Can we start saying the 'C' word???

[Frohickey]

Militant Islam Is Moving Ahead As Expected (http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=7134)

The war in Iraq is now over a year old.* Contrary to many media pundits, I believe the war is going as expected, even with the recent increase in fighting at Fallujah and Najaf.* Over a year ago, I was among those who wrote that this war is not simply a war against terrorism, but is in fact a war against militant Islam.* It looks like what we wrote then is coming to fruition today.* Events both in Europe and Iraq seem to confirm our expectations.

The war on terror has now turned into a religious war in Iraq.* Today, both militant Sunnis and militant Shiites confront U.S. troops there.* Although many of those involved in the ''uprising'' against our forces of occupation are from outside Iraq--most notably Syria and Iran--all of the fighters are followers of fundamentalist imans and are motivated by religious zeal.* The so-called uprising has become a jihad.

Some media commentators are surprised that the U.S. is now in a position in Iraq where radical Islamist from both the Sunni and Shiite branches of Islam have combined to fight American and British forces of occupation.* Anyone familiar with Islam knew this was going to happen.* Even though there has been an attempt by outside forces in Iraq to stir up trouble between both Shiite and Sunnis, extremists from these two camps now have more in common than they a did over a year ago before the Western occupation.

We can expect more of the same, now.* Fortunately, many are beginning to see just how much of a misnomer the war on terror is.* Muslims know the war on terror is more of a political fiction than a reality, and as time passes politicians in the West will have to make the same realization.* Thumbing through dictionaries, some are even looking up the old word ''crusade.''

U.S. policy will also have to adapt by giving a new name to this widening war.* With this new name must also come a new plan for victory.* If this does not happen, then our necessary victory in this struggle may not happen either.* Writing in the National Review over a year ago, John O'Sullivan makes a similar point.* He says, ''What ordinary Americans rightly oppose is a war conducted without any clear aim or prospect of victory.''* (September 29, 2003).

Many in the West fail to realize that elements of Islam have been at war with Europe for over 1,000 years.* Calling this present-day conflict a war on terror does nothing to change the fundamental antagonism that exists between the Muslim world and the West, especially as the West is symbolized by the U.S.* As time goes by, more and more Muslims will define the U.S. and Europe as ''the enemies of God,'' and become militant.* With high birth rates, low employment, and little prospect for the future, many Muslim young men are prepared to be soldiers in a jihad against these enemies of God.

Writing in the Atlantic Monthly almost 15 years ago, Bernard Lewis made a point that is timely even today.* In his article ''The Roots of Muslim Rage,'' (September, 1990) Lewis wrote, ''It should be clear by now that we are facing a mood and a movement far transcending the level of issues and policies and the governments that pursue them. This is no less than a clash of civilizations.''* Since Lewis wrote these words, this clash of civilizations has become more rather than less evident.

As the war in Iraq shifts from being a war on terror to being a war on militant Islam, we can expect a hardening of lines between Islamic civilization and Western civilization.* This is already evident in some Muslim communities in Western Europe and to a degree in the U.S.

Eventually, the clash between Western and Islamic values will test the limits of liberalism to contain them.* The U.S., and especially Europe, may be forced to repeat the events of 1492, when Granada, the last Moorish city in Spain was captured by the military forces of Ferdinand and Isabella.* After that, the Moors were driven from Spain, concluding a ''reconquista'' that began centuries earlier by the Spanish hero, El Cid.* It may be necessary in the not too distant future to remove again all Muslims from Western societies, and build a fence around Islam.* This may happen when the conflict in Iraq widens, which no doubt it will.

Already radical Muslims living in Europe are calling for jihad and the overthrow of Western governments.* Reporting in the New York Times (4/26/04) P. E. Tyler, and D. Van Natta, Jr., write that in Luton, England, a former industrial town north of London, ''a small group of young Britons whose parents emigrated from Pakistan after World War II have turned against their families' new home.* They say they would like to see Prime Minister Tony Blair dead or deposed and an Islamic flag hanging outside No. 10 Downing Street.''

Similar events are occurring on the continent.* At a mosque in Geneva, an iman recently exhorted his followers to ''impose the will of Islam on the godless society of the West.''* In France today, about one in ten persons is a Muslim.* In Germany, Muslim fundamentalism is also a growing phenomenon.* While in the U. S., with most of the mosques funded by Saudi Arabia, hardly any Muslim clerics denounce the events of 9/11 nor do they come out in support of the war against terror, let alone the removal of Sadam Hussein in Iraq.

It is not unusual for Muslims living in the West to agree with Sheik Omar. Speaking to his followers just outside London, the sheik spends time telling his young followers about the erotic delights of paradise.* He warns Western leaders, ''You may kill bin Laden, but the phenomenon, you cannot kill it—you cannot destroy it.* Our Muslim brothers from abroad will come one day and conquer here and then we will live under Islam in dignity,'' (NYT, P. E. Tyler, and D. Van Natta, Jr.)*** We should remember well these words and not be surprised when a new ''El Cid'' arises in Europe.

Robert Klein Engler lives in Chicago and is an adjunct professor at Roosevelt University. His books are available from amazon.com.

=====

I knew it, I knew it. The sooner we can turn Iraqis (and Muslims) into new homeowners, with a two car garage and a 30 year mortgage, the better. Maybe they can have a SUV and a hybrid both. One for the weekends, one for the weekdays. ;)

[Thanatoast]

The article raises an interesting question. Namely, have we gove too far down the path of mutually assured destruction to turn back? Are our only choices now kill or be killed? I feel like the longer we let Bush prove to the militant Muslims that their fears are justified, the more difficult it will be to extricate ourselves from fighting a losing war. 9-11 was the turning point, and W turned us towards war.

[takao]

i guess we all know where a official open fought war between islam-vs-christanity would end...in a 3rd World war.......very disturbing thought... but i don't think it will happen (i hope so ;) but you never know for sure...)
pretty sad...

[Frohickey]

The article raises an interesting question. Namely, have we gove too far down the path of mutually assured destruction to turn back? Are our only choices now kill or be killed? I feel like the longer we let Bush prove to the militant Muslims that their fears are justified, the more difficult it will be to extricate ourselves from fighting a losing war. 9-11 was the turning point, and W turned us towards war.

But the problem is not with Muslims in general, but with the militant Muslims. It would be nice if Muslims fought the militant Muslims, then we would not be involved at all, but this is not really happening to any great degree of success.

[zimv20]

It would be nice if Muslims fought the militant Muslims
is this realistic? i'm not planning on attacking any militant christians.

[Taft]

But the problem is not with Muslims in general, but with the militant Muslims. It would be nice if Muslims fought the militant Muslims, then we would not be involved at all, but this is not really happening to any great degree of success.

My problem with the article is the author's assumption that militant Islam is rising (to a degree where we need be concerned) in Western countries. I disagree with the assumption.

I think the greatest source of militant Islam over the last 50 years has been a result of Western intervention in Islamic countries. From an Islamic perspective, it started with Britain's colonialism in the MidEast (and the resulting Isreali state) and has extended to most Western countries "using" the Mid-East for oil, resources and to fight their wars (Capitalism vs. Communism). It is actually not an unreasonable perspective, though the level they take it to is most certainly extreme and unjustifiable.

