“This does not mean we should concede to terrorists that prey on women, children and innocent bystanders…just listen to what they are saying and ask ourselves is there anything we can do (other than blow some shit up) to alleviate this problem with as minimal force possible?”
The problem with this suggestion is that radical extremists are not interested in negotiation or settlement of issues. They are interested in dominance, conquest.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a good example. The terror elements that drive the violence there aren’t amenable to a political solution - their grievance is not over a boundary or an unfairness of line-drawing. That could be solved through compromise and negotiation. What they want, instead, is elimination of the Jewish state and ultimately Jews themselves. They are not interested in “you go live your life, and we’ll mind our business and live ours” within an agreed upon a “live and let live” compromise - they want dominance, destruction, and supremacy. Therapy, which is what you suggest, would just get us all killed.
So your idea that we should just listen falls short of acceptable - listen to what? The jihadist literature is out there, go read it - if you want to know what the Islamists want. It’s no great mystery. It is not compromise - they are pissed that non-Sharia governments and elements exist in what was once their sacred Muslim empire. They are pissed that Western societies have influence over Arab societies. They are pissed that Arab apostates are in power.
So there is nothing to listen to. If the US completely withdrew all contacts from the Middle East and eliminated all trade - even oil - Islamism would be alive and well, looking to reconquer Spanish Andalusia and reclaim their borders right up to the gates of Vienna. It was there when Muslims dominated the landscape for centuries - ie, when they were the ‘oppressors’, mind you - and the new crop just want to reclaim that mythical glory of the Ottomans.
The desire for a pan-caliphate among extremist Muslims is not a new phenomenon created by ‘oppression’ by Westerners, your rewarmed neo-Marxism aside. This Islamist philosophy is a cultural pathology that exists whether the US buys its oil from Arab states or not.
Continued success in the War on Terror, I think, depends on being able to not mince words about what we’re up against and going full-throttle to defeat it. Our grandfathers knew how to do that in WWII - it’d be nice if our generation could pull it off just the same.
[/quote]
I understand your skepticism…I am not suggesting listening to the terrorist or even having a dialog with them–other than when they have been caught and they are brought to trial. We should, however, be listening to the Muslim world when they have legitimate complaints against the US and her allies. It seems too simple of solution, I know but it is a starting point. If we can try our hardest to minimize the reasons for which we are hated then we will be doing the best we can.
I have stated before on other threads–we cannot fight fire with fire. We are going to need newer and more unconventional methods than warfare–especially wars that have nothing to do with terrorism. Other than that we cannot fight wars against “Isms”. At best it will be like the war on poverty or the war on drugs–both of which are un-winnable due to the nature on mankind.
The second issue you state about the Islamic Jihadists reclaiming the “old-world” Islamic Ottoman Empire couldn’t be more ridiculous. This is the line of reasoning that the Bush administration uses to scare and put fear into the citizens of this country. Lets look at the facts: there is not one nation that is even initiated enough to peruse this conquest–nor would they have the means without European support.
Thirdly, in WWII we had enemies with borders and a strong centralized government and had an actual mission agenda. We will never defeat all terrorists–nor will we find them or know where they are at any given moment (we couldn’t even find WMD in Iraq). George Bush has already demonstrated the effectiveness of our intelligence agencies by blaming them for the WMD blunder. Unfortunately this is a war that will only be fought with policy and good hard intelligence.
“Other than that we cannot fight wars against “Isms”. At best it will be like the war on poverty or the war on drugs–both of which are un-winnable due to the nature on mankind.”
Sure we can - we fought Nazism.
Second, the other ‘wars’ you refer to are social conditions largely - no one is really fighting a ‘war’ against an ‘enemy’. Societies clash, and that is a traditional war, and that is what we have here - terror is just a means because the Islamists do not have the ability to confront its enemies in a conventional military war.
“The second issue you state about the Islamic Jihadists reclaiming the “old-world” Islamic Ottoman Empire couldn’t be more ridiculous.”
Nonsense - go read what OBL has said himself. He wants the old borders of the empire restored.
“This is the line of reasoning that the Bush administration uses to scare and put fear into the citizens of this country.”
You have anything better than this? This old hackneyed line is due for a retread. The Islamists are out to get back what they think was taken from them - and that means reconquest of all their favored lands. This is not a matter of opinion.
“Lets look at the facts: there is not one nation that is even initiated enough to peruse this conquest–nor would they have the means without European support.”
Several flaws here. First of all, terror can have a huge impact on industrial output without actually wiping out cities or battalions.
