NationStates Jolt Archive

Found this piece in the Los Angeles Times this morning. I couldn't agree more.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail


Head-in-the-Sand Liberals
Western civilization really is at risk from Muslim extremists.


By Sam Harris,

SAM HARRIS is the author of "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason." His next book, "Letter to a Christian Nation," will be published this week by Knopf. samharris.org.
September 18, 2006


TWO YEARS AGO I published a book highly critical of religion, "The End of Faith." In it, I argued that the world's major religions are genuinely incompatible, inevitably cause conflict and now prevent the emergence of a viable, global civilization. In response, I have received many thousands of letters and e-mails from priests, journalists, scientists, politicians, soldiers, rabbis, actors, aid workers, students — from people young and old who occupy every point on the spectrum of belief and nonbelief.

This has offered me a special opportunity to see how people of all creeds and political persuasions react when religion is criticized. I am here to report that liberals and conservatives respond very differently to the notion that religion can be a direct cause of human conflict.

This difference does not bode well for the future of liberalism.

Perhaps I should establish my liberal bone fides at the outset. I'd like to see taxes raised on the wealthy, drugs decriminalized and homosexuals free to marry. I also think that the Bush administration deserves most of the criticism it has received in the last six years — especially with respect to its waging of the war in Iraq, its scuttling of science and its fiscal irresponsibility.

But my correspondence with liberals has convinced me that liberalism has grown dangerously out of touch with the realities of our world — specifically with what devout Muslims actually believe about the West, about paradise and about the ultimate ascendance of their faith.

On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right.

This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that "liberals are soft on terrorism." It is, and they are.

A cult of death is forming in the Muslim world — for reasons that are perfectly explicable in terms of the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad. The truth is that we are not fighting a "war on terror." We are fighting a pestilential theology and a longing for paradise.

This is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims. But we are absolutely at war with those who believe that death in defense of the faith is the highest possible good, that cartoonists should be killed for caricaturing the prophet and that any Muslim who loses his faith should be butchered for apostasy.

Unfortunately, such religious extremism is not as fringe a phenomenon as we might hope. Numerous studies have found that the most radicalized Muslims tend to have better-than-average educations and economic opportunities.

Given the degree to which religious ideas are still sheltered from criticism in every society, it is actually possible for a person to have the economic and intellectual resources to build a nuclear bomb — and to believe that he will get 72 virgins in paradise. And yet, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, liberals continue to imagine that Muslim terrorism springs from economic despair, lack of education and American militarism.

At its most extreme, liberal denial has found expression in a growing subculture of conspiracy theorists who believe that the atrocities of 9/11 were orchestrated by our own government. A nationwide poll conducted by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University found that more than a third of Americans suspect that the federal government "assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East;" 16% believe that the twin towers collapsed not because fully-fueled passenger jets smashed into them but because agents of the Bush administration had secretly rigged them to explode.

Such an astonishing eruption of masochistic unreason could well mark the decline of liberalism, if not the decline of Western civilization. There are books, films and conferences organized around this phantasmagoria, and they offer an unusually clear view of the debilitating dogma that lurks at the heart of liberalism: Western power is utterly malevolent, while the powerless people of the Earth can be counted on to embrace reason and tolerance, if only given sufficient economic opportunities.

I don't know how many more engineers and architects need to blow themselves up, fly planes into buildings or saw the heads off of journalists before this fantasy will dissipate. The truth is that there is every reason to believe that a terrifying number of the world's Muslims now view all political and moral questions in terms of their affiliation with Islam. This leads them to rally to the cause of other Muslims no matter how sociopathic their behavior. This benighted religious solidarity may be the greatest problem facing civilization and yet it is regularly misconstrued, ignored or obfuscated by liberals.

Given the mendacity and shocking incompetence of the Bush administration — especially its mishandling of the war in Iraq — liberals can find much to lament in the conservative approach to fighting the war on terror. Unfortunately, liberals hate the current administration with such fury that they regularly fail to acknowledge just how dangerous and depraved our enemies in the Muslim world are.

Recent condemnations of the Bush administration's use of the phrase "Islamic fascism" are a case in point. There is no question that the phrase is imprecise — Islamists are not technically fascists, and the term ignores a variety of schisms that exist even among Islamists — but it is by no means an example of wartime propaganda, as has been repeatedly alleged by liberals.

In their analyses of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions. For instance, they ignore the fact that Muslims intentionally murder noncombatants, while we and the Israelis (as a rule) seek to avoid doing so. Muslims routinely use human shields, and this accounts for much of the collateral damage we and the Israelis cause; the political discourse throughout much of the Muslim world, especially with respect to Jews, is explicitly and unabashedly genocidal.

Given these distinctions, there is no question that the Israelis now hold the moral high ground in their conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah. And yet liberals in the United States and Europe often speak as though the truth were otherwise.

We are entering an age of unchecked nuclear proliferation and, it seems likely, nuclear terrorism. There is, therefore, no future in which aspiring martyrs will make good neighbors for us. Unless liberals realize that there are tens of millions of people in the Muslim world who are far scarier than Dick Cheney, they will be unable to protect civilization from its genuine enemies.

Increasingly, Americans will come to believe that the only people hard-headed enough to fight the religious lunatics of the Muslim world are the religious lunatics of the West. Indeed, it is telling that the people who speak with the greatest moral clarity about the current wars in the Middle East are members of the Christian right, whose infatuation with biblical prophecy is nearly as troubling as the ideology of our enemies. Religious dogmatism is now playing both sides of the board in a very dangerous game.

While liberals should be the ones pointing the way beyond this Iron Age madness, they are rendering themselves increasingly irrelevant. Being generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity, liberals should be especially sensitive to the dangers of religious literalism. But they aren't.

The same failure of liberalism is evident in Western Europe, where the dogma of multiculturalism has left a secular Europe very slow to address the looming problem of religious extremism among its immigrants. The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists.

To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement: It does not bode well for the future of civilization.

I read it earlier this morning. If I had posted it, everyone would say it was full of shit Muslim-bashing Liberal-bashing.

A great article.

too much to read I demand the gist of it!

So it's the liberals in general, not the people (regardless of political leanings) that don't see the threat of tyrannical religion-based government, that are at fault?

You lost me.

What about a person who realizes this, and is pro-choice? He's a liberal, correct?

What about a person who realizes this, and is pro-choice? He's a liberal, correct?

you lost me. does being pro-choice automatically make you a liberal?

I am no liberal however if are going to critize and speak bad of Islam we should do it about Christianity as well. I read the end of faith, it was a good book. I think there is little doubt religion severly hurts society and should be done away with. Thats why all Christians, Muslims, and jews should be put into camps until we figure out what to do with them. And no, I am not the least bit joking.

So it's the liberals in general, not the people (regardless of political leanings) that don't see the threat of tyrannical religion-based government, that are at fault?

You lost me.

What about a person who realizes this, and is pro-choice? He's a liberal, correct?

The guy who wrote the article is liberal. If you read it, he says:

Perhaps I should establish my liberal bone fides at the outset. I'd like to see taxes raised on the wealthy, drugs decriminalized and homosexuals free to marry. I also think that the Bush administration deserves most of the criticism it has received in the last six years — especially with respect to its waging of the war in Iraq, its scuttling of science and its fiscal irresponsibility.

That pretty much describes me as well.

I usually respect Harris and his work, but he loaded that piece up with tons of straw men. It's sad.

you lost me. does being pro-choice automatically make you a liberal?

I didn't feel like writing out "pro-choice, pro-democrat, anti-bush, pro-social projects, etc..."

I usually respect Harris and his work, but he loaded that piece up with tons of straw men. It's sad.

That's ok. I've killed militant Muslims so you don't have to.

The guy who wrote the article is liberal. If you read it, he says:



That pretty much describes me as well.

Okay. Doesn't explain why liberals who realize religion-based government is a problem should be blamed.

That's ok. I've killed militant Muslims so you don't have to.

Hail, O brave American soldier...

Do people actually believe that there is no threat whatsoever? While I think that Bush is often trying to press the panic button with the American people there is no doubt that people are trying to kill us. There simply must be better ways to fight these fanatics but one thing for sure is that going into Iraq was not one of them.

I can certainly agree that religion is the biggest stumbling block to bringing peace to the planet. It is too bad that ridding the world of such dangerous dogma cannot be accomplished anytime soon.

That's ok. I've killed militant Muslims so you don't have to.
:rolleyes:

Hail, O brave American soldier...

You wouldn't want to muss up your hands now. Better you pay taxes so that someone else can take out the garbage.

You wouldn't want to muss up your hands now. Better you pay taxes so that someone else can take out the garbage.

Oh, I'm sorry. I'll just go and kill some of those damned Muslims so I can stand up to your ill-concieved standards.

I am no liberal however if are going to critize and speak bad of Islam we should do it about Christianity as well. I read the end of faith, it was a good book. I think there is little doubt religion severly hurts society and should be done away with. Thats why all Christians, Muslims, and jews should be put into camps until we figure out what to do with them. And no, I am not the least bit joking.