My point is that militant Islam hasn't brought the war to the Western world as much as the Western world has brought the war to militant Islam.

I do agree with one point the author makes: let's fence off Islam. However, that doesn't amount in my mind to kicking out the Islamic citizens of Western countries. Seeing as most of the Islamic followers living in the West are "West friendly" anyway, this would accomplish little. Rather, I think we should have a plan for pulling out of the Mid-East entirely. Let them run their own countries. Let them fight their wars. Let them make horrible mistakes (under the watchful eye of the UN to ensure things don't go too far). Eventually, they will arrive at their own reconciliation of religion and democracy much like we have in this country. Don't believe it can happen? Look at the progress Iran has made (despite the US's best efforts at meddling). The people there are DEMANDING democracy and slowly they are getting it.

The way it stands, we are trying to force the Islamic world to 21st century democracy (through US style commercialism). Its a pretty painful conversion, to say the least. We not let them get there by themselves and at their own pace?

I, for one, am sick of seeing this country meddle and force its views on people who don't want them. We are not the world's police. We are not good at nation building. We should protect ourselves and leave it at that.

Taft

[Sayhey]

is this realistic? i'm not planning on attacking any militant christians.

Could we at least throw some of the women's clinic bombers and Aryan nation preachers who commit violent acts into jail? I'm not for attacking fundamentalists, but let's not think we don't have our own problem with Christian fundamentalist-inspired violence - or dare I say terrorism. Or have we so quickly forgotten Oklahoma City? Are these folks representative of most Christian fundamentalists? Certainly not, but before we cast stones about Islam it would be helpful to not ignore the extremists in our own backyard.

[zimv20]

Could we at least throw some of the women's clinic bombers and Aryan nation preachers who commit violent acts into jail? I'm not for attacking fundamentalists, but let's not think we don't have our own problem with Christian fundamentalist-inspired violence - or dare I say terrorism.
agreed. i'm all for policing ourselves. my (rather simple) point above was that i personally was not about to go on a, er, crusade w/ a baseball bat to take out those w/ whom i disagree. i thought that's the thing for which frohickey was arguing.

if he meant, as you argue, that a more reasonable higher authority try to deal w/ the issue, then i agree.

bottom line: to look only outward at islam is a double-standard.

[mischief]

Indeed. It seems that what we have in the Bush administration is a form of post-modern return to fundamentalist christian manifest-destiny. We have a case of Zealots seeking to eliminate Zealots.

The problems with this are diverse.

[Frohickey]

is this realistic? i'm not planning on attacking any militant christians.

Maybe not, but christians have fought militant christians before. Kosovo comes to mind.

[Frohickey]

The way it stands, we are trying to force the Islamic world to 21st century democracy (through US style commercialism). Its a pretty painful conversion, to say the least. We not let them get there by themselves and at their own pace?

I, for one, am sick of seeing this country meddle and force its views on people who don't want them. We are not the world's police. We are not good at nation building. We should protect ourselves and leave it at that.

Taft

Maybe the way to do that is a return to Federalism, shrinking the size of the Federal government in lieu of larger state governments. Remember ol' George's speech about avoiding 'entangling alliances'.

[numediaman]

I find this article, and most of what Robert Klein Engler writes, offensive.

First a little background: RKE is a rather prolific poet and anti-immigrant writer. Here are some other examples of his writing:

Look at these sobering statistics. The U. S. Census Bureau just released a report predicting that by the year 2050, blacks in the U. S. will be about 61 million, or about fifteen percent of the population. . .

. . . Another sobering statistic is that most of these illegal immigrants from the south and Asia are coming here to look for work. They are finding work, too, but it is work that is low paid, unsafe and has no prospect for upward mobility. Illegal immigrants will eventually form a permanent underclass of low paid workers in our urban areas. There they will breed social unrest and resentment instead of the American dream. Once allowed to vote, they will vote Democratic.

If the U. S. will not have a Republican Party as we know it in the year 2050, then it will not have a Democratic Party as we know it either. The Democratic Party may keep its name, but it will change its face. The new face of the Democratic Party in 2050 will be the face of minority socialism.

Unless illegal immigration is controlled, not only the U. S., but Europe will be transformed in 50 years. The unique values that Western Civilization represents will disappear into a grimy future of oily streets and smoky skies. Instead of leaving our children steak to eat we will leave them rice.

Doesn't this sound familiar? (By the way, what does "grimy future of oily streets and smoky skies" mean?)

His world view is that blacks, hispanics, muslims are taking over the world -- and they need to be stopped -- otherwise, they will all vote Democratic.

Here's another article:

Immigration and Disease: It's Enough to Make You Sick

Uncontrolled and illegal immigration to the United States causes many problems for the nation. Just the tax revenues spent on welfare programs, education, health care, and housing for illegal immigrants is enough to make one question our immigration policies. Now, we can add another problem and cost associated with illegal immigration: illegal immigrants can make you sick.

He, of course, goes on to say that illegal immigrants pose a health risk.

How about this one:

Another War With Mexico?

The liberal plan for North America imagines a peaceful blending of cultures accomplished by shared economic goals. Based on a past war and present Mexican foreign policy, it is hard to see how this plan can work. Nor can we imagine how uncontrolled and illegal Mexican immigration to the U. S. is in the interest of African-Americans or the white working class in America. Just as past Abolitionist policy concerning Texas was mistaken, so the present liberal policy of uncontrolled immigration to the U. S. is also mistaken. Perhaps only another successful war with Mexico will show that to be the case.

Today, Mexico is more of an enemy than an ally of the U.S. Its foreign policy is as belligerent as any of our other past enemies. An invasion of drugs and immigrants are some of the many reasons why the United States may fight yet another war against Mexico. All the conditions for that war are present. If you talk to some Americans living near the border, then you will hear the war has already started.

Concerning the article posted here:

"I was among those who wrote that this war is not simply a war against terrorism, but is in fact a war against militant Islam" -- so we invaded a secular society in order to conduct a war on militant Islam?

"Many in the West fail to realize that elements of Islam have been at war with Europe for over 1,000 years." -- The rise of Islam in the 8th Century was indeed followed by the conquest of areas of the middle east, north Africa and into Spain. But starting in the 12th Century, it has been the Christian nations that have periodically sought to conquer Islamic nations. As recently as the last two centuries, first Napoleonic France, then the Germans and British, and now the Americans, have invaded Islamic nations -- and stayed.

Mr. Engler is described as a gay Christian conservative. I would add "angry" and "vengeful" to that.

[Frohickey]

I find this article, and most of what Robert Klein Englers writes, offensive.

Concerning the article posted here:

"I was among those who wrote that this war is not simply a war against terrorism, but is in fact a war against militant Islam" -- so we invaded a secular society in order to conduct a war on militant Islam?

"Many in the West fail to realize that elements of Islam have been at war with Europe for over 1,000 years." -- The rise of Islam in the 8th Century was indeed followed by the conquest of areas of the middle east, north Africa and into Spain. But starting in the 12th Century, it has been the Christian nations that have periodically sought to conquer Islamic nations. As recently as the last two centuries, first Napoleonic France, then the Germans and British, and now the Americans, have invaded Islamic nations -- and stayed.

Mr. Englers is described as a gay Christian conservative. I would add "angry" and "vengeful" to that.

