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

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Frohickey, Apr 29, 2004.

  1. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #1
    Militant Islam Is Moving Ahead As Expected

    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. ;)
     
  2. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #2
    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.
     
  3. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #3
    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...
     
  4. Frohickey thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #4
    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.
     
  5. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #5
    is this realistic? i'm not planning on attacking any militant christians.
     
  6. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #6
    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
     
  7. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #7
    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.
     
  8. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #8
    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.
     
  9. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #9
    An interesting perspective.

    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.
     
  10. Frohickey thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #10
    Maybe not, but christians have fought militant christians before. Kosovo comes to mind.
     
  11. Frohickey thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #11
    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'.
     
  12. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #12
    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.
     
  13. Frohickey thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #13
    One of the byproduct of a society with Freedom of Speech is that you are not free to be unoffended. :eek:

    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?
     
  14. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #14
    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.
     
  15. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #15
    (1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
    the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
     
  16. Frohickey thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #16
    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. The melting pot, that was America has cooled, and there are now chunks of cultures. 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?!!! Or the Border Patrol agent that was killed. Or the Mexican nationals that kill US citizens 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.
     
  17. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #17
    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.
     
  18. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #18
    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.
     
  19. Frohickey thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #19
    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.
     
  20. Frohickey thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #20
    another article... some good points, some not so good...

    Islam: The World's Most Dangerous Ideology

    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.

    =====
     
  21. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #21
    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.)
     
  22. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #22
    What a bunch of horse****. This is hate speech. You should be ashamed if you espouse this view.
     
  23. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #23
    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.
     
  24. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #24
    Are you not free in this country to NOT assimilate if you don't want to? Or is it forced assimilation for us all?

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

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #25
    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
     

Share This Page