President Amadinijad called Judaism a "gutter religion." He openly called for Isreal to be "wiped off the map." He sponsored and hosted a conference for Holocausr deniers. How many embassies got burned down? How many Jewish suicide bombers attacked Iranian embassies as a result? The fact of the matter is, ancient history aside, the Muslim faith is currently the most violent religion there is and sympathy for and outright participation in Muslim violence is far more pervasive in the Muslim world than many liberals admit. It may be a very few Muslims that commit terrorist acts, but it is a whole lot of them who support those acts. In many Muslim countries it is a majority and, as teh article states, it's not just some poor, disaffected youth. It's educated, well-off Muslims.

Do people actually believe that there is no threat whatsoever? While I think that Bush is often trying to press the panic button with the American people there is no doubt that people are trying to kill us. There simply must be better ways to fight these fanatics but one thing for sure is that going into Iraq was not one of them.

I can certainly agree that religion is the biggest stumbling block to bringing peace to the planet. It is too bad that ridding the world of such dangerous dogma cannot be accomplished anytime soon.

Of course there's a threat of violence, and occasionally, that violence even makes it to the shores of the US. But Bush makes it out to seem like there's this massive horde of people in the middle east who live their entire lives thinking of nothing but coming to the US and committing genocide, and what's more, that they have the capability to do just that. And sadly, a lot of people buy into that very mode of thought, including, it seems, Mr. Harris, who I'd given more credit than that.

I usually respect Harris and his work, but he loaded that piece up with tons of straw men. It's sad.

Such as?

Okay. Doesn't explain why liberals who realize religion-based government is a problem should be blamed.

He's not blaming anybody for anything. He's saying some liberal ideologies prevent people who ascribe to them from seeing their enemy for what they are.

President Amadinijad called Judaism a "gutter religion." He openly called for Isreal to be "wiped off the map." He sponsored and hosted a conference for Holocausr deniers. How many embassies got burned down? How many Jewish suicide bombers attacked Iranian embassies as a result? The fact of the matter is, ancient history aside, the Muslim faith is currently the most violent religion there is and sympathy for and outright participation in Muslim violence is far more pervasive in the Muslim world than many liberals admit. It may be a very few Muslims that commit terrorist acts, but it is a whole lot of them who support those acts. In many Muslim countries it is a majority and, as teh article states, it's not just some poor, disaffected youth. It's educated, well-off Muslims.

I agree. They're very odd people, the violent ones. "How dare you make a cartoon of our prophet! I'll kill you!" "How dare the pope say we're violent people!? I'll kill a nun!"

Etc, etc.

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Educated? I'm not so sure.

Such as?

Well, for starters, his characterization of the way "liberals" feel about the conflict between Israel and Lebanon/Hezbollah. He makes it sound as though liberals as a whole were backing Hezbollah, when that's far from the truth. Pointing out that neither side is blameless in a conflict is far from backing one side over another.

What's more important, he tries to make it sound as if liberalism is some monolithic mindset, with no room for variation, when in fact the opposite is true, and it doesn't help that he uses the more extreme examples of liberal thought to make his case.

He's not blaming anybody for anything. He's saying some liberal ideologies prevent people who ascribe to them from seeing their enemy for what they are.

You could say the same for conservative ideologies that would have us believe the threat is much greater and imminent than it really is. They're two sides of the same coin, beliefs that keep us from identifying the real danger.

Of course there's a threat of violence, and occasionally, that violence even makes it to the shores of the US. But Bush makes it out to seem like there's this massive horde of people in the middle east who live their entire lives thinking of nothing but coming to the US and committing genocide, and what's more, that they have the capability to do just that. And sadly, a lot of people buy into that very mode of thought, including, it seems, Mr. Harris, who I'd given more credit than that.

I know, which makes it hard to take a reasonable approach to preventing terrorism. When all you hear on the news is all the various targets the militants can hit from bridges to tunnels, factories, power plants, our water supply, WMDs and of course crashing airliners. Such panic does not help any. Mr. Harris would look better in my eyes if he simply said that there are people out there who want to kill us (true) but the threat is overblown and that liberals have lost their way (also true). However the man seems to be implying that we are at war with the entire religion of Islam. Sounds as if he is begining to believe Bush's rhetoric and that is unfortunate.

Do people actually believe that there is no threat whatsoever? While I think that Bush is often trying to press the panic button with the American people there is no doubt that people are trying to kill us. There simply must be better ways to fight these fanatics but one thing for sure is that going into Iraq was not one of them.

I can certainly agree that religion is the biggest stumbling block to bringing peace to the planet. It is too bad that ridding the world of such dangerous dogma cannot be accomplished anytime soon.

I agree. I think his point is that, because intelligent, articulate, educated people allow grand ideologies regarding multiculturalism cloud their vision with regards to the threat from the Muslim world that it is left to idiots like G.W. to fight this war. That's scary.

A cult of death is forming in the Muslim world — for reasons that are perfectly explicable in terms of the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad. The truth is that we are not fighting a "war on terror." We are fighting a pestilential theology and a longing for paradise.

This is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims. But we are absolutely at war with those who believe that death in defense of the faith is the highest possible good, that cartoonists should be killed for caricaturing the prophet and that any Muslim who loses his faith should be butchered for apostasy.

Here the author makes the error of assuming that the religious reasons given by Bin Laden and his ilk are the actual reasons. It is possible that the religion is being used as a smokescreen to hide more secular goals of power and greed.

Unfortunately, such religious extremism is not as fringe a phenomenon as we might hope. Numerous studies have found that the most radicalized Muslims tend to have better-than-average educations and economic opportunities.

Given the degree to which religious ideas are still sheltered from criticism in every society, it is actually possible for a person to have the economic and intellectual resources to build a nuclear bomb — and to believe that he will get 72 virgins in paradise.
This is weird. The author talks about the prevalence of religious extremism, and then discusses education, which is unrelated. The author is probably seeing things from a US-centric point of view, where educated people generally are not religious. It appears to me that educated young males are the most religious ones in the Middle East.

And yet, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, liberals continue to imagine that Muslim terrorism springs from economic despair, lack of education and American militarism.

Yes. We do. We believe these are three of the many causes of terrorism. We like to address these most often because we do not like economic despair, lack of education and American militarism. But it would be stupid to think we believe these are the only possible causes.

At its most extreme, liberal denial has found expression in a growing subculture of conspiracy theorists who believe that the atrocities of 9/11 were orchestrated by our own government. A nationwide poll conducted by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University found that more than a third of Americans suspect that the federal government "assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East;" 16% believe that the twin towers collapsed not because fully-fueled passenger jets smashed into them but because agents of the Bush administration had secretly rigged them to explode.
Right. I don’t see how this supports the author’s argument at all.

Such an astonishing eruption of masochistic unreason could well mark the decline of liberalism, if not the decline of Western civilization. There are books, films and conferences organized around this phantasmagoria, and they offer an unusually clear view of the debilitating dogma that lurks at the heart of liberalism: Western power is utterly malevolent, while the powerless people of the Earth can be counted on to embrace reason and tolerance, if only given sufficient economic opportunities.
Obviously, the author of this article feels that the Ocean Drive contingent is representative of all liberal thought.

I could go on, but I think it is obvious that the article is flawed.

Obviously, the author of this article feels that the Ocean Drive contingent is representative of all liberal thought.

Just go to Democratic Underground, and Ocean Drive is all you're going to hear.

Thanks Gift-of-God, for pointing out that ludicrous attachment of conspiracy theory to liberalism. That's probably the most egregious case in his article.

Well, for starters, his characterization of the way "liberals" feel about the conflict between Israel and Lebanon/Hezbollah. He makes it sound as though liberals as a whole were backing Hezbollah, when that's far from the truth. Pointing out that neither side is blameless in a conflict is far from backing one side over another.


First of all, saying that neither side was blameless is a way of sterilizing the truth. While that statement is technically true, it fails to acknowledge the proportion of blame each side has a share of. It implies an equality of guilt, which is a serious distortion of reality.

It's perfectly understandable for someone to believe liberals favored Hezbollah. With all the shrill complaints about the "collateral damage" the Israeli army was inflicting, With the one-sided coverage of the casualties and damage done in Lebanon with only minor mention of the HUNDREDS of rockets fired into Israel daily it should be painfully obvious.

Just go to Democratic Underground, and Ocean Drive is all you're going to hear.


I was raised around hippies. I've heard it all.

Well, for starters, his characterization of the way "liberals" feel about the conflict between Israel and Lebanon/Hezbollah. He makes it sound as though liberals as a whole were backing Hezbollah, when that's far from the truth. Pointing out that neither side is blameless in a conflict is far from backing one side over another.No, I disagree. He was much more specific than that. What he said was, and I have seen that on this very board, that liberals tend to not draw a distinction between Western forces causing collateral damage in the civilian population and Muslim militants like Hezbollah purposfully targetting civilians without any intent to go after military targets and Muslim militants hiding themselves and their weapons in civilian populations with the intent of causing civilian casualties in their own populations so that they can then show the bodies on the 6 o'clock news. There is a difference between civilian casualties that result from a legitimate military objective and firing missiles directly into civilian targets without even the pretense of a military objective.