One of the byproduct of a society with Freedom of Speech is that you are not free to be unoffended. :o

I think that instead of attacking the messenger, that you argue the points made in the article. What is the latin label for the debating tactic that tries to discredit an argument because of the messenger?

[numediaman]

I think I did, indeed, discuss his ideas. If you feel that I am attacking him personally by reproducing his writings, then you are saying that his own words tend to discredit him -- and I would agree!

I don't care one bit about who this guy is, what his lifestyle or political or religious persuation is (though it seems very important to him). What I care about, and what I will debate, is his words. And those I find offensive.

[SlyHunter]

One of the byproduct of a society with Freedom of Speech is that you are not free to be unoffended. :o

I think that instead of attacking the messenger, that you argue the points made in the article. What is the latin label for the debating tactic that tries to discredit an argument because of the messenger?
(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.

[Frohickey]

I think I did, indeed, discuss his ideas. If you feel that I am attacking him personally by reproducing his writings, then you are saying that his own words tend to discredit him -- and I would agree!

I don't care one bit about who this guy is, what his lifestyle or political or religious persuation is (though it seems very important to him). What I care about, and what I will debate, is his words. And those I find offensive.

What is offensive with his words? I don't see any mistruths in them. That is about the only thing that would offend me, as far as an impersonal article such as the one that was offered.

In the first writing that was quoted, which had to do with illegal immigrants, its a vision of what might happen. I'm for legal immigration, in fact, I'm for assimilation of other cultures, and I could be attributing this sentiment to the writer's words about illegal immigration. I think that immigrants should surround themselves with non-immigrants in order to assimilate the culture of the country they are living in, as well as share their culture with Americans. [b]The melting pot, that was America has cooled, and there are now chunks of cultures.[b] Time to turn up the heat. I want to be able to go to a restaurant, order a lamb shish-kebab, chili dog, chinese sticky-rice tamale and chicken fajitas. :eek: Man, I made myself hungry!!!

The 2nd article about going to war with Mexico, haven't you heard of Mexican soldiers crossing the United States southern border, and some have actually detained a US citizen in his own ranch (http://www.ranchrescue.com/maupin.htm)?!!! Or the Border Patrol agent that was killed (http://www.house.gov/tancredo/newsroom/2003_03_06.html). Or the Mexican nationals that kill US citizens (http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more.php?id=2993_0_2_0) while illegally inside the US. I think when GWBush said they are here to do work that Americans don't want to do, he didn't mean murder.

[numediaman]

So we are at war with Mexico? So we should have a crusade against Islam? Is there anybody on the face of the Earth that you do not want to go to war with?

I find "offensive" the notion that America is at war with the rest of humanity, and that the only people who have value are white, Anglo-Saxon Americans (which is basically Mr. Engler's assertion).

This should come as no surprise to you, we are on opposite ends of this argument. If immigrants do not "assimilate" maybe this is a choice that should open our eyes to the deficiencies of our culture, not to the supposed deficiencies of the immigrants.

[SlyHunter]

This should come as no surprise to you, we are on opposite ends of this argument. If immigrants do not "assimilate" maybe this is a choice that should open our eyes to the deficiencies of our culture, not to the supposed deficiencies of the immigrants.
If they aren't willing to assimilate and become a part of our culture then we should not allow them to imigrate. In order to get the good (jobs, insurance, unearned income tax credit) you must accept the bad (obeying our laws, etc).

We are suppose to be a melting pot not a stew.

[Frohickey]

So we are at war with Mexico? So we should have a crusade against Islam? Is there anybody on the face of the Earth that you do not want to go to war with?

I find "offensive" the notion that America is at war with the rest of humanity, and that the only people who have value are white, Anglo-Saxon Americans (which is basically Mr. Engler's assertion).

This should come as no surprise to you, we are on opposite ends of this argument. If immigrants do not "assimilate" maybe this is a choice that should open our eyes to the deficiencies of our culture, not to the supposed deficiencies of the immigrants.

Mexico should police its own military from trespassing into the territory of the United States, as the US Border Patrol does. War or conflict is the result when you cannot compromise with the other side, or the other side is unwilling to compromise. Americans, are if anything, very willing to compromise, to a degree.

If immigrants do not assimilate, then maybe they should return to the lands where they came from. When cultures merge and assimilate, there is less chance of conflict or misunderstanding.

[Frohickey]

Islam: The World's Most Dangerous Ideology (http://www.politicalusa.com/columnists/seese/seese_122.htm)

The nation of Israel is a nearly sixty year old sore spot in the present-day Middle East, it costs American taxpayers a lot of money to support (billions per year), it's the focus of dispensational Christian theology, but ... Israel can take care of itself.* Really.* All the US has to do is say "sic 'em" and walk away.

The US has a major problem with its role in the present world conflict because it has a religious underpinning in Islamic theology that has again reared its head.* The Ottoman Empire was not defeated in 1918, at the end of World War I.* The Arab/Islamic nations simply split up, some being created by Britain and/or the useless League of Nations (predecessor to the useless United Nations) and went on being Islamic nations, Arab or not. The most secularized nation of the former Ottoman Empire, Turkey, underwent massive transitions toward westernization under Ataturk, but Islam is still the primary religion of the people even though Turkey has no state religion.* Turkish people are not Arabic in ethnicity, although they have a significant Arab population with a growing pro-Islamic population.

As to the balance of the Middle East, including and focusing on times with the holy cities of Islam Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia, Islam is the national religion.* But Islamic peoples aren't staying at home.

The migration of the Muslims into England, Ireland, France, Germany and other European nations, including the territory in Spain once occupied by the Moors of North Africa (Islamic people), and into nations in the Western Hemisphere (primarily the United States) the world has an enormous problem with an idelology/religion of conquest and conversion at sword's point.

When the American press speaks of the Arab nations, they are careful to avoid the religious implications lest the jihad or holy war become exposed for what it really is:* a worldwide movement by Islam to migrate, settle, acquire wealth and power by numbers, and procede with the Islamic agenda of world domination.* "Islamic radicals" is the term used to differentiate actively terrorist Islamics from those who are not yet active.*

This just isn't being given the press it deserves because America and Europe are in the "do not offend" mode of classic national stupidity which arrests all preventative action until eventually peaceful resolution is no longer possible and bloodshed occurs.* To Islam, the West represents the focus and home base of Christianity regardless of where it was really birthed, in the Middle East.* It was in the West that Christianity grew, and both Judaism and Christianity are to Islam mortal enemies to be eradicated.

The US has done its best to appease the Islamics, which includes allowing them to migrate into the US as students or tourists and simply become a part of the population.* In any jihad, it is clear that the Islamic beliefs will dominate any alternative course of action on the part of the Muslim population, like neutrality, which would be treason to the cause of Allah.

For the life of me I cannot understand the US policy that I've viewed since the last days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt through the Truman administration and on into the present day, consisting of no-win partial war and grand appeasement of our enemies.* To me, the United States is a sovereign nation and can alter its immigration laws as it pleases.* Apparently it pleases the leadership of the US to ignore the world ambitions of Islam, since Arab nations sit on the world's major source of oil.* If another nation did that, our media would accuse them of selling out their country for profit.* A few American writers have expressed that opinion, but fairly quietly.

