think its a reasonably thoughtful one. Its not a particularly satisfying one, from an emotional standpoint. The emotionally-satisfying approach is to invade, and kill, and wreak vengeance. But I dont think that vengeance is going to produce the desired outcome  in fact, I think its going to produce something like the _opposite_ of the desired outcome, as it usually does. I think that if we lose our sense of compassion, and lose our respect for the value of the lives of our fellow human beings  whether they are just like us (and I use that term loosely) or not - then there will be no Christian-nurtured culture worth having. And to me, that sounds like defeat, no matter how many bad guys we kill.



Not killing is not the same as appeasing. It may well be the case that the only way to defeat this enemy is by stealth and guile. And even if its not the only way, it may be the better way.



Now, if I heard you wrong, and you _werent_ advocating cultural homogeneity, and you _werent_ advocating tactics certain to result in the killing of innocent people, then I apologize. But if thats the case, then I have no idea what you were trying, and failing, to say.

----------


## rep

How about answering a few of my questions?


What do you think the Islamic terrorist want from us?If screening for Islamic terrorist is "only common sense". How do you propose to accomplish this task since your previous post state that you are opposed to pre-emptive strikes and effective screening? Explain your specific tactics using stealth and guile in defeating terrorism - your -------better way of protecting America. Calling those who differ with your political position; lunatics, deeply disturbed, warped and twisted, borderline skinheads, extremist and my personal favorite Nazi-like, suggest that *you*, not I, are angry and frustrated and I will add emotional to boot.



Rep

----------


## rsandr

> that 9/11 changed American foreign policy forever.
> 
> I personally am leaning towards the Isralli methods of retalliation.
> 
> Send bombers against our people - we flatten your house like a pancake.
> 
> Up close and personal.
> 
> 
> Rep


Why do you not want to be better than the bombers Rep?
Iraq is hardly more peaceful since we flattened their house like a pancake is it?

Rick

----------


## chip anderson

Shouldn't someone remind the terrorists and (appearentlly the Chinese after yesterday) that *no one builds a better bomb* than the United States?

----------


## rsandr

> Shouldn't someone remind the terrorists and (appearentlly the Chinese after yesterday) that *no one builds a better bomb* than the United States?


Must make you proud to be American.

Rick

----------


## spartus

> Must make you proud to be American.
> 
> Rick


We also make a pretty mean cheeseburger. I think I'm slightly prouder of that right now.

Then again, I skipped lunch.

----------


## rep

> Why do you not want to be better than the bombers Rep?
> Iraq is hardly more peaceful since we flattened their house like a pancake is it?
> 
> Rick


Blair said, 


_"If it is the plight of the Palestinians that drives them, why, every time it looks as if Israel and Palestine are making progress, does the same ideology perpetrate an outrage that turns hope back into despair?_ 

_"If it is Afghanistan that motivates them, why blow up innocent Afghans on their way to their first-ever election?_ 
__ 
_"If it is Iraq that motivates them, why is the same ideology killing Iraqis by terror in defiance of an elected Iraqi government?_ 

_"What was 11 September 2001 the reprisal for?"_ 

I would add Spain to that list. They found more bombs planted AFTER Spain withdrew from Iraq. So withdrawal did them little good with the terrorist.

This isn't an ethics class regarding who has superior morals. This is war against an enemy that wants nothing less than our total destruction or submission to them. They think all of Europe is their domain. 

Our combined military "flattened" very few houses in the Iraqi invasion. Unusual care was taken not to disturbe civillian life, more than any previous war, from any other country. Make no mistake in thinking, taking those precautions cost American and British soldiers additional killed and wounded. 

I am sorry for the loss of life in Britian, but I am also sorry for the three thousand Americans murdered in New York, Washington and PA. 

I am afraid that many Americans have already forgotton our loss.

Rep

----------


## shanbaum

> How about answering a few of my questions?
> 
> What do you think the Islamic terrorist want from us?If screening for Islamic terrorist is "only common sense". How do you propose to accomplish this task since your previous post state that you are opposed to pre-emptive strikes and effective screening? Explain your specific tactics using stealth and guile in defeating terrorism - your -------better way of protecting America. Calling those who differ with your political position; lunatics, deeply disturbed, warped and twisted, borderline skinheads, extremist and my personal favorite Nazi-like, suggest that *you*, not I, are angry and frustrated and I will add emotional to boot.
> 
> 
> 
> Rep


Short as I can make em:



1. Al-Qaeda wants different things from us in the short and long terms. In the short term, they wanted us to engage them as a specific adversary. After 9/11, they obtained that; we made them a global player. Thats what they were trying to do right along, with the relatively minor attacks of the 1990s  to goad us into taking them on as an adversary, because this elevates their stature amongst the people they are trying to influence. As our adversary, they become a more credible alternative to the existing Arab governments. The experience in Iran in the 1980s demonstrated the power of hate to them  that its a lot easier to provoke animosity towards the West and towards the U.S. as the leader of the West, than it is to provoke animosity towards their current leaders, whatever theyre like. They want to fan those fires, and eventually turn them on the current Arab leadership  which is their long-term goal: to establish a pan-Arab theocracy, with them at the helm.


So, in the short run, they want us there, both to generate hatred and opposition to the existing orders, and eventually to conquer us, by one way or another, getting us to leave, thus making themselves the heroes in a recapitulation of Muhammads struggle.



Thats why Clarke referred to Bushs obsession with invading Iraq at channeling bin Laden, and why, at this point, theyre still tickled to have us occupying an Arab country. Lots of people are getting killed, and even though the vast majority of those killed are Iraqis, the bad guys know that a lot of the survivors will blame us. If they _didnt_ want us there, well, surely it has occurred to the bad guys that all they have to do to get the U.S. out of Iraq at this point is take a six-month vacation.



2. First of all, I didnt say I was opposed to effective screening; nor is there any direct relationship between the preemption doctrine and immigration. I said that I thought that closing our borders, along with a number of other Draconian steps, was impractical. Im all in favor of effective screening, which I think is going to involve two things, primarily: one, spending a whole lot more money on it, and two, establishing, through cooperation with the countries from which visitors are coming, more robust processes to actually, uh, screen. Because Im not an expert in managing immigration, I can only really respond at that relatively high, conceptual level. I certainly reject the notion that we must protect our culture from contamination by lesser peoples, which I sense is a part of your worldview.



3. I dont have _specific_ tactics to offer; Im not an anti-terror tactician. However, it seems to me that the kinds of actions most likely to be effective in actually preventing terror include intelligence and police work. I think its perfectly clear that no army could have prevented _any_ of the terror attacks that have occurred so far. Intelligence, however, could have. The entire 9/11 plot might have been unraveled had George Tenant paid attention to that guy in Minnesota (or wherever it was) who, he _knew_, had sought to learn to how to fly, but not land, an aircraft. Its also clear that armies will not directly defeat the pernicious ideology that the radical Islamists spread  thats another categorical mismatch: army v. ideology. I think that a reasonable strategy  by which I mean, one that could actually work  would be to support alternative ideologies, and undermine the bad ones. Again, this is hardly my area of expertise, but Im thinking of things like countering the radical _madrasas_ by paying for the educations of lots of young Muslims in _non-radical_ Islamic schools. _Hamas_ apparently gets a lot of support amongst Palestinians because they provide social services  why arent we competing for those hearts and minds in _that_ arena? Is it sensible to let _Hamas_ win because they out-_care_ us?



Maybe you start by simply affording these people a little respect. A couple of days ago, Europe came to a standstill for two minutes to honor the victims of the London bombings. Yesterday, a nut-case killed almost 100 innocent Iraqis by blowing himself up in a tanker truck. Where is their "two minutes"?



With regard to your last comment, I am content to let people read your posts, and read mine, and decide for themselves.

----------


## chm2023

> Shouldn't someone remind the terrorists and (appearentlly the Chinese after yesterday) that *no one builds a better bomb* than the United States?


You are missing the point--bombs don't help you when the enemy is diffused--the terrorists who bombed London, lived in London.  We bombed the hell out of Iraq and and where are the terrorists thriving today, per W?  Right, Iraq.  We need a new game plan.

----------


## Spexvet

> Since you seem to like definitions so much
> *ap·pease·ment*  (-pzmnt) 
> _n._ *1.* *a.* An act of appeasing.
> *b.* The condition of being appeased.
> 
> *2.* The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.
> 
> Once you start down the slippery slope of appeasement to potential enemies there is no end. Any time you conceed to threats of violence you lose and someone else is in control.


I'll grant you: According to the definition it would be appeasement.




> *A question back to you*.
> Would you advocate abandoning the defense and foreign aid to Israel if the Islamic terrorist threatend to blow up New York subways if we do not comply?


There's a huge difference between abandoning an ally and moving our bases from holy soil. Had I known that it would have prevented 9/11, I  would not abandon Israel, but I would have moved our bases.




> Where have I said, any where, any time, any place, that Americans are blameless? 
> You are making things up again and you are better than that, most of the time. 
> 
> Rep


So when you say:




> ... Winning the war means giving up something - what a *wonderful blame us position* - really glad you are not negotiating for the U.S. *Typical hogwash about 9/11 being our fault and WE are to blame* for hungry Muslums? *Wow what a pantload*. ... 
> Rep


you mean that you agree that the US bears some of the blame?