What's more important, he tries to make it sound as if liberalism is some monolithic mindset, with no room for variation, when in fact the opposite is true, and it doesn't help that he uses the more extreme examples of liberal thought to make his case.

I agree a little here, but you do tend to only find that midset in liberal circles. There weren't many conservatives protesting against Isreal's war against Hezbollah.

Here the author makes the error of assuming that the religious reasons given by Bin Laden and his ilk are the actual reasons. It is possible that the religion is being used as a smokescreen to hide more secular goals of power and greed.


This is weird. The author talks about the prevalence of religious extremism, and then discusses education, which is unrelated. The author is probably seeing things from a US-centric point of view, where educated people generally are not religious. It appears to me that educated young males are the most religious ones in the Middle East.



Yes. We do. We believe these are three of the many causes of terrorism. We like to address these most often because we do not like economic despair, lack of education and American militarism. But it would be stupid to think we believe these are the only possible causes.


Right. I don’t see how this supports the author’s argument at all.


Obviously, the author of this article feels that the Ocean Drive contingent is representative of all liberal thought.

I could go on, but I think it is obvious that the article is flawed.

I don't even consider Ocean Drive a liberal, and if he is, then he's in the kiddie pool while we do backflip dives into a 20-footer.

I agree. I think his point is that, because intelligent, articulate, educated people allow grand ideologies regarding multiculturalism cloud their vision with regards to the threat from the Muslim world that it is left to idiots like G.W. to fight this war. That's scary.

It certainly doesn't help that many of the Muslim immigrants coming to Europe are poor and don't have many opportunities to change their situation. It would help that is multiculturalism if going to be practiced if society would at least try to improve the living conditions of those different cultures living among the native Europeans.

No, I disagree. He was much more specific than that. What he said was, and I have seen that on this very board, that liberals tend to not draw a distinction between Western forces causing collateral damage in the civilian population and Muslim militants like Hezbollah purposfully targetting civilians without any intent to go after military targets and Muslim militants hiding themselves and their weapons in civilian populations with the intent of causing civilian casualties in their own populations so that they can then show the bodies on the 6 o'clock news. There is a difference between civilian casualties that result from a legitimate military objective and firing missiles directly into civilian targets without even the pretense of a military objective.



I agree a little here, but you do tend to only find that midset in liberal circles. There weren't many conservatives protesting against Isreal's war against Hezbollah.

I'm not certain protesting in america is going to do anything about a war between to other countries. I'm liberal and I'm not that stupid.

No, I disagree. He was much more specific than that. What he said was, and I have seen that on this very board, that liberals tend to not draw a distinction between Western forces causing collateral damage in the civilian population and Muslim militants like Hezbollah purposfully targetting civilians without any intent to go after military targets and Muslim militants hiding themselves and their weapons in civilian populations with the intent of causing civilian casualties in their own populations so that they can then show the bodies on the 6 o'clock news. There is a difference between civilian casualties that result from a legitimate military objective and firing missiles directly into civilian targets without even the pretense of a military objective.



I agree a little here, but you do tend to only find that midset in liberal circles. There weren't many conservatives protesting against Isreal's war against Hezbollah.

Many liberals, and others who don't like war but can't find the time to study the war in depth, do tend to equalise the atrocities of both sides. It is intellectually dishonest, but it is not only liberals who do it, and it is not all liberals. It is these types of false relationships that make the OP article so bad.

It certainly doesn't help that many of the Muslim immigrants coming to Europe are poor and don't have many opportunities to change their situation. It would help that is multiculturalism if going to be practiced if society would at least try to improve the living conditions of those different cultures living among the native Europeans.

I just love the mantality that says that when people immigrate to your country that you somehow owe them a comfortable living. Boy I'm glad it's not like that here in the USA.


Oh, wait.....:(

I don't even consider Ocean Drive a liberal, and if he is, then he's in the kiddie pool while we do backflip dives into a 20-footer.

No. If he was in the kiddie pool, someone would save him when he starts to drown.

No. If he was in the kiddie pool, someone would save him when he starts to drown.

Y'know you can technically drown with just a teaspoon of water? True story. Sad thing is, that's probably happened.

Here the author makes the error of assuming that the religious reasons given by Bin Laden and his ilk are the actual reasons. It is possible that the religion is being used as a smokescreen to hide more secular goals of power and greed.Actually, he does not. As he says later in the article:

I don't know how many more engineers and architects need to blow themselves up, fly planes into buildings or saw the heads off of journalists before this fantasy will dissipate. The truth is that there is every reason to believe that a terrifying number of the world's Muslims now view all political and moral questions in terms of their affiliation with Islam. This leads them to rally to the cause of other Muslims no matter how sociopathic their behavior. This benighted religious solidarity may be the greatest problem facing civilization and yet it is regularly misconstrued, ignored or obfuscated by liberals.


This is weird. The author talks about the prevalence of religious extremism, and then discusses education, which is unrelated. The author is probably seeing things from a US-centric point of view, where educated people generally are not religious. It appears to me that educated young males are the most religious ones in the Middle East.He is pointing out that the sterotype taht says that it is just poor, undeuctaed Muslims who drive car bombs into crowds of people is just false. It's young college students with money, as often as not. What this tends to show, he contends and I agree, is that this extreme political ideology is actually much more widespread in the Muslim world than many realize because it is expressed in their middle class.



Yes. We do. We believe these are three of the many causes of terrorism. We like to address these most often because we do not like economic despair, lack of education and American militarism. But it would be stupid to think we believe these are the only possible causes.Or, according to studies I've read, even the most prevalent cause.


Right. I don’t see how this supports the author’s argument at all.He's just using it as an example of how many liberals think Muslims actually wear furry mittons and bake cakes on Sunday and could never do anything so bad as to fly planes ito buildings. Only Americans are that evil.


Obviously, the author of this article feels that the Ocean Drive contingent is representative of all liberal thought.I agree he wraps up this ideology a little tight for me. But it is true that this kind of thought comes from the left.

I could go on, but I think it is obvious that the article is flawed.It was written by a human, ergo...

His central premise, though, I think is right on point.

I just love the mantality that says that when people immigrate to your country that you somehow owe them a comfortable living. Boy I'm glad it's not like that here in the USA.


Oh, wait.....:(

You don't owe them anything. But despite what anyone may claim, the poor are discriminated against in all nations. It is incredibly difficult move up the economic ladder and that causes resentment. Do those who rioted in France have every opportunity to better themselves? Somehow I doubt it.

No, I disagree. He was much more specific than that. What he said was, and I have seen that on this very board, that liberals tend to not draw a distinction between Western forces causing collateral damage in the civilian population and Muslim militants like Hezbollah purposfully targetting civilians without any intent to go after military targets and Muslim militants hiding themselves and their weapons in civilian populations with the intent of causing civilian casualties in their own populations so that they can then show the bodies on the 6 o'clock news. There is a difference between civilian casualties that result from a legitimate military objective and firing missiles directly into civilian targets without even the pretense of a military objective.If only there were that much clarity on the battlefield. Here's my problem--too many people of all political stripes are willing to automatically take the western--or since we're talking specifically about Israel here, the Israeli--side of any conflict in the area, and this negates any real discussion of the varied tensions in the area. It's not that simple, and it never is, but the tendency is to try to paint one side as wholly good and the other as wholly bad and never stop to consider that neither side is on the side of the angels. I mean, during the Israel/Hezbollah situation, the sides of debate seemed to me at least to be "Israel is right, rah, kickass" and "damn, Israel has fucked this up so bad they're making Hezbollah look sympathetic." Nowhere in there was there a "Hezbollah is a bunch of heroes who are not to blame at all for this," and if there were, they were a fringe. Hell, more than once I noted the extreme dirtbaggery of Hezbollah and what they were doing.


I agree a little here, but you do tend to only find that midset in liberal circles. There weren't many conservatives protesting against Isreal's war against Hezbollah.
And frankly, there weren't many liberals protesting it either--outside of protesting Israel's targeting of civilian areas outside Hezbollah's control.

I am no liberal however if are going to critize and speak bad of Islam we should do it about Christianity as well.

If you make cartoons of the prophet Mohamed, Muslism will riot and and make death threats againts you.
If you write a novel saying that Christ is not the savior and all of christianty is a lie(Davinci Code). The christian church might boycott you and prostest against you. But there where NO death threats made against the writers. NO Christian leaders called for the beheading of the author of the Davinci code, Unlike how some Muslim clerics had called for the execution of the danish cartoonist who made the cartoons.
You make fun of Moses and jews will not send you death threats. The worst thing you would get for making fun of Moses is someone might call you Anti-semitic.
You make fun of Budda, Buddhists will not riot or send you death threats, Buddhist leaders will not make death threats against your home country, or request that you get beheaded as punishment for making fun of Budda.
You make fun of Vishnu, Hindus will not riot and send death threats your way either.