Second, just because they don’t have the means - yet - doesn’t mean they won’t do what they can to weaken their enemy. Moreover, how many days before Iran is a nuclear-tipped power? How long would it be till those capabilities were tranferred to like-minded Islamists? The mere threat of nuclear war in Europe is enough to cause the kinds of problems you insist don’t exist.
Could we beat them after they arm? Oh, yes. But at what cost?
“Thirdly, in WWII we had enemies with borders and a strong centralized government and had an actual mission agenda. We will never defeat all terrorists”
I suspect you are right, to some degree - but they can only exist in a place that permits their sanctuary. Take this away, and they are as good as defeated.
“–nor will we find them or know where they are at any given moment (we couldn’t even find WMD in Iraq).”
Finding them is a matter of intelligence, but it is also a matter of what to do when we get the intelligence - like demand they be turned over to the US or the nation harboring them suffer the consequences.
“Unfortunately this is a war that will only be fought with policy and good hard intelligence.”
Like every war ever in the history of wars. Does this mean anything?
“Nonsense - go read what OBL has said himself. He wants the old borders of the empire restored.”
Thunder, the guys living in a cave. Do you think he has a significant chance of restoring the borders of the empire? Is this your justification for Bush’s policy? Weak, to keep saying “Well that’s what Bin Laden said”.
You don’t believe people in power will use deceptive tactics to influence or manipulate people to give them what they want?
I am not worried about the empires borders being restored any time soon!
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Lifticus,
Sure we can - we fought Nazism.
[/quote]
No we fought Germany, Italy, and Japan; and Nazis still exist…in this country, even. You cannot win a war against isms.
The WOT is also a war on a social condition–the condition of extremist Islamic fundamentalism.
OBL may want it but doesn’t have the means to obtain it…nor will he ever. As I said the only way they would ever take back the Ottoman Empire is with the help of Europe herself.
Not only that the rhetorical speak of nuclear weapons is nonsense. Obtaining a nuclear weapon and then having the means to detonate it are above and beyond the average person to do, specifically to provide the reactions necessary to facilitate said nuclear weapons. After said weapons were obtained they’d probably irradiate themselves before they could figure out how to detonate them. Plus the huge signal given off by radiating weapons grade minerals would totally give them away with today?s technology–you can not hide radiation or the signals they provide. Biological weapons I’m not so sure…better just sleep with some MOPP gear to be safe.
“Thunder, the guys living in a cave. Do you think he has a significant chance of restoring the borders of the empire? Is this your justification for Bush’s policy? Weak, to keep saying “Well that’s what Bin Laden said”.”
But this is all a red herring. The point, which you missed, was that OBL is motivated by an old philosophy that predated all this Western ‘imperialism’ everyone is talking about. The point was that the neo-Marxist shibboleth of "we created the terrorist mindset because of our foreign policy’ ignores the text and history of what OBL says himself - he is an extremist Sunni that wants to jihad his happy ass across the world, pure and simple.
And, do I think OBL can reconquer the Muslim empire? No, and I never said so. Again, not the point. The point is to see where he gets his ideas from. But, could OBL wreak an awful lot of havoc trying to conquer the old Muslim empire? Absolutely, and I am not quite as cavalier as you are about the high costs of letting OBL give it a try.
“You don’t believe people in power will use deceptive tactics to influence or manipulate people to give them what they want?”
Huh? OBL really does want to accomplish reconquest, reagrdless of whether he actually can. That desire alone can cause a world of trouble.
“I am not worried about the empires borders being restored any time soon!”
Me neither, but I am concerned about more and more terror attacks not only slaughtering thousands more innocents, but the effect it will have on the world economy if it is not thwarted.
You’re right - OBL lives in a cave. He doesn’t care if oil soars to $200 a barrel, but factory workers in Detroit and Tennessee do.
“The WOT is also a war on a social condition–the condition of extremist Islamic fundamentalism.”
No, it is a society versus a society, otherwise every war ever fought was merely some event based on a ‘social condition.’
“OBL may want it but doesn’t have the means to obtain it…nor will he ever. As I said the only way they would ever take back the Ottoman Empire is with the help of Europe herself.”
I don’t expect that OBL will actually ‘take it back’ - the concern is what type of havoc he causes while trying.
“Not only that the rhetorical speak of nuclear weapons is nonsense. Obtaining a nuclear weapon and then having the means to detonate it are above and beyond the average person to do, specifically to provide the reactions necessary to facilitate said nuclear weapons. After said weapons were obtained they’d probably irradiate themselves before they could figure out how to detonate them.”