----------


## Spexvet

> From Frontline's website:
> 
> Bush Doctrine : The 33-page document presents a bold and comprehensive reformulation of U.S. foreign policy. It outlines a new and muscular American posture in the world -- a posture that will rely on preemption to deal with rogue states and terrorists harboring weapons of mass destruction. It states that America will exploit its military and economic power to encourage "free and open societies." It states for the first time that the U.S. will never allow its military supremacy to be challenged as it was during the Cold War. And the NSS insists that when America's vital interests are at stake, it will act alone, if necessary.


Doesn't sound very Christian to me.:hammer:

----------


## chip anderson

Sounds like the best policy for our political leaders though.   We didn't elect Bush and other officials to be Christian Leaders with love in thier hearts.  Thier job is to protect the Constitution and Citizens of the United States.  We had nearly 15,000,000 Christians under arms to *kill* the enemies of the United States in WWII.   It wasn't Christian and it wasn't nice, but it was what needed to be done at the time.   The president is "Commander and Chief" of the armed forces which means when there is killin to be done, he has to act like a military leader not Lay Leader of the Methodist Church.

Chip :Eek:

----------


## Spexvet

> ...
>  We didn't elect Bush and other officials to be Christian Leaders with love in thier hearts. 
> ... 
> Chip


I agree. So keep the ten commandments out of the courthouses, and stop trying to legislate who can marry whom, and stop trying to force a person to live when they're brain dead, and stop trying to take away a woman's right to choose!

Thanks for your agreement and support, Chip.

----------


## rsandr

> Sounds like the best policy for our political leaders though. We didn't elect Bush and other officials to be Christian Leaders with love in thier hearts. Thier job is to protect the Constitution and Citizens of the United States. We had nearly 15,000,000 Christians under arms to *kill* the enemies of the United States in WWII. It wasn't Christian and it wasn't nice, but it was what needed to be done at the time. The president is "Commander and Chief" of the armed forces which means when there is killin to be done, he has to act like a military leader not Lay Leader of the Methodist Church.
> 
> Chip


In WWII was it not necessary because anther country was on the attack?
I dont see that at the minute, maybe you could enlighten me.

PS re an earlier post of yours what is going in in China?

Rick

----------


## Spexvet

You can't have it both ways. Some posters want a "Christian Nation". A true Christian, after 9/11 would have turned the other cheek! These same posters want to kill, kill, kill. How can you reconcile these two opposing points of view without being hypocritical!

----------


## chip anderson

Even Jesus Christ once said:  "It is time to sell your cloaks and buy swords."

----------


## Spexvet

> Even Jesus Christ once said: "It is time to sell your cloaks and buy swords."


and

*Matthew 26:52*
"Put your *sword* back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the *sword* will die by the *sword*."


Quote where he said "and kill people with those swords".

----------


## rinselberg

> There's a huge difference between abandoning an ally and moving our bases from holy soil. Had I known that it would have prevented 9/11, I  would not abandon Israel, but I would have moved our bases.


I suppose that by "holy soil", Spexvet is referring to the robust military presence that the U.S. maintained in Saudi Arabia for over a decade after the first Gulf War: A military presence that has now been drawn down for the most part, and relocated to other Gulf states like Kuwait and Bahrain.

I think it is grasping at straws to suggest that had the U.S. drawn down its forces in Saudi Arabia prior to 09/11/2001, then there would not have been any Nine-Eleven attack. Al-Qaeda has a whole raft of "grievances" touching on the U.S., Israel, Western Europe, the Middle East and on and on. Their only M.O. is terror and they have no shortage of excuses for recruiting terrorists and attempting to rationalize their attacks. The drawdown and relocation of U.S. forces from Saudi Arabia to other Gulf States has no doubt been a major expense and inconvenience to the U.S. and could not have been undertaken without very careful deliberation.

----------


## chip anderson

You lookin in the wrong place quote is correct.

----------


## shanbaum

> You lookin in the wrong place quote is correct.


 
http://www.ecapc.org/newspage_detail.asp?control=703

----------


## Spexvet

> You lookin in the wrong place quote is correct.


I didn't say it was incorrect. I asked you to cite the passage where He said to kill people with the sword that they were supposed to buy.

----------


## rinselberg

> I dont have _specific_ tactics to offer; Im not an anti-terror tactician. However, it seems to me that the kinds of actions most likely to be effective in actually preventing terror include intelligence and police work. I think its perfectly clear that no army could have prevented _any_ of the terror attacks that have occurred so far. Intelligence, however, could have. The entire 9/11 plot might have been unraveled had George Tenant paid attention to that guy in Minnesota (or wherever it was) who, he _knew_, had sought to learn to how to fly, but not land, an aircraft. Its also clear that armies will not directly defeat the pernicious ideology that the radical Islamists spread  thats another categorical mismatch: army v. ideology. I think that a reasonable strategy  by which I mean, one that could actually work  would be to support alternative ideologies, and undermine the bad ones. Again, this is hardly my area of expertise, but Im thinking of things like countering the radical _madrasas_ by paying for the educations of lots of young Muslims in _non-radical_ Islamic schools. _Hamas_ apparently gets a lot of support amongst Palestinians because they provide social services  why arent we competing for those hearts and minds in _that_ arena? Is it sensible to let _Hamas_ win because they out-_care_ us?


Hello Shanbaum,

I don't think that your ideas or suggestions, as you describe them (above), are all that different from the way that the Bush administration has pursued and continues to pursue the GWOT (Global War On Terror). Of course you have your differences with the Bush administration over our recent and current involvement in Iraq. You talk about "competing for hearts and minds" and bring up the social services provided by Hamas. I would like to comment very briefly on the economic development and humanitarian assistance that the U.S. has traditionally provided and continues to provide to countries with large Islamic populations all over the world.

As a percentage of our GNP, the federal allocation for foreign aid probably does not remark the U.S. as the single most generous country in the world in terms of its foreign aid. But in absolute money, the cumulative and continuing U.S. assistance to Islamic countries worldwide comes to many, many billions of dollars. There is USAID. The various U.N. economic and humanitarian programs that the U.S. contributes to. The World Bank. The International Monetary Fund. U.S.-based private charities and relief organizations. DoD civil affairs and reconstruction projects in Iraq, and DoD and NATO civil affairs and reconstruction programs in Afghanistan. The CIA World Factbook has a country by country breakdown that includes a separate line for the economic aid recieved from the international community, which almost invariably includes the U.S. as a donor country. The list of recipient countries with large Islamic populations includes Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kosovo, Lebanon, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines and the transitional Palestine.

As an aside about George Tenet, I have heard different versions of what happened when Nine-Eleven suspect Zacarias Moussaoui enrolled for commercial air training just prior to the Nine-Eleven attack. One version is that Moussaoui said that he was not interested in landing the airplane; another, that he was not interested in takeoffs -- and another version in which Moussaoui said and did nothing to set himself apart from the legitimate students. Perhaps the truth is buried in the classified section of the Nine-Eleven commission's report. But your point is well taken: There should have been better intelligence, and the Nine-Eleven attack should have been prevented.

----------


## Spexvet

Does anybody wonder why Iraq was chosen to be invaded? If we're fighting radical fundamental Muslim extremists, wasn't Pakistan a much more appropriate choice? Or Saudi Arabia, home of most of the 9/11 hijackers? Saddam was very secular compared to the nations that surrounded him. Why not invade Iran or Syria, both much more extreme and radical than Iraq. No intelligence would need to be "misinterpreted" - I think Americans would have supported war on Pakistan, Iran, or Syria to a greater degree than war on Iraq. We all agree Saddam was a nasty guy, but he was killing his own radical fundamentalist Muslim extremist on his own soil while Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were exporting theirs.

Any thoughts?

----------


## chm2023

> Does anybody wonder why Iraq was chosen to be invaded? If we're fighting radical fundamental Muslim extremists, wasn't Pakistan a much more appropriate choice? Or Saudi Arabia, home of most of the 9/11 hijackers? Saddam was very secular compared to the nations that surrounded him. Why not invade Iran or Syria, both much more extreme and radical than Iraq. No intelligence would need to be "misinterpreted" - I think Americans would have supported war on Pakistan, Iran, or Syria to a greater degree than war on Iraq. We all agree Saddam was a nasty guy, but he was killing his own radical fundamentalist Muslim extremist on his own soil while Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were exporting theirs.
> 
> Any thoughts?


Because it was *easy* compared to your other options.
1)  Americans knew Saddam was a baddie.
2)  Iraq was a renegade nation, who's gonna defend them?
3)  Saudia Arabia?  Yeah right.
4)  Pakistan and Iran actually have WMD, Pakistan has had nukes for a while.
5)  Bush wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11;  after 9/11 he wanted to respond militarily.  A marriage of convenience.  

When you actually write it down, it scarcely seems possible that the country fell for this.

----------


## chm2023

> Warning! Warning! Warning! Only read the below if you are not offended by a conservative:
> 
> Rush Limbaugh doctrine (and I paraphrase): Regrettably, history has shown that peace rarely comes with negotiations and treaties, but rather from one side militarily enforcing it's will on another's. 
> 
> I fear that is true, and that that will never change. We must be realistic.


If what Limbaugh says is true, would not war be the rule, and peace the exception?  The US has been at war maybe 20 years out of almost 220 years.  We are constantly negotiating and have scores of treaties.  By Limbaugh's "doctrine" (shudder) these are contra-indicators.   So I guess we need to consider the possibility that Limbaugh is not a great historian.  I'll be damned.

----------


## rsandr

> Even Jesus Christ once said: "It is time to sell your cloaks and buy swords."