There I have gone through most world religions and have yet to come up with one as intolerant as Islam.

There I have gone through most world religions and have yet to come up with one as intolerant as Islam.
No, what you've done is gone through one subset of Islam and tarred all believers with the same brush. Good job!

too much to read I demand the gist of it!

Bush is stupid!
Liberals are clueless.
MUSLIMS IZ CRAZEEEE!

Bush is stupid!
Liberals are clueless.
MUSLIMS IZ CRAZEEEE!

Islam and clueless liberals are destroying Western civilization as well. Can't forget that part.

I still don't see how many liberals can dismiss islamic fundamentalism as a minor problem. 9/11 was our generation's equivalent of the Nazi invasion of Poland, yet most have ignored the consequences of it completely.

Blah blah blah liberals blah blah blah Muslims. Let's see here.

This has offered me a special opportunity to see how people of all creeds and political persuasions react when religion is criticized. I am here to report that liberals and conservatives respond very differently to the notion that religion can be a direct cause of human conflict.

This difference does not bode well for the future of liberalism.

Perhaps I should establish my liberal bone fides at the outset. I'd like to see taxes raised on the wealthy, drugs decriminalized and homosexuals free to marry. I also think that the Bush administration deserves most of the criticism it has received in the last six years — especially with respect to its waging of the war in Iraq, its scuttling of science and its fiscal irresponsibility.

Oh ho, so raising taxes on the wealthy is "liberal?" Interesting. Liberal, to me, describes the concept of adhering to liberty. Raising taxes based on some idiotic Marxist sense of rich people bad, poor people good doesn't sound very liberal to me.

But my correspondence with liberals has convinced me that liberalism has grown dangerously out of touch with the realities of our world —

Since we've already established he himself is out of touch with what liberalism is, his opinion on reality is now in question!


On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right.


ZOMG! So, like, he's treating the issue on it's own terms, and not on terms of who is "right" or who is "liberal?" Very mature of him.


This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that "liberals are soft on terrorism." It is, and they are.

Oops, now he's back to liberals bad, conservatives good.

A cult of death is forming in the Muslim world — for reasons that are perfectly explicable in terms of the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad. The truth is that we are not fighting a "war on terror." We are fighting a pestilential theology and a longing for paradise. This is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims. But we are absolutely at war with those who believe that death in defense of the faith is the highest possible good, that cartoonists should be killed for caricaturing the prophet and that any Muslim who loses his faith should be butchered for apostasy.

Oh, so we're fighting a war on terrorism.

Unfortunately, such religious extremism is not as fringe a phenomenon as we might hope. Numerous studies have found that the most radicalized Muslims tend to have better-than-average educations and economic opportunities.

And now a reference to "numerous studies." Conviniently vague, particularly in light of what "radicalized" means with regards to a scientific study - also vague.

Not very convincing here.

Given the degree to which religious ideas are still sheltered from criticism in every society, it is actually possible for a person to have the economic and intellectual resources to build a nuclear bomb — and to believe that he will get 72 virgins in paradise. And yet, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, liberals continue to imagine that Muslim terrorism springs from economic despair, lack of education and American militarism.

Now we're back to stereotyping "liberals." He's admitted he's a "liberal," so I can only assume what he is doing is projecting his own Marxist beliefs that everything is related to either public education or class discrimination.

At its most extreme, liberal denial has found expression in a growing subculture of conspiracy theorists who believe that the atrocities of 9/11 were orchestrated by our own government. A nationwide poll conducted by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University found that more than a third of Americans suspect that the federal government "assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East;" 16% believe that the twin towers collapsed not because fully-fueled passenger jets smashed into them but because agents of the Bush administration had secretly rigged them to explode.

Such an astonishing eruption of masochistic unreason could well mark the decline of liberalism, if not the decline of Western civilization.

This is good because it brings up 9/11 conspiracy theorists, ties them in with "liberals," and uses the one to bash the other. Of course, he is the one "liberal" unaffected and untainted by the broad strokes he paints "liberals" as. He is the "liberal" Messiah.

There are books, films and conferences organized around this phantasmagoria, and they offer an unusually clear view of the debilitating dogma that lurks at the heart of liberalism: Western power is utterly malevolent, while the powerless people of the Earth can be counted on to embrace reason and tolerance, if only given sufficient economic opportunities.

Power does corrupt. I wouldn't say western power in particular is "utterly malevolent." But I can see the wounded way he is saying this reflects his own cherry-o-scopic view that the opposite is true - people are dumb, governments are good. Again, this is "liberal" in the sense that Democrats are "liberal" - it leans towards Marxist authoritarianism.

The truth is that there is every reason to believe that a terrifying number of the world's Muslims now view all political and moral questions in terms of their affiliation with Islam.

A terrifying number? Is this related to aforementioned education-related "numerous studies" or did a terrifying number of the world's Muslims e-mail him?

This leads them to rally to the cause of other Muslims no matter how sociopathic their behavior. This benighted religious solidarity may be the greatest problem facing civilization and yet it is regularly misconstrued, ignored or obfuscated by liberals.

Again, he is the One True Liberal who does not obfuscate the subject. Ya know, by like, ranting about "liberals."

Given the mendacity and shocking incompetence of the Bush administration — especially its mishandling of the war in Iraq — liberals can find much to lament in the conservative approach to fighting the war on terror. Unfortunately, liberals hate the current administration with such fury that they regularly fail to acknowledge just how dangerous and depraved our enemies in the Muslim world are.

More on "liberals" meaning Democrats. Why can't opinion-assholes like this just say, Democrats? Is it really so difficult? I just don't get it. I guess it's more fun to be vague and misleading.


In their analyses of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions. For instance, they ignore the fact that Muslims intentionally murder noncombatants, while we and the Israelis (as a rule) seek to avoid doing so.

Seek to avoid it, by invading countries and blowing shit up. I'm not sure that makes a "moral distinction." If I blow your house up, and just 'accidentally' kill you and your family, is that better or worse than if I went into your house and killed your family with a staple gun? Somehow, I doubt you'd very much appreciate the "morality" of either situation.

Given these distinctions, there is no question that the Israelis now hold the moral high ground in their conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah. And yet liberals in the United States and Europe often speak as though the truth were otherwise.

Assuming those distinctions exist. That's an assumption this "liberal" author makes, some "liberals" don't, and I don't hold much stock in either. Apparently there IS some question about it.

We are entering an age of unchecked nuclear proliferation and, it seems likely, nuclear terrorism. There is, therefore, no future in which aspiring martyrs will make good neighbors for us. Unless liberals realize that there are tens of millions of people in the Muslim world who are far scarier than Dick Cheney, they will be unable to protect civilization from its genuine enemies.

When you say "neighbors," I assume you mean Muslim immigrants. Since the US doesn't exactly border the Middle East at all. Sounds like a call for deportation.

The same failure of liberalism is evident in Western Europe, where the dogma of multiculturalism has left a secular Europe very slow to address the looming problem of religious extremism among its immigrants. The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists.

Doesn't that kind of worry you, that you think the fascists make the most sense?

To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement: It does not bode well for the future of civilization.

To say that "civilization" is threatened by this is an overstatement. Makes for a dramatic exit line though. I think the main point of this article was to get people to pay attention to you. Look, ma, I'm a political pundit.

President Amadinijad called Judaism a "gutter religion."
Have you heard what the pope said about Islam?

He openly called for Isreal to be "wiped off the map." He sponsored and hosted a conference for Holocausr deniers. How many embassies got burned down? How many Jewish suicide bombers attacked Iranian embassies as a result?
Theres so many problems with this statement I have no idea where to begin

The fact of the matter is, ancient history aside, the Muslim faith is currently the most violent religion there is and sympathy for and outright participation in Muslim violence is far more pervasive in the Muslim world than many liberals admit. It may be a very few Muslims that commit terrorist acts, but it is a whole lot of them who support those acts. In many Muslim countries it is a majority and, as teh article states, it's not just some poor, disaffected youth. It's educated, well-off Muslims.

Well yeah because Muslims are bloodthristy murderous terrorist freedom haters. Kind like black people. They are all a bunch of criminals and drugies. Plus they smell bad and are poor. What should we do about them?

No, what you've done is gone through one subset of Islam and tarred all believers with the same brush. Good job!

But that "one subset" is the one that speaks, the one that acts and the one that is visible. Thus, they are the only subset that counts.

I'm certain there were all sorts of people, theologians, economists, peasants and merchants, who didn't support the Crusades, either. The simple fact is, they're irrelevant. Those who do, or actively refuse to do, are the only ones that count. And I'm not seeing any active refusers among the ME's Muslims. Only terrorists and those who either actively or passively support them.

Actually, he does not. As he says later in the article:

He repeats the claim, but he does not prove it, or even bring up any support for this argument.