So, all this worry over Iran and North Korea going nuclear is a waste of time, since it is unlikely they can use the weapons anyway? Is this your position?
“Plus the huge signal given off by radiating weapons grade minerals would totally give them away with today?s technology–you can not hide radiation or the signals they provide.”
Yeah, and once we find out they have them, what do you think comes next? They develop them for a reason - power. You think they are just gonna give up the nukes once we say ‘gotcha!’?
“Biological weapons I’m not so sure…better just sleep with some MOPP gear to be safe.”
“Germany must be Denazified”. I think Ike said that…we suceeded. Murder is murder whether its for the Fuhrer, Allah or the Emperor.
As to the feasability of a nuke on US soil. It’s highly likely that they have one. Whether it’s here or not is anybody’s guess. Less then <2% of the containers coming into the Ports of NY/NJ are inspected and screened. That’s a big hole.
I do agree with you that it must be more then military action. As can be seen in Iraq and Afganistan people want freedom.
I should have been more clear regarding this remark-
“You don’t believe people in power will use deceptive tactics to influence or manipulate people to get what they want?”
I meant it in relation to Liftic’s point about Bush using scare tactics.
Thunder, Unless you are being deceptive, I see that you really believe we are gripped in a battle of epic proportions that must be fought to the finish for our very survival.
The other option that I see is that you don’t really believe this is the very battle of all battles to defend our existence in the face of Islam, but rather that you have a vested interest in the neocon ideology continuing to operate and you work to ensure that line of thinking will continue to grow.
I can’t really figure out if you are a true patriot who believes this action is essential to our survival or a big money guy who sees the lucrative profits that are possible if we get Iraq in line and the industrial profits from continuing warfare and the ability to keep the sheep in line and pacified under the terrorist threat and the continuing erosion of our rights as a “Free People” under the Patriot Act.
Thunder why would I want to live in a state Governed by religion whether that is Islam or Christianity. My biggest fear is that under the current administration this is the goal at some point a Christian Nation where any differing opinion is stamped out under the guise of National Security and the Patriot Act.
Don’t you think that is what James Dobson or Pat Roberts wants? A nation and Gov. hand in hand with religion.
Why would I want to fight radical religion elsewhere and have it sneak up on me at home behind my back?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
“Not only that the rhetorical speak of nuclear weapons is nonsense. Obtaining a nuclear weapon and then having the means to detonate it are above and beyond the average person to do, specifically to provide the reactions necessary to facilitate said nuclear weapons. After said weapons were obtained they’d probably irradiate themselves before they could figure out how to detonate them.”
So, all this worry over Iran and North Korea going nuclear is a waste of time, since it is unlikely they can use the weapons anyway? Is this your position?
“Plus the huge signal given off by radiating weapons grade minerals would totally give them away with today?s technology–you can not hide radiation or the signals they provide.”
Yeah, and once we find out they have them, what do you think comes next? They develop them for a reason - power. You think they are just gonna give up the nukes once we say ‘gotcha!’?
“Biological weapons I’m not so sure…better just sleep with some MOPP gear to be safe.”
Keep talking - you’re making my case for me.
[/quote]
To get back on the topic of nuclear weapons I will simply state–they are not so easy to come by–secondly It takes alot to detonate one of them. I am somewhat of an expert on nuclear reactions so I don’t fear so easily as the Bush administration would like. N. Korea can keep trying to develope them --atleast it’s a centalized gov’t that is watchable and will not in my mind so easily hand them off to our enemies. Iran is no where near the capability of creating nuclear weapons so I am not in the least worried about it–but once they do we can suck up to them just like we do to the other “nuclear powers”. I’m more worried about the Pakistan/India conflict thruthfully.
While we’re on the subject of weapons ask yourself are you comfortable that the Bush Administration couldn’t get it straight with Iraq–and then blamed our intelligence agencies for the blunder knowing full well that it was covering up some british intel it knew was false.
Effective for who? If you happen to believe that the reason given for terrorism is that the terrorists “hate our freedoms” then it should be fairly obvious that the terrorists have already won this “war on terror” - I’m not sure how anyone could argue otherwise.
The following is some of the criteria I use to judge the war on terror - I must say, the terrorists must feel awfully proud.
House votes to make Patriot Act permanent
WASHINGTON, July 21 (UPI) – The U.S. House of Representatives voted Thursday to make most of the USA Patriot Act permanent, rejecting attempts to constrict government surveillance.