I dont want to be inflammatory here but......
Outside of the US people seem to think that the US is rather trigger happy. If we are being honest a lot of the posts in this thread seem to add foundation to that.
How do Americans feel about this generally? 

I am not talking about feelings after 9/11, indeed on that day I would have excused the US for bombing Afghanistan back into the stone age.

Rick

----------


## chm2023

> I dont want to be inflammatory here but......
> Outside of the US people seem to think that the US is rather trigger happy. If we are being honest a lot of the posts in this thread seem to add foundation to that.
> How do Americans feel about this generally? 
> 
> I am not talking about feelings after 9/11, indeed on that day I would have excused the US for bombing Afghanistan back into the stone age.
> 
> Rick


I don't think it's a question of Americans being trigger happy necessarily. It's a question of being arrogant--we assumed (well not all of us;) ) that we could impose our will on Iraq. Comes from a straight assessment of fact--we are the only remaining super power--combined with self-righteousness and not a little naivete. Voila. Bush I believe could be described as trigger happy. I sometimes think the only thing keeping him out of Iran and North Korea is lack of troops. It's an ill wind as they say.

----------


## drk

> Even Jesus Christ once said: "It is time to sell your cloaks and buy swords."


Couldn't find that one in the online Bible.  Source?

----------


## shanbaum

> Couldn't find that one in the online Bible. Source?


See link in post #114 above.

----------


## drk

> Because it was *easy* compared to your other options.
> 1) Americans knew Saddam was a baddie.
> 2) Iraq was a renegade nation, who's gonna defend them?
> 3) Saudia Arabia? Yeah right.
> 4) Pakistan and Iran actually have WMD, Pakistan has had nukes for a while.
> 5) Bush wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11; after 9/11 he wanted to respond militarily. A marriage of convenience. 
> 
> When you actually write it down, it scarcely seems possible that the country fell for this.


Bush's motivation for invading Iraq was?
Bloodlust?  Family vendetta?  Support Halliburton?

----------


## drk

> See link in post #114 above.


Thanks, Shanbaum.  My interpretation is sort of what the author of the post said.  Needless to say, Jesus was not advocating violence, He was just expressing the changes that were about to occur.

As to GW being a pacifist Christian and his role protecting the US:

1.) GW was not elected to run this country as a Christian nation.  Any Christian (and there ARE many) that aspire to make this a Christian nation are misled.  A nation OF Christians is one thing, a Christian nation is another, if you can follow that...

2.) GW is a Christian in a secular job.  He has a job to do.  I think he has to stay true to his beliefs, but if they would disqualify him for C-I-C, he would step down.

----------


## drk

> If what Limbaugh says is true, would not war be the rule, and peace the exception? The US has been at war maybe 20 years out of almost 220 years. We are constantly negotiating and have scores of treaties. By Limbaugh's "doctrine" (shudder) these are contra-indicators. So I guess we need to consider the possibility that Limbaugh is not a great historian. I'll be damned.


I'm probably not doing it justice.  It made sense on his website.  No link available.

----------


## drk

> You can't have it both ways. Some posters want a "Christian Nation". A true Christian, after 9/11 would have turned the other cheek! These same posters want to kill, kill, kill. How can you reconcile these two opposing points of view without being hypocritical!


Actually, you can't.  That is a very difficult teaching to follow, though.  Please remember, judge not the religion by it's aherents...judge the religion itself.

----------


## Spexvet

> 2.) GW is a Christian in a secular job. He has a job to do. I think he has to stay true to his beliefs, but if they would disqualify him for C-I-C, he would step down.


Bush talks a good game, but talks Christian values only when it suits him, and acts in a Christian manner even less often (that I've been exposed to). Having said that, you can't be Christian in your personal life, and not Christian in your professional life. That is the epitome of hypocricy. :hammer:

----------


## Spexvet

> Bush's motivation for invading Iraq was?
> Bloodlust?  Family vendetta?  Support Halliburton?


How can you explain the irrational? Good to have you in this forum, drk.

----------


## rinselberg

With so much bad news coming out of Iraq lately, it's not surprising that Americans find themselves sharply divided about the U.S. involvement there.

But I don't understand this statement:


> Does anybody wonder why Iraq was chosen to be invaded? If we're fighting radical fundamental Muslim extremists, wasn't Pakistan a much more appropriate choice? Or Saudi Arabia, home of most of the 9/11 hijackers? Saddam was very secular compared to the nations that surrounded him. Why not invade Iran or Syria, both much more extreme and radical than Iraq. No intelligence would need to be "misinterpreted" - I think Americans would have supported war on Pakistan, Iran, or Syria to a greater degree than war on Iraq. *We all agree [that] Saddam was a nasty guy, but he was killing his own radical, fundamentalist Muslim extremists on his own soil,  while Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were exporting theirs.*


Saddam was killing radical, fundamentalist Muslim extremists ...?

Oh yeah, he probably killed a few extremists.

Is there any concern in this statement about the "common" people that Saddam had already killed before we intervened in Iraq, was in the process of killing at the time that we intervened in Iraq or would probably have killed in the future if we had not finally intervened in Iraq? The "common" Muslim, as the phrase came up in two of the earlier posts in this thread:


> ...  if we had the lives that most *common Muslims* have ... exploiting *common Middle Eastern workers* by our multinational corporations ...


Saddam's al-Anfal campaign in Iraq's Kurdish populated northern region.
_Genocide._
http://www.answers.com/topic/al-anfal-campaign

Saddam's campaign to eliminate the Marsh Arabs from Iraq.
_Genocide._
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/marsharabs.html

Saddam's victims: How many common Muslims, Middle East workers, Arabs ... Vs. how many extremists?





> We all agree [that] Saddam was a nasty guy, but he was killing his own radical, fundamentalist Muslim extremists on his own soil,  while Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were exporting theirs.


Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have turned towards more sensible national polices, on the whole, after they drew the conclusions that needed to be drawn from the 09/11 attack.

Iran and Syria are still problematic.





> Why not invade Iran or Syria, both much more extreme and radical than Iraq?


Oh really? The logical comparison would be between Iran and Syria on  the one hand, and on the other hand, Iraq as it was under Saddam Hussein. Nothing could be more radical than Saddam's 1990 attempted annexation of Kuwait -- which was opposed by almost the entire international community. Nothing could be more radical than the genocides that Saddam had perpetrated, two of which I just referenced (above).





> Any thoughts?


I think that Spexvet's latest posts are sometimes in conflict -- with Spexvet's previous posts.

That's a wrap!

----------


## rsandr

> Our combined military "flattened" very few houses in the Iraqi invasion. Unusual care was taken not to disturbe civillian life, more than any previous war, from any other country. 
> Rep


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...icle300368.ece

*Brief quote*
.......
Almost 25,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed during the two years of war and insurgency that began with the US-led invasion in March 2003. More than a third have died as a result of action by allied forces. 
Almost 10,000 civilians killed by the military.

........

With the conflict still costing 34 civilian lives per day and the country descending into anarchy maybe it goes to show that you cant force peace.
Despite having the biggest bombs.

Rick

----------


## chm2023

> Bush's motivation for invading Iraq was?
> Bloodlust? Family vendetta? Support Halliburton?


Well guessing someone's motives is always problematic. I think there may have been some need to avenge his dad's "unfinished business" with Saddam, but in the main I believe Bush is a simple man with little understanding of the complexities of the large issues of our time. Bad Arabs attacked us, Saddam is a bad Arab. Next case.

The issue of WMD--whose existence,contrary to popular opinion, was challenged at many levels pre-war--falls short of the point. The rationale that post 9/11 the US needed to be more aggressive in dealing militarily with armed enemies does not indicate a straight line to Iraq, it would more likely lead to North Korea or Iran or even Pakistan. (And of course the gross folly of responding in a traditional military manner to a terrorist attack should by now be self-evident).

If you look at what Bush said building up to war, he makes a connection (mostly by strong implication) that the obvious response to 9/11 was invading Iraq. So you get to that old Reagan Iran-Contra conundrum: is the president uninformed and dim, or is the president deliberately misleading the country? My choice is the former, the neo-cons who surrounded Bush guided him to the outcome they wanted. (If you doubt this, find some of Wolfowitz's et al pre 9/11 articles; they are very forthright about needing to take out Saddam and establish a beachhead for democracy). 9/11 wasn't a reason to invade Iraq, it was an excuse.

----------


## Spexvet

> But I don't understand this statement:Saddam was killing radical, fundamentalist Muslim extremists ...?
> 
> Oh yeah, he probably killed a few extremists.


Being as Saddam was secular, his internal enemies were most likely Muslim fundamentalists, except for the Kurds. So, yes, he killed Muslim extremists.




> Is there any concern in this statement about the "common" people that Saddam had already killed before we intervened in Iraq, was in the process of killing at the time that we intervened in Iraq or would probably have killed in the future if we had not finally intervened in Iraq? The "common" Muslim, as the phrase came up in two of the earlier posts in this thread:Saddam's al-Anfal campaign in Iraq's Kurdish populated northern region.


Saving the "common" people is a laudable goal, but NOT the goal of the Bush administration. Are you forgetting that this is a WAR ON TERROR? It's not a WAR ON TYRANNY or a WAR ON MISTREATING THE COMMON PEOPLE YOU RULE. And the exploitation of common Muslims by Corporate America has certainly increased terrorism, not reduced it. So we've traded Saddam killing his own people for our military and civilian contractors being killed, and we still have not addressed terrorism, which originates in Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. 




> Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have turned towards more sensible national polices, on the whole, after they drew the conclusions that needed to be drawn from the 09/11 attack.