He is pointing out that the sterotype taht says that it is just poor, undeuctaed Muslims who drive car bombs into crowds of people is just false. It's young college students with money, as often as not. What this tends to show, he contends and I agree, is that this extreme political ideology is actually much more widespread in the Muslim world than many realize because it is expressed in their middle class.

I think it would mean that the militant ideology is most prevalent in young male college students with money. When I go to protests, you know who I see. Young middle class males. When I see evangelists on the street: young college students with money. You could even argue that since it's only intellectuals doing it, the vast majority of Muslims do not support it.


Or, according to studies I've read, even the most prevalent cause.

It would be nice to know exactly what the root causes of terrorism are. I don't think anyone knows.

He's just using it as an example of how many liberals think Muslims actually wear furry mittons and bake cakes on Sunday and could never do anything so bad as to fly planes ito buildings. Only Americans are that evil.

But liberals don't believe that. I think most of us are aware that Bin Laden would kill us in a heartbeat if he could gain anything by it. We also don't think Bush and his cohorts are evil, just greedy. And for the record, I think most federal politicians are, regardless of ideology.

I agree he wraps up this ideology a little tight for me. But it is true that this kind of thought comes from the left.

Unfortunately true. But that is the extreme left. The vast majority of leftists and liberals do not believe that at all.
It was written by a human, ergo...

His central premise, though, I think is right on point.
There is a kernel of truth to it, but is comparable in size to the 'conservatives are trying to take over the USA with jesus and wiretaps' meme.

Have you heard what the pope said about Islam?



He said they were violent. Then a Muslim proved him right.

I still don't see how many liberals can dismiss islamic fundamentalism as a minor problem. 9/11 was our generation's equivalent of the Nazi invasion of Poland, yet most have ignored the consequences of it completely.

Then we will let Bush do whatever he wants and trample civil rights and breed more extremists with his policies. Hard to get people to think America is wearing the white hat when we do our very best to piss off the entire world.

I still don't see how many liberals can dismiss islamic fundamentalism as a minor problem. 9/11 was our generation's equivalent of the Nazi invasion of Poland, yet most have ignored the consequences of it completely.
You've won the award for overblown statement of the day. I don't see any invading armies of Muslims poised on the border of any western country, ready to overrun the defenses, do you?

Have you heard what the pope said about Islam?Yes. I've also seen the churches that have been firebombed, the nun who was shot and the people burning in effigy in the Muslim world as a result.


Theres so many problems with this statement I have no idea where to beginPlease do.


Well yeah because Muslims are bloodthristy murderous terrorist freedom haters.Why would you say such a thing? The vast majority of Mulsims would never blow themselves up or commit an act of terrorism even if poll after poll shows widespread sympathy for this tactic in the Muslim world, in many countries even a majority of people sympathize with this tactic. It still does not mean that all Muslims are bloddthirsty terrorists.


Kind like black people. They are all a bunch of criminals and drugies. Plus they smell bad and are poor. What should we do about them?
This thread is about whether the Wesst really has teh right mindset with regard to Islamist terror. Take your racism to another thread, please.

I am no liberal however if are going to critize and speak bad of Islam we should do it about Christianity as well. I read the end of faith, it was a good book. I think there is little doubt religion severly hurts society and should be done away with. Thats why all Christians, Muslims, and jews should be put into camps until we figure out what to do with them. And no, I am not the least bit joking.

Well, I guess I should just be thankful that you won't get elected to be a leader of any kind to save your life.

If you make cartoons of the prophet Mohamed, Muslism will riot and and make death threats againts you.
If you write a novel saying that Christ is not the savior and all of christianty is a lie(Davinci Code). The christian church might boycott you and prostest against you. But there where NO death threats made against the writers. NO Christian leaders called for the beheading of the author of the Davinci code, Unlike how some Muslim clerics had called for the execution of the danish cartoonist who made the cartoons.
You make fun of Moses and jews will not send you death threats. The worst thing you would get for making fun of Moses is someone might call you Anti-semitic.
You make fun of Budda, Buddhists will not riot or send you death threats, Buddhist leaders will not make death threats against your home country, or request that you get beheaded as punishment for making fun of Budda.
You make fun of Vishnu, Hindus will not riot and send death threats your way either.

There I have gone through most world religions and have yet to come up with one as intolerant as Islam.

"Muslim" will not do those things. Muslim extremists, idiots, will do those things.

You've won the award for overblown statement of the day. I don't see any invading armies of Muslims poised on the border of any western country, ready to overrun the defenses, do you?

I can smell his answer: immigrants are those invading armies. Immigration = invasion = HALP ITS WWII AGAIN!

I still don't see how many liberals can dismiss islamic fundamentalism as a minor problem. 9/11 was our generation's equivalent of the Nazi invasion of Poland, yet most have ignored the consequences of it completely.

You're absolutly right! Why I can't walk down the street with out seeing someone from the occupying force they left here! Oh, wait . . .


they didn't leave an occupying force.

Maybe if you compared it to Pearl Harbor instead more people would buy what you're selling.

You've won the award for overblown statement of the day. I don't see any invading armies of Muslims poised on the border of any western country, ready to overrun the defenses, do you?

Different contexts. In 1939 the war came in the form of Nazi armies rampaging through Europe; in 2001 it came in the form of muslim fundamentalists attack innocent civilians.

Maybe if you compared it to Pearl Harbor instead more people would buy what you're selling.

I'm not dumbing down my statements for idiots. If they can't understand context, they'll interpret the statements wrong, and they won't get it. Tough shit for them.

Different contexts. In 1939 the war came in the form of Nazi armies rampaging through Europe; in 2001 it came in the form of muslim fundamentalists attack innocent civilians.

I don't see bombings on a regular basis. Maybe there aren't mobs of Muslims with blood dripping fangs prepared to blow things up. What I see are isolated, rare attacks by a few radicals. Hardly a war that will determine the fate of the civilized world. Exaggerating the problem by suggesting there are bombers hiding behind every tree is not going to solve anything.

Yes. I've also seen the churches that have been firebombed, the nun who was shot and the people burning in effigy in the Muslim world as a result.
And after 9/11 Mosques were destoryed and Muslims beaten by "good christians". When you piss people off they do things like this, its not a muslim only trait. Do you really think if someone posted pictures of Jesus upside down on a cross getting sodomized by the pope their wouldn't be outrage amongst the jesus lovers?

Please do.
The jews have used penlty of terrorism in the past

Why would you say such a thing? The vast majority of Mulsims would never blow themselves up or commit an act of terrorism even if poll after poll shows widespread sympathy for this tactic in the Muslim world, in many countries even a majority of people sympathize with this tactic. It still does not mean that all Muslims are bloddthirsty terrorists.

This thread is about whether the Wesst really has teh right mindset with regard to Islamist terror. Take your racism to another thread, please.
Hey,whats that flying over your head? Oh that would be my point. Which is that this thread is just hate speech against Muslims, no different than what I said.

I don't see bombings on a regular basis. Maybe there aren't mobs of Muslims with blood dripping fangs prepared to blow things up. What I see are isolated, rare attacks by a few radicals. Hardly a war that will determine the fate of the civilized world. Exaggerating the problem by suggesting there are bombers hiding behind every tree is not going to solve anything.

9/11, Bali, London, Bali, Madrid, those foiled attacks on UK-US planes...

Although my statement was wrong, now that I think about it. 9/11 was this generation's equivalent of the Nazis carving up Czechoslovakia; by 1939, everybody'd finally GOT IT. This world still doesn't.

Different contexts. In 1939 the war came in the form of Nazi armies rampaging through Europe; in 2001 it came in the form of muslim fundamentalists attack innocent civilians.

Oh, you're right that the contexts are different, but that's because you made a ridiculous comparison. Muslim fundamentalists do not threaten the sovereignty or safety of 700 million Europeans or over 400 million North Americans or however many billion are in Asia these days.

And after 9/11 Mosques were destoryed and Muslims beaten by "good christians". When you piss people off they do things like this, its not a muslim only trait. Do you really think if someone posted pictures of Jesus upside down on a cross getting sodomized by the pope their wouldn't be outrage amongst the jesus lovers?


The jews have used penlty of terrorism in the past


Hey,whats that flying over your head? Oh that would be my point. Which is that this thread is just hate speech against Muslims, no different than what I said.

I think the problem they are having is your idea of jailing every Muslium and Christians for the act of the few. Why should anyone be forced to be Atheist or Agnostic because you think it'll bring us closer to "peace"? By jailing us just because we believe in something, and have faith in something is in violation of our most scared and closely guarded rights.

I'm not dumbing down my statements for idiots. If they can't understand context, they'll interpret the statements wrong, and they won't get it. Tough shit for them.

Your comparison was compleatly inacurate, comparinng 9/11 to Pearl Harbor instead of the Nazi invasion of Poland isn't dumbing down your statement, it's smartining it up (is that a word?) by making more corect.

I think the problem they are having is your idea of jailing every Muslium and Christians for the act of the few. Why should anyone be forced to be Atheist or Agnostic because you think it'll bring us closer to "peace"? By jailing us just because we believe in something, and have faith in something is in violation of our most scared and closely guarded rights.