The House voted to extend most of the law’s central antiterrorism provisions – defeating proposals by both Democratic and Republican members to limit government’s authority to monitor what people say or read.
The legislation approved in Thursday’s vote would make permanent 14 of the 16 provisions in the USA Patriot Act set to expire at the end of this year, The New York Times reported. Provisions allowing the government to conduct roving wiretaps and to demand business and library records were also approved, but they would come up for reconsideration in 10 years. http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20050721-22511200-bc-us-patriotact-vote.xml
Early Version of New Patriot Act Gives Administration Everything It Asks For, GOP Aides Say
Washington - The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is working on a bill that would renew the Patriot Act and expand government powers in the name of fighting terrorism, letting the FBI subpoena records without permission from a judge or grand jury. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/051905Z.shtml
Patriot Act Suppresses News Of Challenge to Patriot Act
US imposes controls on a new security threat - birdwatchers
US security agents have come up with a new target for increased scrutiny in their battle against terrorism: birdwatchers. Birdwatchers in certain areas are being forced to provide photographic identification, submit themselves to background checks, and even pay for a police escort.
Law enforcement officials say that because the birdwatchers have equipment such as binoculars, telescopes and cameras, they have the potential to commit acts of espionage.
Warning on spread of state surveillance
Governments are building a “global registration and surveillance infrastructure” in the US-led “war on terror”, civil liberty groups warned yesterday.
GOP star to get chip implant
Tommy Thompson signs up with VeriChip
Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson has volunteered to get an RFID electronic chip implant to show the world just how safe the new technology is. http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45409
Email spying ‘could have stopped killers’
Millions of personal email and mobile phone records could be stored and shared with police and intelligence officials across Europe to help thwart terrorist attacks.
Body scan machines to be used on Tube passengers
TUBE passengers are to have their bodies scanned by machines that see through clothing in an attempt to prevent further terrorist attacks.
Police and transport officials are also considering installing the equipment permanently at stations across the network.
Man shot dead ‘not connected to terror attacks’
The man shot dead on an Underground train in south London on Friday was not connected to attempted terror attacks on the capital, said police. The statement came as it emerged that police have been given secret new shoot-to-kill guidelines in recent weeks.
Straw defends shoot to kill policy
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has defended the so-called “shoot-to-kill” policy adopted by police for dealing with suspected suicide bombers.
Mr Straw said that he “deeply regretted” the killing in London of an innocent Brazilian man, Jean Charles de Menezes, by armed officers who feared he might be about to detonate a bomb.
However he said that it was essential that police were able to deal effectively with the threat of a suicide attack.
Punishment for looking like a terrorist – Five shots to the head
“It is just a matter of time before the same principle is true in New York and other world cities. Of course, if a person who looks like actor Edward Norton ever detonates a bomb and the “every-man” looks is associated with terrorists, then not only swarthy, dark-haired men will be targeted by police, but all of us will be at risk.”
If you happen to be Brazilian or a Sikh or Portuguese or some other swarthy, dark-haired culture, don’t enter the London subway systems looking suspicious. As far as police are concerned, your suspiciousness carries with it the death penalty. You can’t be allowed to trigger a hidden bomb, even if you don’t have a bomb. Your looks combined with the terror in the hearts of the police and the citizenry means you will be shot and killed, and then it can be determined if you are a real threat. Or the police will shrug and say, “Oops. Sorry.”
N.Y. to Search Subway Riders
NEW YORK - New York City officials announced Thursday that police would begin randomly inspecting backpacks and other packages today on its subway system.
The searches will rotate through the 468 stations of the system, which carries more than 4.5 million passengers on an average weekday.
“We just live in a world where, sadly, these kinds of security measures are necessary,” Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said at a news conference with Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly.
Get used to biometric tests, U.S. tells travelers
Iris scans and fingerprint checks will be the new norm at airports
U.S. Campaign Produces Few Convictions on Terrorism Charges
An analysis of the Justice Department’s own list of terrorism prosecutions by The Washington Post shows that 39 people – not 200, as officials have implied – were convicted of crimes related to terrorism or national security.
Most of the others were convicted of relatively minor crimes such as making false statements and violating immigration law – and had nothing to do with terrorism, the analysis shows. For the entire list, the median sentence was just 11 months
But then when life gives you lemons, some people just make lemonade.
Who shorted British pound?
Currency fell 6% in 10 days before London terror attacks WorldNetDaily.com
It appears some profited by short selling the British pound in the 10 days leading up to the attacks.