Islam as a threat to the world around it is over 1400 years old, dating back to the seventh century A.D.* By the year 1,000 A.D. the advanced Persian civilization, with medicine, astronomy, advanced mathematics, literature and other marks of civilization was plunged back into the darkest of dark ages by the advance of Islam.* Even Omar Khayyam had to flee to Samarkand to avoid the Assassins, which name has been transliterated into the English language.* Its origin is in Islam, the name being assigned to hit squads of Muslim "radicals" who carried out a religious contract against any opposition leader or popular figure.

Whether the United States maintains its secular status as a free society for all religious beliefs, which is the sum of the First Amendment religion clause, Islam is not a party to any treaty with either secular or religious nations. It has one doctrine:* conquer for Allah.* If the American leadership believes it has a bunch of Ataturk clones in the present-day Arab dictators or warlords, it is dead wrong and many Americans are dead in wars with these folks who are so peaceful.

Americans insist on producing and using conventional weapons of warfare, a useless and bloody way to fight an ideology.* The early Christians grew under intense persecution, that's the way ideologies are.* National wars are fought with conventional weaponry, nation against nation until one surrenders.* That is not the course of ideological warfare.

This is not a diatribe designed to spawn hatred of any religion, it is merely an analysis of the times, trends and events that are affecting all our lives and the factors of which the world and the United States must be wary in order to be able to protect what few freedoms we have left (compared to the freedoms our forefathers enjoyed prior to World War I).* Americans are notoriously ill-informed when it comes to the various threats to its people and its national security, finding enemies where there is little proof that they exist as such, and not finding enemies in nations or in ideologies that are capable of bringing down our nation and killing millions of our people.

Call it terrorism if you like, certainly the basis of Islam fits the description of terrorism but not every Muslim subscribes to volunteering as a terrorist.* At least not willingly.* So far, all the terrorists have been Islamic, that doesn't mean they always will be. Nor does the fact that many Muslims are peaceful neighbors mean they always will be.* Right now, Islam is still the world's most dangerous ideology.* Europeans and Americans need to recognize that publicly and begin to unwind the coils of Islam present in the various Western world's countries. Otherwise, the growth and spread of Islam will continue until it is the world's dominant force.* Personally, I think it will be contained prior to that time, but that may only be wishful thinking.

=====

[numediaman]

I glad, Frohickey, that you that have come out from behind your wall and proclaimed your real stance.

Well, guys, what do you think? Want to start a crusade against Islam? (If yes, let me know so I can emigrate to Canada.)

[pseudobrit]

Right now, Islam is still the world's most dangerous ideology.* Europeans and Americans need to recognize that publicly and begin to unwind the coils of Islam present in the various Western world's countries. Otherwise, the growth and spread of Islam will continue until it is the world's dominant force.

What a bunch of horse****. This is hate speech. You should be ashamed if you espouse this view.

[Thanatoast]

Could we at least throw some of the women's clinic bombers and Aryan nation preachers who commit violent acts into jail? And here's where a lot of the problems arise, I think. I'm not trying to pick on you Sayhey, but I notice that a lot of people advocate capturing these people and throwing them in jail. But these same peoples' response to the same tactics practiced by Muslims is to capture them and send them to Cuba, incommunicado, and/or besiege cities where they are hiding. Why doesn't Bush advocate invading and occupying Mississippi and besieging Biloxi? (assuming some fundy christian terrorist came from there) Why is it war on the one hand, and crime on the other? His blatant double standard is disturbing to say the least, and makes the terrorists' case for them.

[mactastic]

If they aren't willing to assimilate and become a part of our culture then we should not allow them to imigrate. In order to get the good (jobs, insurance, unearned income tax credit) you must accept the bad (obeying our laws, etc).

We are suppose to be a melting pot not a stew.

Are you not free in this country to NOT assimilate if you don't want to? Or is it forced assimilation for us all?

If immigrants do not assimilate, then maybe they should return to the lands where they came from. When cultures merge and assimilate, there is less chance of conflict or misunderstanding.

Oh I get it. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. You guys are Borg! :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Desertrat]

numediaman, most of what you cite from Engler is factual, insofar as what he states as fact. Further, I think many--or maybe most--of his conclusions are true.

I think you err with rhetorical questions such as, "...so we invaded a secular society in order to conduct a war on militant Islam?" We did not invade a secular society. We overthrew a secular government. (Last I heard, Sunnis and Shiites were Islamic.) Insofar as Al Qaida and its sympathizers, they are indeed militant Islamics, and when it's kill or be killed I'd call it a war. Maybe not in the classic form of which you might think, but who says the styles of war must forever and always be the same?

You may object to his comments about immigrants and disease, but TB is returning, and in a form which is far more difficult to treat than when I had it back in 1956'57. AIDS is known to have begun outside the U.S.; although Patient 1 was from England, he'd been exposed in Africa. Many of the childhood diseases which have been prety much stamped out since WW II are also on the increase, and particularly among the illegal immigrant populations.

His statements about the Mexican government are spot-on, from my observations since I moved to the Border in 1983. Try reading their requirements for you to move to Mexico, particularly if you want a job.

'Rat

[Frohickey]

I glad, Frohickey, that you that have come out from behind your wall and proclaimed your real stance.

Well, guys, what do you think? Want to start a crusade against Islam? (If yes, let me know so I can emigrate to Canada.)

What wall? As I have said before, the only people I hate are people that are trying to kill me. Heck, I go to a falafel place at least once a week. I love M.E. food. (What do they call the cream sauce that they put in those falafels?) ;)

[mactastic]

Yougurt Tahini sauce usually.

[whocares]

Of course, we all know that your "pilgrim fathers" assimilated real nice with American natives... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Frohickey]

Oh I get it. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. You guys are Borg! :eek: :eek: :eek:

Dibs on the alcove next to 7 of 9. :D :D :D

http://007ofnine.tripod.com/silver/silver8.jpg

[Thanatoast]

I think you err with rhetorical questions such as, "...so we invaded a secular society in order to conduct a war on militant Islam?" We did not invade a secular society. We overthrew a secular government. (Last I heard, Sunnis and Shiites were Islamic.) Insofar as Al Qaida and its sympathizers, they are indeed militant Islamics, and when it's kill or be killed I'd call it a war. Maybe not in the classic form of which you might think, but who says the styles of war must forever and always be the same?Two things: First, the question of whether it really is kill or be killed? Are these our only options? Is our only choice to kill every radical Islamic militant on the face of the planet? Is there another solution, perhaps? Seems to me we haven't even taken a good look at the reasons we were attacked in the first place. "Because they hate our freedom" is a load of crap, of course.

Second, I don't know if you did this accidentally or what, but did you link Iraqi Muslims with al-Qaeda? Because before we invaded and occupied Iraq, there were no ties between the two. Our occupation, however, is quickly generating more militants of the domestic (Iraqi) variety. And Bush's solution? "Strong leadership". Too bad he's led us straight into a disaster.

[Frohickey]

Two things: First, the question of whether it really is kill or be killed? Are these our only options? Is our only choice to kill every radical Islamic militant on the face of the planet? Is there another solution, perhaps? Seems to me we haven't even taken a good look at the reasons we were attacked in the first place. "Because they hate our freedom" is a load of crap, of course.