It would also be impossible.

I don't see bombings on a regular basis. Maybe there aren't mobs of Muslims with blood dripping fangs prepared to blow things up. What I see are isolated, rare attacks by a few radicals. Hardly a war that will determine the fate of the civilized world. Exaggerating the problem by suggesting there are bombers hiding behind every tree is not going to solve anything.
Unless that problem is how to stay in power when the rest of your program is going up in flames. Think about how many governments that statement can be applied to.

It would also be impossible.

and would probably lead to more bloodshed and more violence.

And after 9/11 Mosques were destoryed and Muslims beaten by "good christians". When you piss people off they do things like this, its not a muslim only trait. Do you really think if someone posted pictures of Jesus upside down on a cross getting sodomized by the pope their wouldn't be outrage amongst the jesus lovers?

Of course. We might even get a smallish rally out of it. Violence would be possible, but quite unlikely.

Do the same with Mohommed, you will get violence. Guaranteed.


Hey,whats that flying over your head? Oh that would be my point. Which is that this thread is just hate speech against Muslims, no different than what I said.

Funny how often liberals seem to label any debate they're losing as "hate speech". Common and stupid tactic.

Oh, you're right that the contexts are different, but that's because you made a ridiculous comparison. Muslim fundamentalists do not threaten the sovereignty or safety of 700 million Europeans or over 400 million North Americans or however many billion are in Asia these days.

Yeah, they do. Every day we give in a little bit more to them; don't say this, don't publish that, respect this, change that...

Unless that problem is how to stay in power when the rest of your program is going up in flames. Think about how many governments that statement can be applied to.

Yes it is unfortunate that staying in power by using fear with the population is common practice. It is not as if using hope for a better future will get you elected. Easier to shout: "THEY ARE ALL TRYING TO KILL US!!!"

And after 9/11 Mosques were destoryed and Muslims beaten by "good christians". When you piss people off they do things like this, its not a muslim only trait. Do you really think if someone posted pictures of Jesus upside down on a cross getting sodomized by the pope their wouldn't be outrage amongst the jesus lovers?Or how about Robert Maplethorpe puiblishing pictures of his "Piss Christ" where he submerged a crucuifix in a bottle of his own urine. Lot's of protests about that. No deaths, though. No mainstream political or religious pontifs calling for his head. No riots or burning buildings...


The jews have used penlty of terrorism in the past That's true. As a matter in fact, the Aztecs used to eat people from neighboring tribes so we should just look the other way at all political and religious violence.


Hey,whats that flying over your head? Oh that would be my point. Which is that this thread is just hate speech against Muslims, no different than what I said.

I understood your point, it was just stupid.

Of course. We might even get a smallish rally out of it. Violence would be possible, but quite unlikely.

Do the same with Mohommed, you will get violence. Guaranteed.

Yep. Madonna went to sing in Russia and do her crucifix act, and the Russian Church condemned it. When Mohammed cartoons were published, there were fucking riots and uprisings.

... Muslim fundamentalists do not threaten the sovereignty or safety of 700 million Europeans or over 400 million North Americans or however many billion are in Asia these days.

Give it time

I'm not dumbing down my statements for idiots. If they can't understand context, they'll interpret the statements wrong, and they won't get it. Tough shit for them.

We know you're horribly ignorant and biased, so we won't interpret your statements at all. Go talk to your invisible friend about how nobody loves you.

Yeah, they do. Every day we give in a little bit more to them; don't say this, don't publish that, respect this, change that...I'm in more danger from the shit my government lets energy companies put in the air than I am from Muslim fundamentalists. Get a little perspective and grow a sack for fuck's sake.

Give it time

As I said, they already do; people just don't realise it yet.

Yeah, they do. Every day we give in a little bit more to them; don't say this, don't publish that, respect this, change that...

Sure, we give in to them everytime we restrict civil rights, every time we torture a terror suspect, everytime someone is called unAmerican or supporting the terrorists everytime Bush is called on a stupid policy. These all result in taking away what makes us better then the fanatics. Terrorism is to try to polarize the politics in the targeted country after all and it seems that they have succeeded in that regard. If anything, we are defeating ourselves.

Of course. We might even get a smallish rally out of it. Violence would be possible, but quite unlikely.

Do the same with Mohommed, you will get violence. Guaranteed.

Muhammed(pbuh) is more important to Muslims and Jesus is to the jesus lovers. And violence wouldn't be possible from Christians, it would be close to guaranteed. I mean Christ, they get all worked up when you take crosses out of public schools, freaks.

Funny how often liberals seem to label any debate they're losing as "hate speech". Common and stupid tactic.
Funny how you would call me a liberal, far from it. This is hate speech because its just another rant about how Muslims are angry and terrorists.

I'm in more danger from the shit my government lets energy companies put in the air than I am from Muslim fundamentalists. Get a little perspective and grow a sack for fuck's sake.

Comparing pollution to islamic fundamentalism. How... apt.

Muhammed(pbuh) is more important to Muslims and Jesus is to the jesus lovers.

Bullcrap. Mohammed is merely their prophet; Jesus is the Christian GOD. They're just nuts.

Comparing pollution to islamic fundamentalism. How... apt.

You're the one screaming dangerdangerdangerOMGtehmuzzzzlimsiscoming!!!!! I'm just offering a little perspective on the danger they offer to the average US citizen.

You're the one screaming dangerdangerdangerOMGtehmuzzzzlimsiscoming!!!!! I'm just offering a little perspective on the danger they offer to the average US citizen.

..head firmly in the sand.

You're the one screaming dangerdangerdangerOMGtehmuzzzzlimsiscoming!!!!! I'm just offering a little perspective on the danger they offer to the average US citizen.

Tell that to the people who worked in the World Trade Centre.

Muhammed(pbuh) is more important to Muslims and Jesus is to the jesus lovers. And violence wouldn't be possible from Christians, it would be close to guaranteed. I mean Christ, they get all worked up when you take crosses out of public schools, freaks.


Yet - we don't. Madonna does her "seducing Jesus" piece, nobody much cares. "Piss Christ" (a crucifix floating in human urine) is displayed and there's a few murmurs from conservative church groups. Just last week one of our papers used the Jesus on the Cross imagery in it's editorial cartoon; nobody cared.
Put up a cartoon about Mohommad and we get riots. Criticize Islam for violence and a nun is murdered.

Funny how you would call me a liberal, far from it. This is hate speech because its just another rant about how Muslims are angry and terrorists.

Funny, I thought it was a rant about how the Liberal side doesn't get the idea.

..head firmly in the sand.
On the sand, thank you very much--I live near the beach for a reason. And better to be at the beach than cowering in a puddle of my own filth worried about an overblown threat.

You're the one screaming dangerdangerdangerOMGtehmuzzzzlimsiscoming!!!!! I'm just offering a little perspective on the danger they offer to the average US citizen.

Sure, that's true. I'm far more likely to die in an automobile accident or a plane crash or from cancer than I am from a terrorist act. But terrorist act is far more likely to change the quality of life for evryone in this country than pollution or drunk driving. Look how much our country and the world changed as a result of 9/11. Hell, if you really want to get down to it it was AQ who got George Bush, a dangerous out of control moron with a cabinet full of incompetent people on a crusade, elected to a second term. You really need no other proof to show how islamic terrorism is so dangerous.

Muhammed(pbuh) is more important to Muslims and Jesus is to the jesus lovers. And violence wouldn't be possible from Christians, it would be close to guaranteed. I mean Christ, they get all worked up when you take crosses out of public schools, freaks.


It takes a very special kind of detatchment from reality to say something like this.

Everybody remember what happened when "The Satanic Verses" came out? Jihad! off with his head! The author is in hiding to this day. When "The DaVinci Code" came out, it got made into a movie.

Understand something. The differnece is not in the level of perceived insult of each of these two works. The difference is the culture. Christians, however fundamentalist, don't collectively call for a murder and Crusade as a result of someone exercising their freedom of speech. Period. This is not a debatable statement.

If the calls for Salman Rushie's head were from a small contingent of the Islamic world, then what you people need to understand is that it is the fault of the GENERAL population of Muslims for failing to reign in these fanatics. Christians in general get taken to task whenever someone among us gets stupid, and we handle it. We don't allow that sort of nonsense. (Not that anyone ever gives Christians credit for that, but hey, we're not doing it for appearances.)

Whenever a bunch of fringe Muslims get frisky, the rest clam up. They look the other way and we get bombarded with disclaimers from the media (Both conservative and liberal) about how "This doesn't represent all Muslims, just a fringe group." Well that's not good enough anymore. If as a whole we Christians are responsible for the actions of our own, then we ought to hold the Islamic world responsible for theirs. This crap doens't happen in a vaccum. These people are enablers at best.

/rant

Yet - we don't. Madonna does her "seducing Jesus" piece, nobody much cares. "Piss Christ" (a crucifix floating in human urine) is displayed and there's a few murmurs from conservative church groups. Just last week one of our papers used the Jesus on the Cross imagery in it's editorial cartoon; nobody cared.
Put up a cartoon about Mohommad and we get riots. Criticize Islam for violence and a nun is murdered.