The pound fell about 6 percent (approximately 1.82 to 1.72) against the dollar for no apparent reason ? until, of course, the terror attacks sent the British markets reeling still further.
“This was an almost unprecedented weakness and far too sharp to be a coincidence,” one economist with more than 35 years of experience in the investment industry, told Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.
US to Spend Billions More to Alter Security Systems
Washington - After spending more than $4.5 billion on screening devices to monitor the nation’s ports, borders, airports, mail and air, the federal government is moving to replace or alter much of the antiterrorism equipment, concluding that it is ineffective, unreliable or too expensive to operate. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/050805E.shtml
Now is the time to invest in security growth stocks. Our A-List Returned 344% from January 1, 2004 - June 17, 2005
This is ONLY the beginning! With the passage of the Homeland Security Bill in November, billions more dollars will be invested to protect the world’s homes, food supply, mail service, airlines, data and people.
The new growth industry - what tremendous incentive to end terrorism.
“I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within.”
~ Gen. Douglas MacArthur
those who think they are free clank your chains. anyone who thinks that giving away any freedoms will make them safer is a moron. too bad that is where this country is headed. let us not forget that the war in iraq was officially declared over, yet most of the deaths have occurred after this. Hitler was loved by his country and was voted into power; just like all the liars in our government were voted in. hey folks these guys are all big liars. our country would be safer if all our leaders had monitors on them 24/7 so we could see what they are doing. of course me typing this could lead to my house being secretly searched for your saftey and be jailed and/or killed in the name of safety. but really i would be jailed because i was exposing the real criminals (the people in charge). PEOPLE PLEASE WAKE UP!!! let me just ask you another question:(add german accent) your papers please, your papers are not in order. good job by just the facts
“Thunder, Unless you are being deceptive, I see that you really believe we are gripped in a battle of epic proportions that must be fought to the finish for our very survival.”
I don’t think it is of epic proportions, yet. I’d reserve that for China a few years from now.
“The other option that I see is that you don’t really believe this is the very battle of all battles to defend our existence in the face of Islam”
I’ve never caricatured the war against Islamism that way - my main point is that it is very easy to get complacent when fighting an enemy that doesn’t arrive on your shore in gunboats and fatigues.
And more besides, any war is a defense of existence in that you try to kill people before they kill you. Our battle with Islamism is not WWIII, but if we sit on it, it could develop into a larger threat than it already is.
“…but rather that you have a vested interest in the neocon ideology continuing to operate and you work to ensure that line of thinking will continue to grow.”
And this is where you keep showing your ass, Elk. Firstly, no matter how badly you want it so, I am not a ‘neoconservative’ and I have no vested interest in perpetuating an ideology for the sake of it. What I want is national security and protection of national interests.
I beg you - please make a more cogent argument rather than whipping out the neocon slur.
“I can’t really figure out if you are a true patriot who believes this action is essential to our survival or a big money guy who sees the lucrative profits that are possible if we get Iraq in line and the industrial profits from continuing warfare and the ability to keep the sheep in line and pacified under the terrorist threat and the continuing erosion of our rights as a “Free People” under the Patriot Act.”
Unbelievable. What a claim. Elk, I think we may be done. Think about what your second premise entails - that my goal is pure tyranny: profiting from war, keeping people in a state of fear for political gain.
And, just for sport, you can’t name one right that has been eroded - and the Patriot Act got passed again with little fanfare with several Democrats joining in.
You are far afield with these claims, Elk - and I am sorry to say you can’t be taken seriously.
“Thunder why would I want to live in a state Governed by religion whether that is Islam or Christianity.”
Why would I, for that matter? When did I say that we should convert to a Christian theocracy? You have trouble understanding people’s arguments.
“My biggest fear is that under the current administration this is the goal at some point a Christian Nation where any differing opinion is stamped out under the guise of National Security and the Patriot Act.”
I once thought you a liberal, Elk, but now I see you have become a Kool-Aid drinking Leftist that reflexively assumes bad faith conspiracy from you political opponents. Shame.
"Don’t you think that is what James Dobson or Pat Roberts wants? A nation and Gov. hand in hand with religion.
I am sure they want that - so what?
“Why would I want to fight radical religion elsewhere and have it sneak up on me at home behind my back?”
Empty fears - but further proof you have drifted off into irrelevance.
Thunder, I was honest with my thoughts on the matter no matter how offensive they may be to you. And what do I get in return… “you’re irrelevant” “you’re a kool aid drinker”.