Maybe their governments have, but the London bombings were done by ethnic Pakistanis. Is that sensible policy?




> Iran and Syria are still problematic.


No kidding.




> Oh really? The logical comparison would be between Iran and Syria on the one hand, and on the other hand, Iraq as it was under Saddam Hussein. Nothing could be more radical than Saddam's 1990 attempted annexation of Kuwait -- which was opposed by almost the entire international community. Nothing could be more radical than the genocides that Saddam had perpetrated, two of which I just referenced (above).


Again - unacceptable, imperialism, tyranny. But that's not terrorism, and we're supposed to be waging a WAR ON TERRORISM. 




> I think that Spexvet's latest posts are sometimes in conflict -- with Spexvet's previous posts.


Hopefully, my further explanation will cause you to reconsider.

----------


## drk

> .. in the main I believe Bush is a simple man with little understanding of the complexities of the large issues of our time. Bad Arabs attacked us, Saddam is a bad Arab. Next case.
> 
> ..Reagan Iran-Contra conundrum: is the president uninformed and dim, or is the president deliberately misleading the country? My choice is the former... 
> 
> ..9/11 wasn't a reason to invade Iraq, it was an excuse.


I don't disagree with much of this, except that you underestimate Bush and reduce him to a cartoon. It's highly unlikely that he is a buffoon, and if you consider all the resources he has available to him, it's rather unthinkable. I realize he is a poor communicator, at best, and that lends itself to your illusion. (Compare JFKerry or Clinton or even Reagan.)

I agree that there was some "tenuous-ness" to the Iraq-9/11 linkage. I do think that to gather international and internal support that there was maximum dog-and-pony invoked. It may border on mislead, but not a frank "lie" as some suggest.

However, there is a bigger point. Saddam was a bad dude. He was no good for the region's long-term stability. He was an international outlaw. He was capable of trying anything. He needed to go. No one can argue with that, I don't think.

In retrospect (which we did not have at the time, obviously), Dad and Schwartzkopf should have taken down the regime, instead of doing what they were compelled to do, which was to have a limited campaign, with achievable objectives, yada, yada, yada. We did the minimum of what needed to be done, and that was "prudent" at the time. We really needed to finish the job, though, and I doubt that is argueable, either.

So yes, I do think Bush maximized the terrorist angle and that there was an ulterior, more conventional, military objective there. It has been accomplished, in a conventional, military sense. Take out the regime, put in an as-Western-friendly-as-possible new regime. It's ugly, but it's possible that it will work. 

As to the international-relations thing, we should start to realize that the envy of the US standard of living and our overwhelming military capacity is going to polarize our relationships with other countries, regardless of our policies. The only sensical thing to do is to live up to our own (hopefully high) standards, as opposed to trying to make everyone else happy. It's not realistic.

----------


## drk

> Bush talks a good game, but talks Christian values only when it suits him, and acts in a Christian manner even less often (that I've been exposed to). Having said that, you can't be Christian in your personal life, and not Christian in your professional life. That is the epitome of hypocricy. :hammer:


Thanks, Spexvet.

Take me for example: Obviously, I'm a Christian to the max. Nonetheless, do I try to evangelize my co-workers and patients? I think not. They are coming to me for a service, and I do my job for them to the best of my abilities.

I do however try to function in a manner consistent with my ethics and values, and generally make "the Big Guy" happy. 

As to the President, I assume he had to make a decision as to whether God would want him to run for office, and discharge the duties faithfully. Huge responsibility, no? Apparently GWB felt he should. 

Now he is the Christian President of a non-Christian nation. He owes the nation leadership and not imposition of his values--that's not why GWB took the job, IMO. 

Of course his viewpoint of the world is a Christian one. But again, he is not an emperor or dictator, so his viewpoint, while being dominant, is not without severe checks and balances. This government is pretty sturdy. 

Contrarily, (not to stir the pot) I can guarantee you that the new Supreme Court Justice nominee is anti-abortion and that the law will be overturned, given the chance. That's another story.

----------


## shanbaum

> Of course his viewpoint of the world is a Christian one. But again, he is not an emperor or dictator, so his viewpoint, while being dominant, is not without severe checks and balances. This government is pretty sturdy. 
> 
> Contrarily, (not to stir the pot) I can guarantee you that the new Supreme Court Justice nominee is anti-abortion and that the law will be overturned, given the chance. That's another story.


 
So, which is it? W is not supposed to "impose" his Christian values on American foreign policy, but it's OK for him to impose them on domestic policy?

----------


## drk

Thought-provoking question. I may need to backpedal.

I think that perhaps the better theory is that he probably _doesn't_ personally believe that an individual Christian _must_ die for his enemies, let alone try to create policy that is so pacifist that _we all must die_ for our enemies. He would not reasonably run for president if he were supporting such extreme measures, IMO. I think he believes Christianity supports going to war. He may be incorrect, though, Biblically, according to the New Testament.

Upon further introspection, I guess that I would try to impose my viewpoint as well, if I were elected to office, for why would I want to run, anyway? It's axiomatic.

As to abortion, you can guess what he believes, there. I do think he will try to impose his viewpoint on that one. I think the best he'll get will be the reversal, which only goes so far as to leave it up to the states again. Then, it's majority rules. No individual right to abortion, but a collective right to abortion, if desired. 

This really gets deeply into the form of our government. I think it is inheirent that a majority will rule in a republic/democracy and that's the nature of government. The majority has spoken when electing this president, like when Clinton was the country's choice.

But the Constitution is partly about protecting individual rights in a majority rule situation, and there has to be the balance on the abortion issue as to who's right is paramount: the "born"' or the "unborn". I understand that the Constitution hasn't recognized the unborn as people (it was probably inconceivable to them at the time). Currently, it favors the born's right over the unborn's.

But the balance has to be revisited. While I don't think many are "pro-abortion" as much as they are "pro-right-to-choose", should we all have a right to choose anything we want? Drugs? Sex? Abortion? I guess that one has to expand the question into what's good for our society as a whole...more freedom or more protection/restriction?

We have to face the same question on every issue, be it "homeland" (ugh) security, gun control, legalization of drugs, or even motorcycle helmet laws. Should we protect ourselves from ourselves? At the risk of imposing upon our freedom? Don't we have the freedom to do whatever we want?

I think the answer is: sometimes we should restrict freedom, other times we don't need to. If freedom leads to a good thing, then I'm all for freedom. If freedom leads to a bad thing, then the freedom itself is actually a bad thing, too. Freedom is in direct opposition to living in a society, actually. It's a zero-sum game. So, contrary to popular belief, freedom is not "all important" or "all good" or good in-and-of itself. We have to actually purchase protection with the currency of freedom.

Obviously, a thorny question. A thought: Is our culture heading in a good direction, currently? Are we willing to swing the balances towards restriction of rights and promotion of a "culture of life" and moral consequences?

With abortion, we need the protection. Society is rife with irresponsible sex, and murder, and death. (Seriously, why the morbid fascination with death on TV? "_CSI_": gross-out-fest that desensitizes. "_Kill Bill_"? And "death to America", by the way.)

Shouldn't we all work towards life, and peace? I think we all agree, there. Let's get the work done in Iraq and get home. Let's promote sexual responsibility so we don't have to allow more killing of babies. Let's take macabre shows off of TV and the cinema.

----------


## Spexvet

> Upon further introspection, I guess that I would try to impose my viewpoint as well, if I were elected to office, for why would I want to run, anyway? It's axiomatic.


Even if a majority did not agree with your viewpoint?




> This really gets deeply into the form of our government. I think it is inheirent that a majority will rule in a republic/democracy and that's the nature of government. The majority has spoken when electing this president, like when Clinton was the country's choice.


But the majority of Americans want the freedom to choose to abort an unwanted pregnancy.




> But the balance has to be revisited. While I don't think many are "pro-abortion" as much as they are "pro-right-to-choose", should we all have a right to choose anything we want? Drugs? Sex? Abortion?


As long as does not hurt a person, yes. 




> I think the answer is: sometimes we should restrict freedom, other times we don't need to. If freedom leads to a good thing, then I'm all for freedom. If freedom leads to a bad thing, then the freedom itself is actually a bad thing, too.


What's your definition of "good", and "bad"? It may not be the same as mine.




> Freedom is in direct opposition to living in a society, actually. It's a zero-sum game. So, contrary to popular belief, freedom is not "all important" or "all good" or good in-and-of itself. We have to actually purchase protection with the currency of freedom.


Freedom is almost always preferable. We seem to allow ourselves to do the right thing, and punish ourselves when we don't. For example, we don't put speed governors on our cars.




> A thought: Is our culture heading in a good direction, currently? Are we willing to swing the balances towards restriction of rights and promotion of a "culture of life" and moral consequences?


Again: What is "good"? My "good" may not be the same as yours. And whose morals? Maybe you want to go Orwellian, and force everyone to voice the opinion that Big Brother is "double plus good".

IMHO, a "culture of life" has to include "quality of life". As long as some people live in opulence while others live in squalor, there is not a "culture of life". Why bring someone into the world to be sold into slavery, or keep them in the world to continue physical life with no brain activity? What culture of life endorses war? 




> Shouldn't we all work towards life, and peace?


And just how is the invasion of Iraq working towards life and peace?




> I think we all agree, there. Let's get the work done in Iraq and get home. Let's promote sexual responsibility so we don't have to allow more killing of babies. Let's take macabre shows off of TV and the cinema.