Second, I don't know if you did this accidentally or what, but did you link Iraqi Muslims with al-Qaeda? Because before we invaded and occupied Iraq, there were no ties between the two. Our occupation, however, is quickly generating more militants of the domestic (Iraqi) variety. And Bush's solution? "Strong leadership". Too bad he's led us straight into a disaster.

I did not link Iraqi Muslims with al-Qaeda. But maybe, someone in the administration knew that the removal of Birthday-boy Saddam Hussein (I think he had a birthday yesterday) would create a power vacuum in Iraq, and that power vacuum would be very enticing to terrorists.

Makes you wonder how much resources are being diverted into supplying the terrorists inside Iraq versus terrorists inside Western countries. Best place to fight, you must agree, is in the enemy's backyard. Fighting in your own backyard causes a lot of damage, not to mention, makes your people nervous.

As for the 1st point, about finding out the reasons. We already know the reasons, as Osama himself have outlined (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html). One part of Osama's demand is the 'call to Islam'.
(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

Part of that is a demand for a halt of
We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.
I could see GLAAD, Budweiser, Bally's, Bank of America, and others just stop what they are doing, and lay on the ground... yeahsureright.

We already know why they hate us. And the screed they have put out as demands are just irreconcilable. Or if they were not, and we were to reconcile with them, this society would not be the society that it is.

[mactastic]

I did not link Iraqi Muslims with al-Qaeda. But maybe, someone in the administration knew that the removal of Birthday-boy Saddam Hussein (I think he had a birthday yesterday) would create a power vacuum in Iraq, and that power vacuum would be very enticing to terrorists.

Makes you wonder how much resources are being diverted into supplying the terrorists inside Iraq versus terrorists inside Western countries. Best place to fight, you must agree, is in the enemy's backyard. Fighting in your own backyard causes a lot of damage, not to mention, makes your people nervous.

Fighting in someone else's backyard just pisses THEM off too. We aren't fighting all of the Iraqi people.... are we?

As for the 1st point, about finding out the reasons. We already know the reasons, as Osama himself have outlined (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html). One part of Osama's demand is the 'call to Islam'.


Part of that is a demand for a halt of

I could see GLAAD, Budweiser, Bally's, Bank of America, and others just stop what they are doing, and lay on the ground... yeahsureright.

We already know why they hate us. And the screed they have put out as demands are just irreconcilable. Or if they were not, and we were to reconcile with them, this society would not be the society that it is.

You are trying to assert that Osama = All of Islam. Do you equate all of Christianity with the Army of God (http://www.armyofgod.com/) or the call to RaHoWa?

[Thanatoast]

I did not link Iraqi Muslims with al-Qaeda. But maybe, someone in the administration knew that the removal of Birthday-boy Saddam Hussein (I think he had a birthday yesterday) would create a power vacuum in Iraq, and that power vacuum would be very enticing to terrorists.

Makes you wonder how much resources are being diverted into supplying the terrorists inside Iraq versus terrorists inside Western countries. Best place to fight, you must agree, is in the enemy's backyard. Fighting in your own backyard causes a lot of damage, not to mention, makes your people nervous.

As for the 1st point, about finding out the reasons. We already know the reasons, as Osama himself have outlined (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html). One part of Osama's demand is the 'call to Islam'.


Part of that is a demand for a halt of

I could see GLAAD, Budweiser, Bally's, Bank of America, and others just stop what they are doing, and lay on the ground... yeahsureright.

We already know why they hate us. And the screed they have put out as demands are just irreconcilable. Or if they were not, and we were to reconcile with them, this society would not be the society that it is.I think your logic is faulty on the backyard reference. Terrorists operate in cells, which are wholly independent of one another. Causing trouble in Iraq probably has little impact on plans being made here. Except that there are probably more of them now, of course.

I'll give you credit Frohickey, though, for finding Osama's open letter. You're the only person I've talked to who's ever brought it up. I found it about a year and a half ago, during the build up for the war, and have always wondered why it never garnered more attention.

As for what it says, I think we need to consider this "staking out a position". Osama no more wants America to become Muslim than Bush wants Iraq to become Christian. Wait. Bad example. :rolleyes: Osama no more expects America to become Muslim than you do. His point is that we are lacking in moral fortitude, which is often claimed by our own homegrown religious extremists. His other points are along the same lines.

To be left alone (as in stop meddling in the Middle East) and to be treated as an equal, I think, would be enough to end the immediate killings. Call me naive if you want, but isn't that all anybody wants? Besides, were we to stop meddling, most of the wind would fall out of his sails anyway, and the Muslim population would no longer be sympathetic to his cause. I'm sure Iraqi Muslims no more enjoy shooting at US troops than the troops enjoy shooting back. Who wants to live a life in constant fear of death by explosion? Not us. Not them.

I find it ridiculous that Bush regards every point as "giving in to the terrorists", regardless of whether want they want is a good idea or not. We can't leave Iraq because we would "let the terrorists win". ************. We shouldn't be there anyway, and leaving doesn't mean the terrorists have "won" anything. It means we're doing what should've been done in the first place.

[whocares]

<Frohickey>

We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.

Because most of these aren't wideley condemned in the US (except the last 2)?

</Frohickey>

What people do in they own country is their business. I you don't agree, that's your right, just don't go tell them you disagree with bombs, economic sanctions and what not. :rolleyes:

[yahooz]

Could we at least throw some of the women's clinic bombers and Aryan nation preachers who commit violent acts into jail? I'm not for attacking fundamentalists, but let's not think we don't have our own problem with Christian fundamentalist-inspired violence - or dare I say terrorism. Or have we so quickly forgotten Oklahoma City? Are these folks representative of most Christian fundamentalists? Certainly not, but before we cast stones about Islam it would be helpful to not ignore the extremists in our own backyard.

I completely agree. Religous extremism no matter in what culture should not be tolerated. terrorism is terrorism...

[whocares]

Two things: First, the question of whether it really is kill or be killed? Are these our only options? Is our only choice to kill every radical Islamic militant on the face of the planet? Is there another solution, perhaps? Seems to me we haven't even taken a good look at the reasons we were attacked in the first place. "Because they hate our freedom" is a load of crap, of course.

It's not often that I have seen Amricans ask themselves this question. I'm pleased you brought it up.

Fighting terrorism with violence is a deadend. By attacking them you just make them more angry and encourage them to persue with terrorist acts. The best army in the world (which, IMHO, isn't the US Army) doesn't stand a chance against people who are willing to die for their cause. Most US soldiers I've seen recently on TV seem scared ****less of dying - and that's quite understandable.

Rule 1 for "fighting" terrorism: don't piss people off. This includes not interfering with their business in their own countries.

[SlyHunter]

It's not often that I have seen Amricans ask themselves this question. I'm pleased you brought it up.

Fighting terrorism with violence is a deadend. By attacking them you just make them more angry and encourage them to persue with terrorist acts. The best army in the world (which, IMHO, isn't the US Army) doesn't stand a chance against people who are willing to die for their cause. Most US soldiers I've seen recently on TV seem scared ****less of dying - and that's quite understandable.

Rule 1 for "fighting" terrorism: don't piss people off. This includes not interfering with their business in their own countries.
They can't committ terrorism if they are dead.
You can't defeat them if you appease them if you give in to their demands all you do is prove to the world that terrorism works and more people will try using terrorism to get their way. Those who value life very little to the point where they don't even value their own life there is only one answer. Removal of their life.