But, ultimately that’s okay because, I don’t feel you are either being honest with us or if not us yourself in your description of your views on this matter.
The same could be said to you… make an argument instead of a witty little one liner to discredit someone and then call them a Kool Aid drinker.
As far as naming one right eroded by the Patriot Act. You are right I can’t name one that’s not to say one doesn’t exist. I am not an expert in law and am not qualified to know or not. Does that take away the potential for rights being taken away that I see? Hell no!
Summary and Opinion of the Pew Survey BB referenced earlier.
Draw your own conclusions.
Al Qaeda’s Popularity Fading
by James Dunnigan
July 25, 2005
Osama bin Laden?s popularity is declining. The Pew Research Center recently conducted an public opinion poll in Morocco, Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, Jordan and Lebanon, with people polled by telephone or face-to-face. In most countries, support for bin Laden and his terrorist tactics declined by about half. There were two exceptions. In Jordan and Pakistan, it went up. In Jordan, where there have been few al Qaeda attacks, support for bin Laden went from 55 percent (two years ago) to 60 percent now. In Pakistan, where terror attacks have been directed against the government and non-Moslems, it went from 45 to 51 percent. In contrast, in Morocco, support went from 49 to 26 percent. In Lebanon, it went from 14 to two percent. In Turkey it went from 15 to seven percent. In both Jordan and Pakistan, Islamic radicalism has caught on in a big way.
This extremist approach to religion and politics promises a quick solution to ancient problems. All you have to do is get behind spectacular terrorist attacks and blind hatred for non-believers. This has a certain appeal. It worked for communists and fascists eighty years ago, it?s working for al Qaeda today. What goes around, comes around. But the corruption and economic backwardness that afflict most of the Islamic world are not being solved by Islamic terrorism. The ?clean government? that Islamic radicals offer doesn?t last long. Look at what happened in Afghanistan and Iran when the Islamic radicals took over. These zealots also put the poorly performing economy into reverse.
But the Islamic radicals have learned how to manipulate a poorly educated and informed population, and use the mass media (especially radio and television) to their advantage. Journalists in the Moslem world are also attracted to sensationalistic stories. However, these stories follow an arc, and have an unpleasant ending. When the Islamic radicals take over, or engage in heavy combat in a country, their popularity falls steeply. That?s what happened in Afghanistan and Iran (where elections and polls show about 80 percent of the population against the Islamic radicals).
In Iraq and Egypt, where the Islamic radicals are still setting off bombs, the terrorists have even less support. The lesson in all this is that, while blowing people up will get you on TV, and attract some favorable attention to your cause, it doesn?t last. Eventually people see you for what you really are; a murderous fanatic with illusions for solutions and murder for motivation.
“Thunder, I was honest with my thoughts on the matter no matter how offensive they may be to you.”
I am not offended - I am perplexed that you keep making arguments with such flimsy support and then have the audacity to request others to make supported arguments themselves.
“And what do I get in return… “you’re irrelevant” “you’re a kool aid drinker”.”
My point was simple - you have exchanged reasonable and practical debate for trips into a fantasy land.
And it’s ok to insinuate I am a lying fascist but to say you are a Lemming incapable of thinking for yourself is off-limits? Please.
“But, ultimately that’s okay because, I don’t feel you are either being honest with us or if not us yourself in your description of your views on this matter.”
Well, that is your constitutional right - but this is an anonymous bulletin board. What motive would I have to be dishonest?
Further, what makes you think I am lying? A hunch? I present my arguments with support - I am not suggesting I have all the right answers, but I back my stuff up. Praytell, why do you think I am lying?
“The same could be said to you… make an argument instead of a witty little one liner to discredit someone and then call them a Kool Aid drinker.”
The line was merely meant to suggest that you either can’t or won’t do your own homework and think for yourself. Forget the ‘wit’ - that was my point.
“As far as naming one right eroded by the Patriot Act. You are right I can’t name one that’s not to say one doesn’t exist. I am not an expert in law and am not qualified to know or not. Does that take away the potential for rights being taken away that I see? Hell no!”
So, you have no proof or even suggestability that the Patriot Act is actually - empirically - taking away your rights, you are just basing your ‘argument’ off of superstition or hunches. Your entire foundation for your ‘erosion of rights’ claim is nothing more than boogeyman-ism.
Problem is this line: “Does that take away the potential for rights being taken away that I see?” - you don’t even see anything at all, Elk, by your own admission. No observable evidence of rights-erosion, just a fantasy that maybe, some day, it might happen, all on the basis that Bush and Cheney are bad people.