What is "sexual responsibility"? Considering that reproduction is a biological imperitive achieved only though having sex (and it feels good, too ;) ), abstinence is absurd. It just doesn't work. Yet those who want to reduce abortions will not educate our children and provide them with birth control. Help me understand this.

----------


## drk

Spex, you oversimplify life. Can you explain how we are to have a society that works with everyone having maximum freedom?  

Also, if everyone is allowed to have their own definitions of good and bad, we'll never get anywhere.

Whether you know it or not, you are a classic "postmodernist".

----------


## Spexvet

> Spex, you oversimplify life. Can you explain how we are to have a society that works with everyone having maximum freedom?


Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

----------


## Spexvet

> Also, if everyone is allowed to have their own definitions of good and bad, we'll never get anywhere.


Maybe that's why we're here.

I'll tell you what. Since we can't all be allowed to have our own definitions of good and bad, how 'bout everybody taking on my definitions? ;) It's ok with me, really.

----------


## drk

> Maybe that's why we're here.
> 
> I'll tell you what. Since we can't all be allowed to have our own definitions of good and bad, how 'bout everybody taking on my definitions? ;) It's ok with me, really.


<Sarcasm font> Well, then Spex, if everyone has their own definition of good and bad, then what I would do unto you might be considered bad when I meant it to be good! <end sarcastic font>

What we need in this country, like we need in any group, is COMMON VALUES.  How to achieve this is beyond me.

But, common values lead to common goals lead to happy results.  

This individualism, multiculturalism, postmodernism has to GO!

----------


## shanbaum

> What we need in this country, like we need in any group, is COMMON VALUES. How to achieve this is beyond me.
> 
> But, common values lead to common goals lead to happy results. 
> 
> This individualism, multiculturalism, postmodernism has to GO!


Yes! Yes! "One People, One Nation, One Leader! One People..." 

I'm a little shocked to read that you think that "individualism" is a bad thing - probably _the_ signature American value?

I had been under the impression that Americans actually had more common values than may be evident in the political world lately, but I get less sure when I read this sort of thing; I wonder how many people share these sentiments.

So, liberty and individualism are _bad_ things. Sigh.

----------


## drk

> Yes! Yes! "One People, One Nation, One Leader! One People..." 
> 
> I'm a little shocked to read that you think that "individualism" is a bad thing - probably _the_ signature American value?
> 
> I had been under the impression that Americans actually had more common values than may be evident in the political world lately, but I get less sure when I read this sort of thing; I wonder how many people share these sentiments.
> 
> So, liberty and individualism are _bad_ things. Sigh.


Does liberty and individualism work in your office? Between you and the Mrs? On the battlefield? In the boardroom?

The far, far better way is self-denial and cooperation.

We've taken the concept of liberty and individualism way too far, way farther than originally intended. This is common sensical. When it gets to the point that we are unable to agree on anything, we are ready for fragmentation. Mark my words: happened before and it can happen again. 

Does that sound too "right-wing"? Don't look at it in a political sense, but in a sociological sense. What makes a group of people function as a unit? Extreme diversity or extreme cohesiveness? Cohesiveness. What makes life more interesting? Diversity. What's best? A balance. 

But what do you need when there's work to be done? Cohesiveness. We _are_ at war, aren't we?

BTW, my opinon of the real signature American values are productivity, moral decency, discipline, optimism, and creativity.  That's why we're the number one economic, political, scientific, and militarily advanced civilization the world has ever seen.  Let's not forget how we got here!

----------


## shanbaum

> Does liberty and individualism work in your office? Between you and the Mrs? On the battlefield? In the boardroom?
> 
> The far, far better way is self-denial and cooperation.
> 
> We've taken the concept of liberty and individualism way too far, way farther than originally intended. This is common sense.


Commercial enterprise and marriage are completely distinct from social policy as implemented through the power of the state.

Individualism is not the opposite of cooperation; nor is liberty the opposite of self-denial. 

Cooperation is not possible without liberty, in the absence of which it is indistinguishable from tyranny. Self-denial as a personal choice may be virtuous; as social policy, it is oppression.

You suggested earlier that Spexvet had nothing to fear from the religious right, but you're making me very afraid. Mullah Omar could easily have written what you have written.

----------


## drk

> Commercial enterprise and marriage are completely distinct from social policy as implemented through the power of the state.
> 
> Individualism is not the opposite of cooperation; nor is liberty the opposite of self-denial.


Yes, I understand, but what is the point of any state, if not to enforce restrictions? Is it only to grant liberties? 

No, a state's main function is to enforce law and order, and provide for the common defense, etc. No higher-order function such as freedom of speech, worship, (insert cliche here) can be sustained without the main function.

I guess the disagreement is in assessing the current state of America. Are we in good shape, or at risk? I'm feeling pessimistic about such things as divorce, too many kids in child care, violence in the culture, obsession with all things material, corruption in government, etc., let alone threats from the outside.

When "weapons of mass destruction" become more commonplace, can a society as open as ours survive? I'm sorry to be so negative as to say "no". I feel like I'm living in a gated community with 10,000 screaming "peasants" with pitchforks beating on the locks. 

The disparity is too great between the developed countries and the developing countries. I'm fearful that Pakistan, India, China, other developing major population centers will find ways to take us down unconventionally.  I don't think we will ultimately have what it takes to pull through, because we are not unified.  And forgive my religious peculiarity, I don't think we will be favored by God enough to be able to pull off any Six-Day-War-type stuff.

----------


## shanbaum

> Yes, I understand, but what is the point of any state, if not to enforce restrictions? Is it only to grant liberties?


States do not grant liberties to people; States have no natural rights at all. People delegate their natural rights to states. The best statement of the purpose for which they do this is found in the preamble to our Constitution:

_We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,_
_establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common_
_defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to_
_ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the_
_United States of America._

I rather doubt that these elements were ranked in order of importance.





> I guess the disagreement is in assessing the current state of America. Are we in good shape, or at risk? I'm feeling pessimistic about such things as divorce, too many kids in child care, violence in the culture, obsession with all things material, corruption in government, etc., let alone threats from the outside.


If _murder_ is the measure of society's health (as you suggested in an earlier post), we had an excellent run from 1980 to 2000; during those two decades - presumably the period during which this moral death-spiral has occurred - the murder rate _fell_ by almost half. (See, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm.)

Maybe people were too busy having sex to bother with killing each other.

----------


## shanbaum

drk, here's another article you may find interesting and horrifying:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=174508

----------


## shanbaum

> When "weapons of mass destruction" become more commonplace, can a society as open as ours survive?


As _open_ as ours? Yes. Of course, contrary to the president's reasoning, terrorism can indeed function more easily in a free society than it can in a police state. But it's not our _openness_ that inspires the suicide murders. Wanna be safer? Let's stop killing people we don't absolutely have to.

In any case, I'm not sure I would worry about the masses from Pakistan, India, and China storming your castle. It's just as likely you'll be working for them.

----------


## drk

> States do not grant liberties to people; States have no natural rights at all. People delegate their natural rights to states. The best statement of the purpose for which they do this is found in the preamble to our Constitution:
> 
> _We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,_
> _establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common_
> _defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to_
> _ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the_
> _United States of America._
> 
> I rather doubt that these elements were ranked in order of importance.


You are so right in paragraph #1.  I think there is something to the order, I really do..

----------


## drk

> If _murder_ is the measure of society's health (as you suggested in an earlier post), we had an excellent run from 1980 to 2000; during those two decades - presumably the period during which this moral death-spiral has occurred - the murder rate _fell_ by almost half. 
> 
> Maybe people were too busy having sex to bother with killing each other.


I'll have to check out that link.  That's actually very good news, to me.  Maybe I should lighten up.

Very funny, BTW.

----------


## drk

> As _open_ as ours? Yes. Of course, contrary to the president's reasoning, terrorism can indeed function more easily in a free society than it can in a police state. But it's not our _openness_ that inspires the suicide murders. Wanna be safer? Let's stop killing people we don't absolutely have to.
> 
> In any case, I'm not sure I would worry about the masses from Pakistan, India, and China storming your castle. It's just as likely you'll be working for them.


Have to disagree with your root cause of terrorism.

I do hope that your assessment of a peaceful co-existence with the eastern masses comes true.

----------


## Spexvet

> The disparity is too great between the developed countries and the developing countries. I'm fearful that Pakistan, India, China, other developing major population centers will find ways to take us down unconventionally. I don't think we will ultimately have what it takes to pull through, because we are not unified.


Then maybe we should reduce the disparity. How do you think we're viewed when our corporate executive are paid millions of dollars a year, and folks in developing countries are drinking filthy water out of roadside puddles. Might make you want to bomb someone, you think?

----------


## drk

> Then maybe we should reduce the disparity. How do you think we're viewed when our corporate executive are paid millions of dollars a year, and folks in developing countries are drinking filthy water out of roadside puddles. Might make you want to bomb someone, you think?


Feeling guilty? Ok. Let's you and me pay an extra 10% in taxes this year to donate to our poor country of choice. I get dibs on Tajikistan. :) 

Oh, we don't make enough? Let's make Bill Gates and the Donald pay for it.:hammer:

Are poor people violent and angry?  I think they'd trade places with that exec in a minute and never look back.  I can't imagine that they are feeling that our rich are somehow making their life more miserable.

Think about WHY countries are poor.:cheers:

----------


## Spexvet

> Are poor people violent and angry?


Ask the Russian and French peasants just before thier revolutions.



> I think they'd trade places with that exec in a minute and never look back.