[zimv20]

Rule 1 for "fighting" terrorism: don't piss people off. This includes not interfering with their business in their own countries.
yes. if interference is the cause of terrorism, how can the solution be more interference?

[pseudobrit]

yes. if interference is the cause of terrorism, how can the solution be more interference?

Because they think it's a problem of not enough interference.

Barring that, we'll "interfere" with them until there's no one left to kill us. Or left to kill.

[SlyHunter]

yes. if interference is the cause of terrorism, how can the solution be more interference?
I don't recall any interference causing 9/11.

[Thanatoast]

They can't committ terrorism if they are dead.
You can't defeat them if you appease them if you give in to their demands all you do is prove to the world that terrorism works and more people will try using terrorism to get their way. Those who value life very little to the point where they don't even value their own life there is only one answer. Removal of their life.They won't commit terrorism if we don't give them a reason.

Your second paragraph could have come straight out of Osama's speech book. The language of fanaticism is universal.

If they demand that we stop supporting Isreal in their daily missle attacks on Palestinian civilians, and we do stop, its not appeasement, it's a good ****ing idea. If anything, it might prove that we've been wrong the last fifty years, but no, we can't look "weak" in the eyes of a world that already knows we're full of ****. :rolleyes:

Let me ask you this, are you willing to die for your principles? If so, is your life worth any less than the next persons? Don't say that anyone willing to die for a cause doesn't value their life. They value life enough to give it up in the hopes of making it better for those they left behind. Any cause that gets people to blow themselves up is worth looking into to find the reasons behind it. Dissmissing it out of hand is both stupid and dangerous.

I don't recall any interference...Read Frohickey's link above. And look up the coup supported in Iran by the US in the 50's, and the support to Saddam given in the 80's, among other things.

[whocares]

I don't recall any interference causing 9/11.

That illustrates what I personnaly think is one of America's greatest challenges (no insulting intended, I'm trying to word this carefully): THE MEDIA. The media only show you what it wants to. 9/11 got a tremendous amount of media coverage, to the point that I almost pucked my guts out. The incessant bombing of Bagdad between both Gulf war's got little to no coverage. The children dying for lack of food/medical care during the oil for food operation got little coverage. General US and generally Occidental bullying of "weaker" countries gets no coverage.

There was intereference before 9/11, you just weren't told about and didn't bother to find out about it. People don't attack the US just because they are jealous of you and you have the best place in the world. I for one am not jealous of the US and do not want to become an American (again, this is not intended as an insult).

And I think suicide bombers value their life very highly, possibly higher than many "normal" people value theirs. But for them, the value of their cause (survival of their people/people's interestes, freedom, integraty) is even higher. My point was that if someone is ready to die for their cause, you want be able to prevent it. What does he care if he gets caught setting a bomb on a plane or killed? There will always be somebody to follow up on him. To stop terrorism, you need to eliminate the source of terrorism, namely inteference in other people's business to protect your own interest. So I guess you have two choices:
1.continue defending your interests & way of life in the way you do today and accept terrorism as a collateral damage;
2.realize that you are not the only people on earth, that you are already pretty well off and stop bullying other people so you can get richer/happier.

[whocares]

Read Frohickey's link above. And look up the coup supported in Iran by the US in the 50's, and the support to Saddam given in the 80's, among other things.

I think it would be almost endless trying to list all the interferences of the US (and Europe) in other countries politics... and the desasters that followed.

Saddam is one.
Oussama is another; trained to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. That kinda backfired didn't it? :rolleyes:

Panama.

Assassination of, was it Peron?, and setting up dictator Pinochet? That was nice.

Vietnam.

Letting Saddam invade Kuwait so you could then free it and set up a pro american dictatorship.

...

[Sayhey]

I think it would be almost endless trying to list all the interferences of the US (and Europe) in other countries politics... and the desasters that followed.

Saddam is one.
Oussama is another; trained to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. That kinda backfired didn't it? :rolleyes:

Panama.

Assassination of, was it Peron?, and setting up dictator Pinochet? That was nice.

Vietnam.

Letting Saddam invade Kuwait so you could then free it and set up a pro american dictatorship.

...

Yes, the list is sadly very long, but it doesn't include the assassination of Peron. You maybe thinking of the CIA orchestrated coup in Chile, ironically on Sept. 11, 1973, in which the democratically elected President, Salvador Allende (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende), was killed and Augusto Pinochet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet) was installed. Juan Peron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Peron) was the President of Argentina and though he was forced out in the 1950s he returned to become President in the 1970s.

[blackfox]

With regards to a comments suggesting that terrorists won't both us if we don't bother them...I don't know if that is correct, or if it might be too late at this point either way...This is indeed shaping up to be an ideological war...and ideology is not often praised for its' use of rationality...the perceptual lines in the sand have been drawn...which is one of my biggest concerns in Iraq w/ how the US has been letting themselves be perceived as, both by their actions and inaction..
.as far as the larger picture, I admit I am a believer of 'realpolitik' and although I am personally against the war being fought in Iraq, it is not unrealistic to say there might have been strategic significance to toppling Iraq, vis-a-vis Iran and w/regards to Israel and the Palestinian question. A show of power, is often something that impresses in the Middle East, and if done correctly Iraq could have in part solved the Isreali/Palestinian 10 or so years down the line.(It should be noted, that I do not mean to seem condescending to the region or that I am personally agreeing w/ this). I try to be well-read,but I may not have the info available to some w/ which to make decisions and I allow for that.The fact that any policy that results in loss-of-life is morally repugnant to a liberal society (and me), invariably results in a public outcry of some sort...and that is the irony of a liberal superpower...in order to protect your soft-center, you create hard edges...in order to keep a democracy, you have a very un-democratic military establishment...and they have never understood and liked each other...so I am not against the hunt for terrorists or occasional invasions, they are the stuff of history...but they have to be well-thought out, practical and effective...otherwise you will do more harm than good...What I do not like about Bush and the handling of Iraq mostly boils down to incompetence, not ideology...if you are going to lie, then at least try and do it well...if you are going to invade, have a plan...do your homework...sorry for the long post...

[whocares]

Yes, the list is sadly very long, but it doesn't include the assassination of Peron. You maybe thinking of the CIA orchestrated coup in Chile, ironically on Sept. 11, 1973, in which the democratically elected President, Salvador Allende (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende), was killed and Augusto Pinochet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet) was installed. Juan Peron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Peron) was the President of Argentina and though he was forced out in the 1950s he returned to become President in the 1970s.

Thanks! I knew I got something wrong. I stand corrected.

[Frohickey]

Fighting in someone else's backyard just pisses THEM off too. We aren't fighting all of the Iraqi people.... are we?

You are trying to assert that Osama = All of Islam. Do you equate all of Christianity with the Army of God (http://www.armyofgod.com/) or the call to RaHoWa?

In both cases you attributed 'all' to my positions, when I did not. Its not 'all of the Iraqi people' and its not 'all of Islam'. Its 'all militant islamic terrorists' and 'all militant islamic terrorists'.

[Frohickey]

I think your logic is faulty on the backyard reference. Terrorists operate in cells, which are wholly independent of one another. Causing trouble in Iraq probably has little impact on plans being made here. Except that there are probably more of them now, of course.