As many on these boards (not you) who agree with your stance always defer to BB when proof is needed, I will defer to 100Meteres, Vroom, ProfX, JTF, who have provided reams of evidence and links to show why we hold our like views.
I myself like to step in hear while at work and don’t really have the time to harvest “proof” or “links” to my beliefs. When I go home from work, I go to the gym and then come home cook for that evenings and the nexts days food and other assorted chores like laundry or cleaning. I then catch a little TV or reading and relax somewhat before bed trying to catch a little news.
I say this because I don’t have the time or inclination to scour the web for “proof” that you will disregard because it won’t line up with your “proof” that you have to “prove” your position.
The weekends are tied up to with fishing, hiking, hunting, or what not. When the weekend comes, I usually take off, so no time to link proof there either.
“I myself like to step in hear while at work and don’t really have the time to harvest “proof” or “links” to my beliefs…”
I am not looking for a dissertation or a biography, for that matter. Hell, I try to avoid cluttering up the threads with endless cut-and-pastes myself.
My point, Elk, was that if you are going to engage others in debate - which assuredly you are - at least bring a minimum of competence and effort. You don’t have to write a treatise, but you don’t get to criticize other people’s opinions and analysis only to offer up “me don’t know!” when they start swinging back.
You have no problem telling others that they are wrong or misguided or whatever - but when someone challenges you to explain why you think what you think, you start deflecting and sidestepping. Look, if you got the cajones to tell someone they are wrong, step up and deliver the whole wad. What you offer now is a debate version of kick-someone-in-the-knee-from-behind-and-run.
“When I go home from work, I go to the gym and then come home cook for that evenings and the nexts days food and other assorted chores like laundry or cleaning. I then catch a little TV or reading and relax somewhat before bed trying to catch a little news.”
Super. I think that applies to the rest of us. If you jump in the pool, expect to get splashed.
Thunder, I will take parts of your message into consideration. I think part of the problem is (obviously) that we have very different styles of viewing and thinking about a situation or solutions to a situation or problem. You want me to conform to your way of thinking and I would like you to conform to mine.
But, many of your arguments while seeming to be very valid and relevant to you can appear to be just as ridiculous to me as my style of expression is to you.
The War on Islamic Popular Opinion
by James Dunnigan
July 29, 2005
Moderate Moslem voices are now being heard, which is a major victory in the war on terror. Since the emergence of radical Islamic terrorism in the 1990s, one of the major failures of religious and political leadership in the world’s Moslem community has been their apparent unwillingness to openly criticize fellow Moslems. While this reticence is not unknown in the leadership of other religions plagued by radical extremists, given the strength and lethality of Moslem radicals, this failure to openly confront the extremists has led to considerable public outcry in the non-Moslem world. Of late, however, there are indications that Islamic religious leaders are becoming increasingly aware of how their failure to speak up has served only to encourage the radicals, while further discrediting Islam in the world at large. For some time now Afghan and Iraqi clerics been speaking up, often at considerable personal risk. By ones estimate some 200 Moslem clerics have been slain in the past year or so because they spoke out. And of late, other voices have been raised as well.
In Britain, the Moslem Council of Britain has strongly condemned the recent attacks in London, one spokesman stating “These terrorists, these evil people want to demoralize us as a nation and divide us. All must unite in helping the police to hunt these murderers down.”
In the United Arab Emirates (UAE), in an effort coordinated by the Islamic Affairs Ministry, on Friday July 15th, some 90 percent of the Mosques throughout the UAE preached sermons condemning terrorism and religious extremism
In Saudi Arabia, perhaps in a move coordinated with that of the UAE, on the same day the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia preached a sermon against terrorism, and specifically condemned Saudis fighting with the insurgency in Iraq.
Moslem media, including blogs and radio call in shows (which are all the rage in Iraq), all reflect this new assertiveness, and disgust at the Moslems being slaughtered by Moslems in the name of Islamic radicalism. The important difference now is that al Qaeda is killing so many Moslems. Were most of the victims infidels (non-Moslems), this shift in public opinion would take a bit longer. Most Westerners don?t realize that, despite great oil wealth, it?s still customary (and has been for a long time) in the Moslem world to blame ?the West? for whatever is wrong on the home front. In this case, ?the West? included the Soviet Union. Thus the withdrawal of the atheist communist Soviets from Moslem Afghanistan in 1987, was greeted with great joy, and glee, in the Moslem world. Same with the major al Qaeda attacks on Western targets, especially September 11, 2001. Not something most Moslems will admit to Westerners, but now that they are on the receiving end of al Qaeda terrorism, most Moslems are shouting at, not cheering for, Islamic terrorists.