 Or they'd strap a bomb to themselves and go for broke (so to speak). 



> Think about WHY countries are poor.:cheers:


Because they've been exploited by corporate America, instead of being treated as partners?

----------


## drk

> Because they've been exploited by corporate America, instead of being treated as partners?


Poverty in Africa due to exploitation of what?  We've been taking away their fossil fuels?  We've sold them too many overpriced cars?  

C'mon Spex!  You can do better than that!

----------


## drk

> drk, here's another article you may find interesting and horrifying:
> 
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=174508


If this infers that increased abortions have somehow killed off an undesireable segment of the population before they have had a chance to commit crime, I do find it horrifying.

Maybe the mechanism is something else?

Think of the irony, though, of that presumably liberal position paper on abortion's social value: It serves as a pre-emptive death penalty! No strikes and you're out!

I've used every muscle in my brain sparring with you, Shanbaum, and I need a good night's sleep to unfaze myself.

----------


## Spexvet

> That's one of the most honest statements that can be made in a discussion such as this.
> 
> Specifically, what is it that you fear you'll lose? 
> 
> I know just what you're feeling, because I've been there, but if you analyze it, you will probably come to the conclusion that it's more of an emotional fear than a rational one. You are probably 95% in agreement with Christian morals and standards.
> 
> Some examples, off the top of my head:
> Do not kill
> Do not steal 
> ...


I haven't ignored this, I just needed to give it lots of thought. 

I was raised as a Christian, so the values are not that alien to mine. But it's not just about me. Consider me like the white man in 1970 South Africa, who is against apartheid. I would see the situation and think "Black South Africans should be able to own land" as I now think "homosexual Americans should be able to marry someone of the same sex", "Black South Africans should be able to travel freely throughout their country", as I now think "American women should have the right to choose", "Black South Africans should not have to feel intimidated as they walk into a courthouse because it is filled with white people" as I now think "Non-Christian Americans should not have to feel intimidated as they walk into a courthouse because the ten commandments are displayed on the wall", or "virtually all of South Africa's wealth and power should not be controlled by the white majority", as now I think "virtually all of America's wealth and power should not be controlled by the white majority".

I also have issues with the integrity of those who espouse Judeo-Christian values. If they were to behave consistently with those values, I might be more likely to side with them. But the likes of Jim "adulterer with an air conditioned dog house" Bakker, Jimmy "got porn? - I have sinned aginst you" Swaggert, and Rush "Kerry lacks morals, hand me another illegal pain pill" Limbaugh have disgusted me to the point that my initial reaction to anything they and their ilk present is: BS!

----------


## Spexvet

> If this infers that increased abortions have somehow killed off an undesireable segment of the population before they have had a chance to commit crime, I do find it horrifying.
> 
> Maybe the mechanism is something else?


I've seen an interview with the mathemetician who developed this theory. There seems to be a pretty solid corolation (sp?).




> Think of the irony, though, of that presumably liberal position paper on abortion's social value: It serves as a pre-emptive death penalty! No strikes and you're out!


Think of the irony, though, of that presumably conservative position paper on abortion's social value: Wanna be tough on crime? Perform more abortions!

----------


## chm2023

This AM's aborted bomb attempt (alleged) in London raises an interesting question:  are these attacks in London a coordinated effort, or are the incidents since 7/7 unrelated in the sense they are spontaneous acts from other groups?  I think it's the latter and something tells me that's the worse scenario.  We are going to London in October, should be interesting to say the least.

----------


## chm2023

> I've seen an interview with the mathemetician who developed this theory. There seems to be a pretty solid corolation (sp?).
> 
> 
> Think of the irony, though, of that presumably conservative position paper on abortion's social value: Wanna be tough on crime? Perform more abortions!


Or as liberals say, conservatives care about life up until birth.  (Or something like that, think the actual expression is somewhat pithier!:D )

----------


## drk

> I haven't ignored this, I just needed to give it lots of thought...!


Good post.  

Let me see, you are for the oppressed, the little guy, you have a strong sense of fairness, you intensely dislike hypocrisy...

Sound like anyone you've read about in the Bible?

You are totally correct in your feelings!  You are mad only at the lying, greedy, hypocrites, and you have actually NO PROBLEM with God or Jesus!  Are you aware of that?

I challenge you to read Matthew and see what you think about what Jesus said and did now that you are an adult.  You'll see what you posted, written 2000 years ago.

----------


## Spexvet

> You are mad only at the lying, greedy, hypocrites, and you have actually NO PROBLEM with God or Jesus! Are you aware of that?


I don't think I've ever said that I have a problem with Jesus, have I?

----------


## drk

Ok, I've got it now.

----------


## RT

For a good discussion on the link between abortion and crime, read _Freakonomics_ by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner.  Levitt is the economist who showed the strong correlation between abortion and crime, along with other associated social issues.

But don't be too quick to decide whether it was a "conservative position paper" or a "liberal position paper".  It was neither--it was a nerd doing his job crunching numbers.  As far as conclusions go, Levitt says:
...the trade-off between higher abortions and lower crime is, by an economist's reckoning, terribly inefficient.

What the link between abortion and crime does say is this:  when the government gives a woman the opportunity to make her own decision about abortion, she generally does a good job of figuring out if she is in position to raise the baby as well.  If she decides she can't, she often chooses the abortion.  _Freakonomics, P. 144._
It's an interesting chapter.

----------


## drk

> What the link between abortion and crime does say is this: when the government gives a woman the opportunity to make her own decision about abortion, she generally does a good job of figuring out if she is in position to raise the baby as well. If she decides she can't, she often chooses the abortion. _Freakonomics, P._


That's hard logic to follow. 
Choice -> wise economic/life and death decision -> healthier society?


We are all so fooled into imagining some poor, unwed mother who, through little fault of her own got pregant, and, realizing that she already has three little mouths to feed with only a cleaning-lady's income, decides responsibly to sacrifice the one for the many.

Who are really getting the abortions, demographically?
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abo...rtionstats.htm

----------


## drk

The blast in Egypt and the Muslim-on-Muslim terrorism in Iraq really seems to poke holes through the theories of what motivates the terrorists. 

They don't just hate the US. They hate the west, all who have contact with the west, all people in Iraq that are trying to live peacefully and pull themselves into the 21st century, anyone who they deem to be "collaborators"...

Terrorists have absolutely no excuse. They are senseless, insdiscriminant murderers. Let's stop allowing them our guilt-laden super-sensitive understanding and mollycoddling. Let's call it what it is: mass murder, not political action.

----------


## Spexvet

> Ok, I've got it now.


What do you mean?

----------


## shanbaum

> The blast in Egypt and the Muslim-on-Muslim terrorism in Iraq really seems to poke holes through the theories of what motivates the terrorists.


What theories, and how are holes poked in them?




> Terrorists have absolutely no excuse. They are senseless, insdiscriminant murderers. Let's stop allowing them our guilt-laden super-sensitive understanding and mollycoddling. Let's call it what it is: mass murder, not political action.


Who said they have an "excuse"? 

Do you actually object to the idea that one should try to understand what motivates one's adversaries? You don't think that such an understanding might be helpful in defeating them? Do you really think that what we have to do is just, kill, kill, kill, without thinking too much about it? Do you think that there is no possibility at all that that just might - not "will", but "just might" - turn out to be counterproductive? What evidence do you have that killing as a policy is particularly effective? Do you really think that we're better off for having killed God-knows-how-many innocent Iraqis?

Certainly, there's a sense of the word "senseless" that can be applied to what the Islamist fanatics do, but are you saying they have no motivation - that they are automatons, like the Terminator - they just have to kill, and that's the beginning, middle, and end of it? Or what?

Who is advocating "mollycoddling"? 

Are you thinking, or just responding emotionally?

----------


## rinselberg

_U.S. Army general poses with Afghan workers at a DoD-funded road construction project in eastern Afghanistan._
photograph -- Daniel Cooney / AP

DoD (Department of Defense) is moving to increase the speed and scope of DoD-funded civil affairs projects in Afghanistan. These are also known as "reconstruction" projects, and involve  new construction and repair work to rebuild and expand Afghanistan's civilian infrastructure, including roadways, schools, medical clinics, government offices and police stations. New and refurbished housing for the Afghanistan army is also part of the package. In a bid to undercut the recruitment of terrorists by the Taliban and al-Qaeda, DoD wants to hire more underemployed and unemployed Afghans for the reconstruction effort. According to the latest report on MSNBC, "The U.S. commander in Afghanistan ... believes that putting more local Afghans to work helps take away some of the enemies ability to recruit ... We are hiring as many Afghans as we can."

DoD wants to keep the reconstruction efforts moving forward without interruption, even during the less favorable fall and winter weather ahead.

The DoD-funded reconstruction effort is separate from and comes on top of the $570 million worth of reconstruction aid channeled through USAID during the current fiscal year. (USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development.) 