To be left alone (as in stop meddling in the Middle East) and to be treated as an equal, I think, would be enough to end the immediate killings. Call me naive if you want, but isn't that all anybody wants? Besides, were we to stop meddling, most of the wind would fall out of his sails anyway, and the Muslim population would no longer be sympathetic to his cause. I'm sure Iraqi Muslims no more enjoy shooting at US troops than the troops enjoy shooting back. Who wants to live a life in constant fear of death by explosion? Not us. Not them.


I don't think its a faulty argument. There is no unlimited support, financial and manpower for terrorists. Some terror cells might be in the various Western countries, but there is not unlimited financial support. If you have more terror cells or terrorists showing up in Iraq, these would require some support in order to be effective.

As to your second point about what the terrorists want. I think you are making the same mistake as LBJ did when he thought that the various escalations and bombings during JFK's war (Vietnam) would bring them to the bargaining table or to call it quits. I think its called 'transference'. I'm pretty positive that there have been analysts in the administration that are not basing their analysis on tranference but on actual interviews and actions of the terrorists.

[Frohickey]

It's not often that I have seen Amricans ask themselves this question. I'm pleased you brought it up.

Fighting terrorism with violence is a deadend. By attacking them you just make them more angry and encourage them to persue with terrorist acts. The best army in the world (which, IMHO, isn't the US Army) doesn't stand a chance against people who are willing to die for their cause. Most US soldiers I've seen recently on TV seem scared ****less of dying - and that's quite understandable.

Rule 1 for "fighting" terrorism: don't piss people off. This includes not interfering with their business in their own countries.

I beg to differ. You don't make nice and sign peace agreements with terrorists. I would have thought that the French would agree there. Remember Neville Chamberlain? History repeats itself for people that do not learn from it.

[agreenster]

Do people really think this is a christianity vs islam war?

[zimv20]

Do people really think this is a christianity vs islam war?
if you remove all the statements from the WH and concentrate on the actions, what does it look like?

[whocares]

I beg to differ. You don't make nice and sign peace agreements with terrorists. I would have thought that the French would agree there. Remember Neville Chamberlain? History repeats itself for people that do not learn from it.

Let me develop the point I was trying to make:
1. Fact: 'Terrorism' against the US and occidental world exists.
2. Fact: the US & occidental world are figthing 'terrorism' by attacking countries like Afghanistan and Iraq (at least it's one of the reasons for invading Iraq).
3. Fact: the results of this 'war against terror' are debatable.

Do you really think that the way to deal with terrorism is bombing and pissing people off half way around the world? No. I'm not saying you should forgive and forget. I'm saying alternative solutions should be saught. Have you ever considered that US actions may be percieved as terrorism in some countries? It's a matter of perception.

[SlyHunter]

Do people really think this is a christianity vs islam war?
No civilization vs terrorist who think suicide bombing and other terrorist activities is an acceptable means to an end.

[Thanatoast]

I don't think its a faulty argument. There is no unlimited support, financial and manpower for terrorists. Some terror cells might be in the various Western countries, but there is not unlimited financial support. If you have more terror cells or terrorists showing up in Iraq, these would require some support in order to be effective.

As to your second point about what the terrorists want. I think you are making the same mistake as LBJ did when he thought that the various escalations and bombings during JFK's war (Vietnam) would bring them to the bargaining table or to call it quits. I think its called 'transference'. I'm pretty positive that there have been analysts in the administration that are not basing their analysis on tranference but on actual interviews and actions of the terrorists.
I think you must've misunderstood me. Terrorist cells in America probably aren't receiving any support from fellow terrorists in Iraq, so invading Iraq has probably done very little to weaken terrorist activities here in the states.

And your second paragraph, unless I'm misunderstanding, is actually the exact opposite of what I'm saying. W is trying to eradicate terrorism by way of full scale military action - an unwinnable proposition. LBJ, you say, tried to bomb the enemy into negotiations - also a poor choice. What I say is - stop supporting violent, anti-democratic regimes in the Middle East just because they are friendly to our energy needs, stop bombing civilians in Iraq, and terrorists will have no cause behind their accusations anymore. It's a pull back, not an escalation. It's also a good idea on its own merit (not supporting bad guys and not bombing civilians, that is), not just "appeasement", as Bush likes to characterize it.

[Frohickey]

Let me develop the point I was trying to make:
1. Fact: 'Terrorism' against the US and occidental world exists.
2. Fact: the US & occidental world are figthing 'terrorism' by attacking countries like Afghanistan and Iraq (at least it's one of the reasons for invading Iraq).
3. Fact: the results of this 'war against terror' are debatable.

Do you really think that the way to deal with terrorism is bombing and pissing people off half way around the world? No. I'm not saying you should forgive and forget. I'm saying alternative solutions should be saught. Have you ever considered that US actions may be percieved as terrorism in some countries? It's a matter of perception.

The way to deal with terrorism is the same way to deal with other acts of aggression. Kill the aggressors.
I'll forgive when the terrorists say that they are sorry and are going to change their ways. I'll forget when I see a pattern of them actually changing their ways.

If the terrorists want us out of their countries, why don't they commit their acts of terrorism or whatever they want to within their country's borders, and gain control of the government, and then they can ask us to leave.

[mactastic]

The way to deal with terrorism is the same way to deal with other acts of aggression. Kill the aggressors.
I'll forgive when the terrorists say that they are sorry and are going to change their ways. I'll forget when I see a pattern of them actually changing their ways.

The more we kill with our current tactics, the more they recruit. One step forward, two steps back and all that.

If the terrorists want us out of their countries, why don't they commit their acts of terrorism or whatever they want to within their country's borders, and gain control of the government, and then they can ask us to leave.

So if terrorists took over Iraq and asked us to leave we would???? And you call me an appeaser! :eek: :eek: :eek:

[skunk]

So if terrorists took over Iraq and asked us to leave we would???? And you call me an appeaser! :eek: :eek: :eek:
Terrorists HAVE taken over Iraq. :(

[skunk]

Is the "C-word" "compensation"? Because it's beginning to look as if some is due to the Iraqis. This misadventure is as bad as it gets. One totally illegal war, and the vestigial reputation of the US and the UK as being somehow "better" than the "enemy" is looking pretty much shattered. I want us out of there NOW. This has gone far enough. Blair, Bush, Cheney, Hoon, Straw, Rumsfeld and Rice, together with their military top brass, should all be indicted and made to answer for this outrage. They are doing this for US! WE elected them. Next time a Muslim expresses his or her hatred or disgust, what on earth can we say? Sorry? :(

[zimv20]

The way to deal with terrorism is the same way to deal with other acts of aggression. Kill the aggressors.

i guarantee you this will never bring an end to terrorism. as evidence, israel's been doing it for decades.

[skunk]

The way to deal with terrorism is the same way to deal with other acts of aggression. Kill the aggressors.
You seem to forget: WE ARE THE AGGRESSORS.

[numediaman]

The more we kill with our current tactics, the more they recruit. One step forward, two steps back and all that.

Kind of along those lines:

Macedonia faked 'militant' raid

BBC -- Macedonian officials have admitted that seven alleged Pakistani militants killed in March 2002 were in fact illegal immigrants shot in cold blood.