And here is LAT columnist Max Boot’s take on the improving Pew Opinion Survey numbers:
Our extreme makeover
Favorable impressions of the U.S. are being detected around the world, including inside Muslim countries.
We interrupt the latest reports about terrorist atrocities with a news bulletin: Support for suicide bombings and Islamic extremism, along with hatred of the Great Satan, is actually waning in the Muslim world.
If that comes as a surprise, it’s because of the old adage that good news is no news. While the increase of anti-Americanism around the world and especially in Muslim countries has been exhaustively covered since 2001, not enough attention has been paid to an important survey released in the last month that found global opinion shifting in a more positive direction.
The public opinion poll was conducted by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, hardly a bastion of neocon zealotry. (It’s co-chaired by Madeleine Albright.) Over the last three years, Pew surveys have charted surging anti-Americanism in response to the invasion of Iraq and other actions of the Bush administration. But its most recent poll ? conducted in May, with 17,000 respondents in 17 countries ? also found evidence that widespread antipathy is abating.
The percentage of people holding a favorable impression of the United States increased in Indonesia (+23 points), Lebanon (+15), Pakistan (+2) and Jordan (+16). It also went up in such non-Muslim nations as France, Germany, Russia and India.
What accounts for this shift? The answer varies by country, but analysts point to waning public anger over the invasion of Iraq, gratitude for the massive U.S. tsunami relief effort and growing conviction that the U.S. is serious about promoting democracy.
There is also increasing aversion to America’s enemies, even in the Islamic world. The Pew poll found that “nearly three-quarters of Moroccans and roughly half of those in Pakistan, Turkey and Indonesia see Islamic extremism as a threat to their countries.”
Support for suicide bombing has declined dramatically in all the Muslim countries surveyed except Jordan, with its large anti-Israeli Palestinian population. The number of those saying that “violence against civilian targets is sometimes or often justified” has dropped by big margins in Lebanon (-34 points) and Indonesia (-12) since 2002, and in the last year in Pakistan (-16) and Morocco (-27).
This has been accompanied by a cratering of support for Osama bin Laden everywhere except (unfortunately) Pakistan and Jordan. Since 2003, approval ratings for the world’s No. 1 terrorist have slid in Indonesia (-23 points), Morocco (-23), Turkey (-8) and Lebanon (-12).
What accounts for this decline? Primarily the actions of the terrorists themselves. Since 9/11, most of the atrocities carried out by Islamist groups have occurred in Muslim nations ? the latest examples are the bombings in Sharm el Sheik, Egypt, and bombings too numerous to mention in Iraq ? and most of the victims have been Muslims. Not surprisingly, this hasn’t endeared the jihadists to a lot of their coreligionists.
Yet even attacks on the West no longer win knee-jerk approval in the Muslim world. After the 7/7 London bombings, Islamic groups and intellectuals who have seldom had a cross word for suicide bombings were pretty unequivocal in their condemnation.
To cite only one example of many, Jihad Al Khazen, a rabidly anti-American and anti-Israeli columnist for the Arabic daily Al-Hayat, wrote that “the Arabs and Muslims must help the U.S.” in the war on terror. There are still plenty of Muslims who blame the victims for bringing terrorism upon themselves, but there is also a growing countervailing attitude.
Muslim opinion also challenges jihadist orthodoxy that proclaims that giving power to the people, rather than to mullahs, is “un-Islamic.” The latest Pew poll found “large and growing majorities in Morocco (83%), Lebanon (83%), Jordan (80%) and Indonesia (77%) ? as well as pluralities in Turkey (48%) and Pakistan (43%) ? [that] say democracy can work well and is not just for the West.”
That’s exactly what President Bush has been saying. Though his actions and rhetoric have been denounced as “unrealistic” and “extremist” by his American and European critics, it turns out that Muslims welcome it. “Roughly half of respondents in Jordan and nearly two-thirds of Indonesians think the U.S. favors democracy in their countries,” the new Pew study said. “About half of the public in Lebanon also takes that view.” Imagine that: Bush’s actions might actually be making Middle Easterners more pro-American!
Of course, public opinion is fickle, and there is still a lot of hostility toward the U.S. out there.
Even a small minority of extremists can cause mayhem similar to the London bombings. But at least there are some signs that the battle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world is far from hopeless.