For the complete MSNBC report:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8691488/

_I posted this as a response to some of the previous posts in this thread about the U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how the U.S. is (or should be) using its national resources to pursue the GWOT (Global War On Terror)._

----------


## Spexvet

> _U.S. Army general poses with Afghan workers at a DoD-funded road construction project in eastern Afghanistan._
> photograph -- Daniel Cooney / AP
> 
> DoD (Department of Defense) is moving to increase the speed and scope of DoD-funded civil affairs projects in Afghanistan. These are also known as "reconstruction" projects, and involve new construction and repair work to rebuild and expand Afghanistan's civilian infrastructure, including roadways, schools, medical clinics, government offices and police stations. New and refurbished housing for the Afghanistan army is also part of the package. In a bid to undercut the recruitment of terrorists by the Taliban and al-Qaeda, DoD wants to hire more underemployed and unemployed Afghans for the reconstruction effort. According to the latest report on MSNBC, "The U.S. commander in Afghanistan ... believes that putting more local Afghans to work helps take away some of the enemies ability to recruit ... We are hiring as many Afghans as we can."
> 
> DoD wants to keep the reconstruction efforts moving forward without interruption, even during the less favorable fall and winter weather ahead.
> 
> The DoD-funded reconstruction effort is separate from and comes on top of the $570 million worth of reconstruction aid channeled through USAID during the current fiscal year. (USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development.) 
> 
> ...


Still may not be working:





> A military helicopter crashed Tuesday while bringing reinforcements to the team, killing all 16 service members aboard. The U.S. military believes the chopper was downed by a rocket-propelled grenade.


 http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=100697

----------


## Spexvet

> The blast in Egypt and the Muslim-on-Muslim terrorism in Iraq really seems to poke holes through the theories of what motivates the terrorists. 
> 
> They don't just hate the US. They hate the west, all who have contact with the west, all people in Iraq that are trying to live peacefully and pull themselves into the 21st century, anyone who they deem to be "collaborators"...
> 
> Terrorists have absolutely no excuse. They are senseless, insdiscriminant murderers. Let's stop allowing them our guilt-laden super-sensitive understanding and mollycoddling. Let's call it what it is: mass murder, not political action.


Do you recommend continuing with the same strategy that we've used so far? After all, it's resulting in great success.... 

Or maybe continuing the same strategy will result in a different outcome. We can only hope...

----------


## rinselberg

> A military helicopter crashed Tuesday while bringing reinforcements to the team, killing all 16 service members aboard. The U.S. military believes the chopper was downed by a rocket-propelled grenade.


Part of the reason that this helicopter downing was so newsworthy is because it was unexpected: U.S. forces in Afghanistan have been taking very few casualties. And even in Iraq, helicopter downings like this have become an increasingly rare occurrence.

DoD is ramping up the reconstruction effort in Afghanistan (as I reported in my previous post in this thread) in order to improve the security situation before a new insurgent offensive that is expected at the start of 2Q 2006, when the annual cycle of warmer weather reopens the mountain passes after winter 2005-2006.

----------


## drk

> What theories, and how are holes poked in them?
> Who said they have an "excuse"? 
> Do you actually object to the idea that one should try to understand what motivates one's adversaries? You don't think that such an understanding might be helpful in defeating them? Do you really think that what we have to do is just, kill, kill, kill, without thinking too much about it? Do you think that there is no possibility at all that that just might - not "will", but "just might" - turn out to be counterproductive? What evidence do you have that killing as a policy is particularly effective? Do you really think that we're better off for having killed God-knows-how-many innocent Iraqis?
> Certainly, there's a sense of the word "senseless" that can be applied to what the Islamist fanatics do, but are you saying they have no motivation - that they are automatons, like the Terminator - they just have to kill, and that's the beginning, middle, and end of it? Or what?
> Who is advocating "mollycoddling"? 
> Are you thinking, or just responding emotionally?


I certainly was not specifically referring to anyone on this board.  There is a  liberal segment who believes that the US is reponsible for the terrorism, not the terrorists.  It's obvious that the terrorists are willing to kill Muslims to meet their objectives, showing that they are not just "oppressed" by the West.  They have a quasi-military objective, and they will kill any and all who get in their way.

Understanding the enemy is fine, in the "intelligence" sense.  No sense in understanding their motivations, otherwise, any more than there is need to understand what makes a child-killer tick: pure evil needs no investigation.

As to how to deal with it, I know what DOESN'T work.  Peace treaties, aquiescense, etc. will not stop an evil group, because they want evil, and that cannot be agreed to.

Now, what other options are there?  Destroy or imprision them.  That's all there is to do.

I understand those who don't want the US to use military force except when absolutely necessary.  I do not understand those who don't want to use it, ever.  It seems to me that searching and destroying terrorist networks is good use of the military.  How many of us are willing to do nothing, or accede to their demands?

----------


## drk

> Do you recommend continuing with the same strategy that we've used so far? After all, it's resulting in great success.... 
> 
> Or maybe continuing the same strategy will result in a different outcome. We can only hope...


Spex, can you briefly outline a better strategy, in general?

----------


## shanbaum

> I certainly was not specifically referring to anyone on this board. There is a liberal segment who believes that the US is reponsible for the terrorism, not the terrorists. It's obvious that the terrorists are willing to kill Muslims to meet their objectives, showing that they are not just "oppressed" by the West. They have a quasi-military objective, and they will kill any and all who get in their way.
> 
> Understanding the enemy is fine, in the "intelligence" sense. No sense in understanding their motivations, otherwise, any more than there is need to understand what makes a child-killer tick: pure evil needs no investigation.
> 
> As to how to deal with it, I know what DOESN'T work. Peace treaties, aquiescense, etc. will not stop an evil group, because they want evil, and that cannot be agreed to.
> 
> Now, what other options are there? Destroy or imprision them. That's all there is to do.
> 
> I understand those who don't want the US to use military force except when absolutely necessary. I do not understand those who don't want to use it, ever. It seems to me that searching and destroying terrorist networks is good use of the military. How many of us are willing to do nothing, or accede to their demands?


Well, that answers that question.

Think about how using the military to disrupt terrorists might work.

These guys are likely to be working in a garage, or an apartment - like the guys in Leeds. Or in flight schools, like the 9/11 killers. Maybe there's a group of optometrist/terrorists, cooking up C-4 in dye pots, as we write.

How do you use armed forces to find and neutralize that kind of threat? Hint: you don't. The army can't do a damn thing about them. The army can, say, invade a Muslim nation, and in the process create as many terrorists as it kills (that's one of those things that we should "now know") - and let's face it, we're killing the really stupid terrorists in Iraq; we don't know where the smart ones are, because we're spending most of our resources "spreading freedom". And one has to wonder if that strategy is particularly sound, since simple logic suggests that terror cells can exist in a free society much _more_ easily than in an oppressive one (see 7/7, London).

In your dismissal of "peace treaties and acquiescence", you leave out the most successful strategy of confrontation in history: the containment of the Soviet Union (a/k/a the "evil empire") after WWII, which ended in a clear victory for our side. 

Or do you think that "spreading freedom" behind the Iron Curtain by invasion and occupation would have been a more sensible strategy?

----------


## Spexvet

> Spex, can you briefly outline a better strategy, in general?


Do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Reduce the disparity, in terms of wealth, between us and them. Allow them dignity, treat them with respect, do not exploit them. If we do this, they will have less reason to attack us. You get more with honey than vinegar.

----------


## chip anderson

Translation: Liberal philosophy: Give them some of *my tax money and fruits of my hard labor* and the enemy will be appeased for a time. You will feel safer and my standard of living will decline. Well isn't that just spiffy?

My solution: Kill all enemies of the United States, they will give no more trouble and cost less in the long run. Love your friends, destroy your enemies. 

Your Christian message for the day.

No one forces the third world to live two centuries in the past except themselves.  Can't see a reason why we shoud move one century back to move them one forward. :Rolleyes:

----------


## rinselberg

> Do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Reduce the disparity, in terms of wealth, between us and them. Allow them dignity, treat them with respect, do not exploit them. If we do this, they will have less reason to attack us. You get more with honey than vinegar.


Saddam Hussein was a formidable obstacle in the way of reducing the disparity, in terms of wealth, between the U.S. and most of the Iraqi population. Remember Saddam's "Oil For Palaces" program? We had to remove Hussein in order to begin the process that will eventually restore Iraq's future oil revenues to their rightful owners: The common people of Iraq.

----------


## drk

Shanbaum, you are the one of the best debaters I've had the pleasure of debating.

Re: the Soviets, that was a more conventional situation. We were faced with, in essence, M.A.D., so we couldn't apply my military strategy. We had to compete economically. But let's face it: Communism imploded, and we did little to cause it's implosion. We did check its expansion, in Cuber and Korea, but not so successfully in Viet Nam, and we did go about showing how capitalism and democracy were superior systems.

For the current challenge: Job #1 is to "do something". It is granted that there is no easy answer, at least yet. But there are some common-sense steps:
1.) State-sponsored terrorism: No explanation necessary. Boom.
2.) Terrorist organizations: Not a nation, so not technically an act of war, as we've conventionally known it. Can be considered more of a guerilla war, the hardest kind to fight. In history, the Romans for example would have put the boot to the whole country, or Joe Stalin would have mass-murdered millions. We are not so bloody, so we try to surgically excise the problem. It's difficult. It probably requires what I've heard Rumsfeld wants: a light, quick-response tactical force that uses technology, stealth, etc. It will also require a superb intelligence infrastructure.
3.) Create a new layer of federal law-enforcement at the local level, or expand the FBI, e.g., to oversee minute details in our communities. 

Now, while that's common sense, I don't think the outcome will be very good. 

Indulge me for a moment. Throughout man's existence, there has been an inexorable trend. Whereas in the past wealth was owned by the few, economic wealth is in the process of diffusing to each individual. Power is diffusing as human rights. Whereas once the artistic aspects of culture were the provinces of kings, now more and more can live in a garden setting, or express one's self with the latest from Pottery Barn. Fame is becoming more commonplace, as Warhol predicted. And currently, we are all enjoying the benefits of information and education being free and accessible, unlike the private libraries of the educated, literate, elite. These are all testaments to the success of humanism.