They said four officers in the security services had been charged with their murder, while former Interior Minister Ljube Boskovski may also face charges.

At the time, the interior ministry said they had been killed after trying to ambush police in the capital, Skopje.

But a police spokeswoman said they had in fact been shot in a "staged murder".

When the incident was reported more than two years ago, it was claimed that a new front had opened up in the war on terror.

The Macedonian interior ministry said the seven men of Pakistani origin were killed after opening fire on a police patrol with machine guns.

Here is yet another story that will be reported on in the Middle East.

[pseudobrit]

i guarantee you this will never bring an end to terrorism. as evidence, israel's been doing it for decades.

Not if you kill them all. Our nuclear stockpile's been sitting around collecting dust for quite some time. I know some neocons want to play with the big firecrackers, so I wouldn't rule it out.

[numediaman]

Sorry, I was wrong. Everything is actually OK. The Pres said so:

President Bush conceded today that U.S. troops still face "some tough fighting," but he insisted that "we're making progress, you bet" toward stabilizing the war-torn nation.

[Frohickey]

So if terrorists took over Iraq and asked us to leave we would???? And you call me an appeaser! :eek: :eek: :eek:

You missed the 'and gain control of the government' part.

[SlyHunter]

i guarantee you this will never bring an end to terrorism. as evidence, israel's been doing it for decades.
No Israel has been restrained for decades they havn't gone full bore like the could and solve the problem once and for good. The reason it has dragged on is because they been trying the nicer ways first.

[skunk]

No Israel has been restrained for decades they havn't gone full bore like the could and solve the problem once and for good. The reason it has dragged on is because they been trying the nicer ways first.
What, they're being NICE??? :eek: I'd hate to see them being nasty.
So you still reckon they should just kill ALL Palestinians, do you? They make a desert, and they call it peace.

[SlyHunter]

What, they're being NICE??? :eek: I'd hate to see them being nasty.
So you still reckon they should just kill ALL Palestinians, do you? They make a desert, and they call it peace.
Nope.
I think they should execute Arafat for refusing to do anything to stop the terrorist and for leading the terrorist. I think that when a parade of folks wearing masks firing guns into the air out in the street shouting about killing Israelites live there is a problem. I think such a parade would make good target practice. These people by their actions show they are enemy combatants (remember wearing masks, carrying weapons, yelling death to Israel add those together = enemy = die).

I think when someone gets in front of a television camera and brags how he has led terrorist to kill israelis that he should be imprisoned or killed. I think people should be terrified to brag about the fact they are terrorist. I think the ones that raise their hands or their voices shouting to the world "I am a terrorist" they are announceing "I am an enemy kill me now".

Yes I say Israel has been nice compared to me so far.


Not all Palestinians. Just the ones with the guns shouting for the deaths of Isralites.

[skunk]

Yes I say Israel has been nice compared to me so far.

Wow, you must be a nasty piece of work :eek: :eek:

[agreenster]

You know, this is just one of those situations that just suck all the way around.

We're already too invested in the war to back out now, but backing out may lead to further terrorist actions. But the right thing to do is to reach some sort of diplomatic agreement, but that will never happen because terrorists will never be appeased.

I think this is just a fire that has to burn itself out. No good will come of it, especially since everyone is so quick to point the finger on both sides. "Crusades-this" and "Jihad-that" and weapons of mass destruction and national security, blah-de-freakin blah. Why don't people just call it what it is. Its immature. Its freakin' global immaturity. Everyone just quit KILLING each other, and figure this thing out.

It's sad, destructive, and depressing. It's sick that humans still instigate murder, whether by terrorist actions or declarations of war. If as much effort was spent trying to resolve issues around a table as on the battlefield, I feel this world would have a lot less suffering.

I just finished watching "The House of Sand and Fog," so I'm a little sensitive and philosophical...good flick by the way

[skunk]

Its immature. Its freakin' global immaturity. Everyone just quit KILLING each other, and figure this thing out.

It's sad, destructive, and depressing. It's sick that humans still instigate murder, whether by terrorist actions or declarations of war. If as much effort was spent trying to resolve issues around a table as on the battlefield, I feel this world would have a lot less suffering.
That is precisely what the UN is for. The US and the UK were instrumental in setting up the UN to bring "maturity" to international relations. Unfortunately it seems they did not RTFM.

[Sayhey]

Unfortunately it seems they did not RTFM.

??? as in READ THE FU... oh, I got it! Very good, skunk. ;)

[Neserk]

Everyone just quit KILLING each other, and figure this thing out.



Just thought this needed to be said again...

[Frohickey]

Just thought this needed to be said again...

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself!" .......John Stewart Mill

[skunk]

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself!" .......John Stewart Mill
That's all very well, but you have to choose your target.

[Thanatoast]

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself!" .......John Stewart MillSo only people who are willing to kill one another have lives worth living?

[numediaman]

In case you missed this:

[IJ Reilly]

Do people really think this is a christianity vs islam war?

We discussed this question in a thread several months ago, and yes, some people certainly do see this as a battle between Christianity and Islam. I remember daring someone to enlighten us with some of the anti-Christian rhetoric coming from the radical Islamic leadership. Hearing none, the subject dropped.

[SlyHunter]

Originally Posted by Frohickey
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself!" .......John Stewart Mill

So only people who are willing to kill one another have lives worth living?
Actually I believe it is widely believe that freedom is not something you are given but something you take. Those who aren't willing to fight to defend their freedom very soon will find they have none. Those who are willing to fight for others freedom has much more.

Actually rereading John Stewart Mill's quote I see it has more implications and go far deeper than what I stated.

[Thanatoast]

In case you missed this:hehe. yeah, i liked that one.

Actually I believe it is widely believe that freedom is not something you are given but something you take. Those who aren't willing to fight to defend their freedom very soon will find they have none. Those who are willing to fight for others freedom has much more.that sounds exactly like what iraqi terrorists(freedom fighters? :eek: ) could be telling eachother. why do they think they aren't free? maybe because our "liberating" armies have hunkered down and become "occupying" armies. they, like many here, see no signs of the us moving out of their lands any time soon.

there is, however, this interesting article on the bbc (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3681289.stm)

and of course, you're assuming that the reason we invaded was to free the iraqi people, a dicey proposition at best.

[skunk]

there is, however, this interesting article on the bbc (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3681289.stm)

Yes, I just saw that myself. George "Withdrawal" Bush?

[mactastic]

Is THAT what the W is for? Interesting. :D :eek: :D

[professor]

Actually I believe it is widely believe that freedom is not something you are given but something you take. Those who aren't willing to fight to defend their freedom very soon will find they have none. Those who are willing to fight for others freedom has much more.


Has it ever crossed your mind that when you take what you call your freedom, you may be taking it away from others? U.S. actions throughout history have been a history of taking freedom away from other nations, with military means, all in the name of so-called christianity and "freedom" for yourselves.

[pseudobrit]

Yes, I just saw that myself. George "Withdrawal" Bush?

I wish his dad would have pulled out.

[mactastic]

I wish his dad would have pulled out.

He did... Oh wait, you're not talking about Kuwait! :eek: :D

[skunk]

I wish his dad would have pulled out.
And not just once, either!

[trebblekicked]

I wish his dad would have pulled out.

lenny bruce is smiling somewhere.