Funny, I thought it was a rant about how the Liberal side doesn't get the idea.

Don't forget the elephant dung on the picture of the virgin Mary.

There is no equivalency between Islamic fundamentalists and even Christian fundamentalists.

Those that do make such comparisons are either too stupid to understand the difference, to hateful of Christianity to notice the difference, or have their own agenda they are trying to sell.

Tell that to the people who worked in the World Trade Centre.
This is no doubt going to piss some people off, but what the hell.

3,000 people, 5 years ago, out of nearly 300 million in the country killed in a terrorist attack. How many Americans die a year in car accidents? How many die from being murdered? How many have died from cancers eiher caused or exacerbated by industrial pollution?

For those 3,000 people, that day, Muslim fundamentalism was the greatest threat they would ever face, and it was horrible. But to act like Muslim fundamentalists pose the same level of threat everyday to every single one of us is the height of paranoia and cowardice, and I refuse to live that way. I'm in more danger of dying while driving to work every day than I am of being caught in a terrorist attack.

Conclusion; islamic fundamentalism is more violent and radical than other forms of fundamentalism, and is a least a significant threat to the West, if "only" in the form of major terrorist attacks.

Can we agree on that?

This is no doubt going to piss some people off, but what the hell.

3,000 people, 5 years ago, out of nearly 300 million in the country killed in a terrorist attack. How many Americans die a year in car accidents? How many die from being murdered? How many have died from cancers eiher caused or exacerbated by industrial pollution?

For those 3,000 people, that day, Muslim fundamentalism was the greatest threat they would ever face, and it was horrible. But to act like Muslim fundamentalists pose the same level of threat everyday to every single one of us is the height of paranoia and cowardice, and I refuse to live that way. I'm in more danger of dying while driving to work every day than I am of being caught in a terrorist attack.

Interestingly, when I used that sort of argument against Democrats who were vehemently opposed to nuclear power plants, they accused me of being a fucking idiot.

Funny how people view risk.

On the sand, thank you very much--I live near the beach for a reason. And better to be at the beach than cowering in a puddle of my own filth worried about an overblown threat.

You really like that imagery, don't you? The filth puddle? I guess it's brought you some remarkable success in past debates. It won't here. You don't think this stuff is a threat? Fine. You go back to your burrow and let the lucid and wise handle it for you.

At least, you better hope they do. Because this morning a variety of statements have come out from the Middle East and some of them are calling for Jihad (as usual) and some of them are coming right out now and saying their goal is the total conversion of every nation on the planet.

snip #91

Hate to bring up the war again, but I'm sure people were saying the same thing when the first few bombs landed on Britain.

You really like that imagery, don't you? The filth puddle? I guess it's brought you some remarkable success in past debates. It won't here. You don't think this stuff is a threat? Fine. You go back to your burrow and let the lucid and wise handle it for you.

At least, you better hope they do. Because this morning a variety of statements have come out from the Middle East and some of them are calling for Jihad (as usual) and some of them are coming right out now and saying their goal is the total conversion of every nation on the planet.

Actually, the word on the street is now conversion or death.

Oh, just like they've been saying all along, except now it's the "street" saying it.

Sure, that's true. I'm far more likely to die in an automobile accident or a plane crash or from cancer than I am from a terrorist act. But terrorist act is far more likely to change the quality of life for evryone in this country than pollution or drunk driving. Look how much our country and the world changed as a result of 9/11. Hell, if you really want to get down to it it was AQ who got George Bush, a dangerous out of control moron with a cabinet full of incompetent people on a crusade, elected to a second term. You really need no other proof to show how islamic terrorism is so dangerous.

Here's where we disagree. You see, I don't blame Bush for using the most effective tool in his arsenal to stay in power. al Qaeda didn't get Bush re-elected. A complicit media did more than they did, because they refused to ask important questions, refused to run stories that showed how incompetent Bush really was, played right into Rove's fear strategy.

The Dems bought into it also, and you know what's really sad--in spite of all that, Kerry very nearly won all the same. Al Qaeda didn't change us--we changed ourselves because we bought into the fear when there was no need for it.

Because this morning a variety of statements have come out from the Middle East and some of them are calling for Jihad (as usual) and some of them are coming right out now and saying their goal is the total conversion of every nation on the planet.

Links, please.

But to act like Muslim fundamentalists pose the same level of threat everyday to every single one of us is the height of paranoia and cowardice, and I refuse to live that way. I'm in more danger of dying while driving to work every day than I am of being caught in a terrorist attack.

I'm not aware of anyone in this thread having made such a statement. Are you suggesting that only the most imminent danger is worth considering, to the exclusion of all others?

Here's where we disagree. You see, I don't blame Bush for using the most effective tool in his arsenal to stay in power. al Qaeda didn't get Bush re-elected. A complicit media did more than they did, because they refused to ask important questions, refused to run stories that showed how incompetent Bush really was, played right into Rove's fear strategy.

The Dems bought into it also, and you know what's really sad--in spite of all that, Kerry very nearly won all the same. Al Qaeda didn't change us--we changed ourselves because we bought into the fear when there was no need for it.

Don't forget that Bin Laden put out a video asking the American public to make a choice - vote for Bush and more war with al Qaeda, or vote for Kerry, and maybe al Qaeda wouldn't attack for a while.

Hate to bring up the war again, but I'm sure people were saying the same thing when the first few bombs landed on Britain.

Saying what? Your ham-handed snippage removed whatever it was you were reacting to.

Actually, the word on the street is now conversion or death.

Oh, just like they've been saying all along, except now it's the "street" saying it.

And what's interesting about that is, if it's the word now on the street, that takes it out of "the fringe," no?

This just is: muslims fundamentalists write my argument for me.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/18/pope.islam.ap/index.html

Links, please.

Potato Factory supplied one, here's another:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,214318,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14888444/
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23367232-details/The+Pope+must+die%2C+says+Muslim/article.do

Interestingly, when I used that sort of argument against Democrats who were vehemently opposed to nuclear power plants, they accused me of being a fucking idiot.

Funny how people view risk.
Were the nuclear plants in their backyards? That makes a difference. I wouldn't be so sanguine about this Islamic threat if I lived in Beirut. But I don't live in Beirut. I live in south Florida, and so my perception of personal risk is necessarily colored by that fact.


At least, you better hope they do. Because this morning a variety of statements have come out from the Middle East and some of them are calling for Jihad (as usual) and some of them are coming right out now and saying their goal is the total conversion of every nation on the planet.And their chances of carrying that out are roughly equal to the chances I'll win the gold in rhythmic gymnastics at the next Olympics.

This is no doubt going to piss some people off, but what the hell.

3,000 people, 5 years ago, out of nearly 300 million in the country killed in a terrorist attack. How many Americans die a year in car accidents? How many die from being murdered? How many have died from cancers eiher caused or exacerbated by industrial pollution?

For those 3,000 people, that day, Muslim fundamentalism was the greatest threat they would ever face, and it was horrible. But to act like Muslim fundamentalists pose the same level of threat everyday to every single one of us is the height of paranoia and cowardice, and I refuse to live that way. I'm in more danger of dying while driving to work every day than I am of being caught in a terrorist attack.

Exactly. Try telling others that however. People have a tendency to become afraid even when no real danger exists. But when something visible like 9/11 occurs, then it must mean that those who caused it must be everywhere and that bombs will soon explode and kill us all.

And what's interesting about that is, if it's the word now on the street, that takes it out of "the fringe," no?

Actually, if we take Nazz literally on her view of risk, she's not going to be aware or fearful of any Islamic militancy until they are outside her home, shredding the front of her house with bullets, and screaming for her to come out and convert and put that blue beekeeper outfit on.

Until then, it doesn't exist for The Nazz.

Actually, if we take Nazz literally on her view of risk, she's not going to be aware or fearful of any Islamic militancy until they are outside her home, shredding the front of her house with bullets, and screaming for her to come out and convert and put that blue beekeeper outfit on.

Until then, it doesn't exist for The Nazz.

His, motherfucker, and you know that. And go fuck yourself with the rest of that comment as well.

His, motherfucker, and you know that. And go fuck yourself with the rest of that comment as well.

You've already said that the risk is essentially zero, and that we shouldn't even worry about it at all.

I wouldn't be so sanguine about this Islamic threat if I lived in Beirut. But I don't live in Beirut. I live in south Florida, and so my perception of personal risk is necessarily colored by that fact.

And I live in Australia, and if it were 200 years ago, I'd be just as relaxed as you. But we live in the age of trains, planes, automobiles, and intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Here's where we disagree. You see, I don't blame Bush for using the most effective tool in his arsenal to stay in power. al Qaeda didn't get Bush re-elected. A complicit media did more than they did, because they refused to ask important questions, refused to run stories that showed how incompetent Bush really was, played right into Rove's fear strategy.