But there is a dark side. With all this comes the new-found power of an individual to be a destructive, evil force. This has not been the case in the past, when Jack The Ripper had limited abilities, or a Hitler had to have the right situation and extreme abilities to take advantage of. With the C-4 you describe, or the Terry-What's-his-name Oklahoma City fertilizer bombs, or even the simple handguns and rifles in the hands of deranged Columbine youth, a single, ordinary person can be a much, much larger problem than ever before. That's progress!:) 

So, what is society's response to a new, more powerful individual evil? We'll see, but I think it will be totalitarianism of the Orwellian kind (I haven't read that book, yet...). You can see it happening. Identity theft and electronic money leads to microchip implantation. Cyber-enhanced humans. Cloning. Eugenics. "Reproductive rights". Euthanasia. 

Needless to say, I'm being somewhat tongue-in-cheek there, but it's all becoming very, very possible. This is the view of a person who has little faith in human goodness, an anti-humanist. There are alternative futures.

Not to cheapen this reality-based thread, but what is your prediction of the future, Mr. Shanbaum?  What's your "vision-thing"?

----------


## Spexvet

> Translation: Liberal philosophy: Give them some of *my tax money and fruits of my hard labor* and the enemy will be appeased for a time. You will feel safer and my standard of living will decline. Well isn't that just spiffy?


Putting material possessions first? 
You're going to pay either way. This war has cost, what - $230 million so far. Ante up, Chip! That's your taxes being pi$$ed away. *Your* taxes are building *their* country. Nice, eh? Is it your position that it's better and less expensive to pay for killing, destruction, and rebuilding, than just treating them humanely in the first place



> My solution: Kill all enemies of the United States,



You know, about fourth on the list of "enemies of the United States" is "Southerners". You better watch out!



> they will give no more trouble and cost less in the long run.


Cost less? I don't think so, especially the cost in human lives. How many of our young men and women in the military die using my plan? 




> Love your friends, destroy your enemies.





> Your Christian message for the day.


You mean Anti-Christian.:hammer:

----------


## Spexvet

> Saddam Hussein was a formidable obstacle in the way of reducing the disparity, in terms of wealth, between the U.S. and most of the Iraqi population. Remember Saddam's "Oil For Palaces" program? We had to remove Hussein in order to begin the process that will eventually restore Iraq's future oil revenues to their rightful owners: The common people of Iraq.


I'm not going to defend Saddam, but surely you can think of other ways to remove him. I will also submit that actions by US interests allowed Saddam to be in power.

----------


## rinselberg

> I'm not going to defend Saddam, but surely you can think of other ways to remove him.


Other ways to remove Saddam Hussein? The U.S. tried to effect "regime change" in Iraq, by various means, from shortly after the end of the First Gulf War in 1991 until 2003, when we finally resorted to all out military force via "Operation Iraqi Freedom". 

From 1991 to 2003 -- Economic sanctions: Failed. Persuading the powerful Kurdish militias to move more forcefully against Saddam: Failed. Covert action to encourage elements within the Iraqi national army to overthrow Saddam: Failed. And that's just off the top of my head. I would guess that there would be a more complete account of this history in books such as Christoper Hitchens, A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq.

Are you suggesting that the U.S. should have waited for the Iraqis to have another election and vote him out of power? There were occasional "elections" in Iraq under Saddam. And every time, Saddam got 99.9 percent of the vote.




> I will also submit that actions by U.S. interests allowed Saddam to be in power.


It sounds like you are talking about ancient history. Ancient, as in before the First Gulf War (1991). Are you trying to hold George W. Bush responsible for events and policies that occurred before he was elected President?

----------


## rinselberg

> Is the London attack the opening attack in the ultimate culture war?


The Associated Press
Updated: 8:45 p.m. ET July 27, 2005
CAIRO, Egypt - Stunned by terror attacks in a Red Sea resort, Egyptians are in a remarkably frank debate about whether mosques and schools  and the government itself  should be blamed for promoting Islamic extremism ...

_MSNBC reports on reaction in Egypt after the massively lethal attack on Egypt's largest Red Sea resort:_
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8730963/

----------


## Spexvet

> ...
> So, what is society's response to a new, more powerful individual evil? We'll see, but I think it will be totalitarianism of the Orwellian kind (I haven't read that book, yet...).  ...


Better intelligence. Infiltrate, identify who the evil-doers are, and allow our justice system to take care of them.

----------


## Spexvet

> Are you suggesting that the U.S. should have waited for the Iraqis to have another election and vote him out of power? There were occasional "elections" in Iraq under Saddam. And every time, Saddam got 99.9 percent of the vote.


I'd rather see good old assassination than the war we're in now, which, by the way, is:failing.




> It sounds like you are talking about ancient history. Ancient, as in before the First Gulf War (1991). Are you trying to hold George W. Bush responsible for events and policies that occurred before he was elected President?


Even before that. Where were we during Saddam's coup?




> Iraqis have always suspected that the 1963 military coup that set Saddam Husain on the road to absolute power had been masterminded by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). New evidence just published reveals that the agency not only engineered the putsch but also supplied the list of people to be eliminated once power was secured - a monstrous stratagem that led to the decimation of Iraq's professional class.


 http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/f...s98/saddam.htm

----------


## rinselberg

> I'd rather see good old assassination than the war we're in now, which, by the way, is failing ...


First of all, I think that you missed the point of my previous post. Killing Saddam, in and of itself, would not have accomplished anything. The suddenly "late" Saddam Hussein would have been immediately replaced by his younger son, Qusay Hussein -- just as bad or even worse. The killing of Saddam had to be part of a larger plot, like a coup d'état by elements within the Iraqi army (for example). And as I said in my post, all of the U.S.'s efforts along those lines (from 1991 to 2003) ended in failure.

Secondly, I think that the long running insurgency in Iraq has exacted and continues to exact an economic and a human toll that is tragic beyond words. But the "war we're in now" (as you put it) is not failing. That's my assessment. I don't want to enlarge on that assessment before I make a third point.




> ... Even before that: Where were we during Saddam's coup?
> http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/f...s98/saddam.htm


That was 1963. Maybe the U.S. did play a covert hand in the coup that brought Saddam to power in 1963. What of it? I have read many of your posts, and although you move from issue to issue and target to target, you're very consistent about pounding on the "W" Bush administration over Iraq. I can't quite make sense of you. Are you trying to hold George W. Bush responsible for something that happened in 1963? Are you trying to "indict" the U.S. for all of its previous mistakes and fallacies (going back to 1776), regardless of what is happening more currently? I just don't "get" you.

----------


## drk

Man, Rinselburg, you seriously know your stuff.  Are you Iraqi, or work for the CIA?  Just kidding.  

Seriously, how do you get all your information?

----------


## rinselberg

Thanks for the compliment, drk.

I just browse the local paper from time to time (San Francisco Chronicle), including those obscure little articles tucked away in the back of the world news section. I follow what's on the MSNBC cable channel and MSNBC website a lot. I tend to skip over most of the domestic news stories, which is why I seldom get into all those other threads about Supreme Court nominees and what not.

I'm an (amateur) foreign policy specialist, whose only objective is to try and maintain some foreign policy sanity here on the O'Board!

----------


## Spexvet

> I have read many of your posts, and although you move from issue to issue and target to target, you're very consistent about pounding on the "W" Bush administration over Iraq. I can't quite make sense of you. Are you trying to hold George W. Bush responsible for something that happened in 1963? Are you trying to "indict" the U.S. for all of its previous mistakes and fallacies (going back to 1776), regardless of what is happening more currently? I just don't "get" you.


If you've been following the posts, what you'll notice is that I've said that our treatment of the middle east has been a motivating factor in their responding with terrorism. And yes, our actions started long ago. And no, it was not just our government's actions. I did not vary on issue or target. 

I will hold anyone responsible for their actions, regardless of how long ago it was. Don't get me started on the Spanish Inquisition.

----------


## Steve Machol

> I will hold anyone responsible for their actions, regardless of how long ago it was. Don't get me started on the Spanish Inquisition.


Now would be a good time for Michael Palin (of Monty Python fame) to burst in saying:

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

----------


## Jedi

:D

----------


## Spexvet

"Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and             fear...fear and surprise....
Our two weapons are fear and surprise... and             ruthless efficiency....
Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and             ruthless efficiency...
and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope....
Our four... no...
Amongst our weapons... Amongst our weaponry...
are such elements as fear, surprise...
I'll come in again."

----------


## chm2023

> Translation: Liberal philosophy: Give them some of *my tax money and fruits of my hard labor* and the enemy will be appeased for a time. You will feel safer and my standard of living will decline. Well isn't that just spiffy?
> 
> My solution: Kill all enemies of the United States, they will give no more trouble and cost less in the long run. Love your friends, destroy your enemies. 
> 
> Your Christian message for the day.
> 
> No one forces the third world to live two centuries in the past except themselves. Can't see a reason why we shoud move one century back to move them one forward.


Herein lies the problem:  we are still thinking that there is a military solution to an idealogical conflict.  We need to win the battle for the hearts and minds of the great majority of Muslims who are not supporters of the radicals/terrorists and yet are not necessarily supporters of ours.   

Killing all the enemies of the United States:  well given quite a few of them are in Iraq, I suppose we could carpet bomb, revisiting that high point of US military history wherein we destroyed villages in order to save them.  Like Seinfeld says:  no learning, no hugging.  Lord have mercy.

----------