The Dems bought into it also, and you know what's really sad--in spite of all that, Kerry very nearly won all the same. Al Qaeda didn't change us--we changed ourselves because we bought into the fear when there was no need for it.

True, but that's our nature. Again, yes. I'm more likely to die in a car crash. But when I'm driving to work I am in control of my car. When you lose control, as I did about two years ago when I hydroplaned and totalled my Mustang, it get's really scary very fast. Terrorism is like that because you have no control. Changing your diet won't help. Once it's effected you there are no clinical trials of new terrorism fighting drugs you can try. Quitting smoking and eating more fiber won't help. We're just sitting here firm in the knowledge that there is a whole class that includes millions of people that would love to see a container ship with a nuclear weapon blow up in Long Beach harbor and that a small minority of them are doing more than just hoping it happens some day. We can't go hire a life coach to help us prevent that from happening. People get scared when they realize that a possible cause of their injury or even mortality are out of their hands. Terrorist know this and they know that people often act irrationally, such as electing maniacs to govern them, when confronted with this type of danger.

Exactly. Try telling others that however. People have a tendency to become afraid even when no real danger exists. But when something visible like 9/11 occurs, then it must mean that those who caused it must be everywhere and that bombs will soon explode and kill us all.

Well, here's the thing; since 9/11, there have been major attacks by the same or similar people, on (off the top of my head) five Western targets, three of them being VERY MAJOR Western cities.

And I live in Australia, and if it were 200 years ago, I'd be just as relaxed as you. But we live in the age of trains, planes, automobiles, and intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Terrorists have intercontinental ballistic missiles now do they?

And their chances of carrying that out are roughly equal to the chances I'll win the gold in rhythmic gymnastics at the next Olympics.

So, what's your point? Germany, in 1940, did not have the capacity to overcome the Soviet Union. That did not stop them from invading the USSR and expanding what had been a short, not very bloody and rather gentlemanly war into the hell of the full WWII. Why? They believed in their doctrine of racial superiority, and that it would bring them victory.
Islam believes in religious superiority. They are hardly alone in that, but because they believe it they may well drag us into a war even bloodier and more foul than WWII. It doesn't matter that, on the facts, they can't win; only that they believe they can.

And their chances of carrying that out are roughly equal to the chances I'll win the gold in rhythmic gymnastics at the next Olympics.

Do you see why I say your head is in the sand? Because you say this and yet there are already precedents set for people who thought they were equally safe and were NOT. Of course it's a matter of odds, but one that is progressively getting worse. What, exactly will it take for you to acknowledge this? Thousands of your countrymen have been killed. Shall a city be nuked next? Would that do it, or are you still safe and snug because Florida is unlikely to have a city the terrorists would want to level?

You've already said that the risk is essentially zero, and that we shouldn't even worry about it at all.
No, I haven't. You've interpreted it that way because it pleases you to do so. What I have said is that the threat to the US is overblown by people who want to stay in power.

Terrorists have intercontinental ballistic missiles now do they?

With govt.s like the one in Tehran right now, there's every chance that they can get them.

Well, here's the thing; since 9/11, there have been major attacks by the same or similar people, on (off the top of my head) five Western targets, three of them being VERY MAJOR Western cities.

I don't consider 5 attacks in 5 years to be a massive assault on Western civilization.

So, what's your point? Germany, in 1940, did not have the capacity to overcome the Soviet Union. That did not stop them from invading the USSR and expanding what had been a short, not very bloody and rather gentlemanly war into the hell of the full WWII. Why? They believed in their doctrine of racial superiority, and that it would bring them victory.
Islam believes in religious superiority. They are hardly alone in that, but because they believe it they may well drag us into a war even bloodier and more foul than WWII. It doesn't matter that, on the facts, they can't win; only that they believe they can.

Interestingly, in 1936, when Germany reoccupied the Rhineland, although French intelligence estimated the number of German troops at over 290,000 in the Rhineland, there were fewer than 22,000 troops and police - the French Army could have made short work of the Germans at that time.

But, people didn't think that Germany was doing anything except the equivalent reoccupying Portsmouth... no harm in Germany readjusting its own backyard - which also was fine in Austria... and even initially in Poland...

By the time 1939 rolled around, Germany had become too powerful for anyone to do anything about it, short of major war.

If the French and British had acted in 1936, they would have stood a chance at discrediting the German leadership in the eyes of its own people.

No, I haven't. You've interpreted it that way because it pleases you to do so. What I have said is that the threat to the US is overblown by people who want to stay in power.

No, he interpreted it that way because you have this interesting habit of shouting down and insulting anyone who acknowledges this as a threat.

No, I haven't. You've interpreted it that way because it pleases you to do so. What I have said is that the threat to the US is overblown by people who want to stay in power.

No, you said it wasn't any more possible than you winning a gold medal.

Which is essentially zero.

There's no misinterpretation there at all.

They are hardly alone in that, but because they believe it they may well drag us into a war even bloodier and more foul than WWII.

I dread having to ally with Fred Phelps' gang.

It doesn't matter that, on the facts, they can't win; only that they believe they can.

Don't be so sure. Worst case scenario, in a full blown "islam vs the rest" war, I can picture them having the ME, northern and central Africa, and western Europe in their sphere. Once again, it's up to America and Russia. Whoopee.

I don't consider 5 attacks in 5 years to be a massive assault on Western civilization.

I do. When has there been a precedent like this in history? And how many attacks were foiled?

With govt.s like the one in Tehran right now, there's every chance that they can get them.

That is the kind of paranoia that is not needed when trying to deal with fanatics.

No, he interpreted it that way because you have this interesting habit of shouting down and insulting anyone who acknowledges this as a threat.

Where have I said it was not a threat? I've said consistently that the threat is overblown, and that people in power are using it to stay in power. What part of that don't you comprehend?

That is the kind of paranoia that is not needed when trying to deal with fanatics.

I wonder if, prior to 9/11/2001 someone would have said this about a theory stating 4 jetliners would be simultaneously hijacked and flown into major U.S. targets.

I don't consider 5 attacks in 5 years to be a massive assault on Western civilization.

It is to a civilization that hasn't had a real conflict on it's own soil since 1945.

Where have I said it was not a threat? I've said consistently that the threat is overblown, and that people in power are using it to stay in power. What part of that don't you comprehend?

You said the chance of anything happenning along those lines is essentially zero.

Which is a good way to say it's not a threat.

Where have I said it was not a threat? I've said consistently that the threat is overblown, and that people in power are using it to stay in power. What part of that don't you comprehend?

Gonna borrow what DK said, since it's the same answer.

No, you said it wasn't any more possible than you winning a gold medal.

Which is essentially zero.

There's no misinterpretation there at all.

Gosh, accountability for one's words sucks, doesn't it?

No, he interpreted it that way because you have this interesting habit of shouting down and insulting anyone who acknowledges this as a threat.

I don't know about that. Nazz and I have disagreed in the past as well as in this very thread and he's always been a respectable debater. He's been personally insulted in this htread a couple times and is reacting. Usually if you stay civil with him he's civil with you.

No, you said it wasn't any more possible than you winning a gold medal.

Which is essentially zero.

There's no misinterpretation there at all.

Here's what I was responding to, you lying sack of shit.

At least, you better hope they do. Because this morning a variety of statements have come out from the Middle East and some of them are calling for Jihad (as usual) and some of them are coming right out now and saying their goal is the total conversion of every nation on the planet.That's what there is no threat of. You're not even trying anymore.

And New Brettonia, I was quoting you, so there's even less reason for you to try this bullshit. Go home and tell momma you just got your ass busted for lying.

That is the kind of paranoia that is not needed when trying to deal with fanatics.

How is it paranoia? Back in East Germany, it turned out that, what was it... one in six? One in six people were working for the Stasi. I'm sure if you suggested such a thing to the people in 1980, they'd laugh you out of town.

Moral of the story: you'd be surprised how far fundamentalist govt.s will go to support their cause.

Here's what I was responding to, you lying sack of shit. That's what there is no threat of. You're not even trying anymore.

You've been saying all along that the chance of a terrorist attack is essentially zero.

Going to take it back now?

I don't know about that. Nazz and I have disagreed in the past as well as in this very thread and he's always been a respectable debater. He's been personally insulted in this htread a couple times and is reacting. Usually if you stay civil with him he's civil with you.

If that's been your experience, I'm glad for you, but I have observed it differently. This isn't the first time Nazz has accused folks of peeing themselves over nothing, and using some entertainingly colorful language to do it, too.

Karma rolls that stuff back.

Here's what I was responding to, you lying sack of shit. That's what there is no threat of. You're not even trying anymore.

Ya don't get it, do you? It's not that they might succeed, it's that they might try. The Nazis tried their crap; they didn't win, but it doesn't make WWII any more pleasant, does it?

Islam believes in religious superiority. They are hardly alone in that, but because they believe it they may well drag us into a war even bloodier and more foul than WWII. It doesn't matter that, on the facts, they can't win; only that they believe they can. This is true, in fact, by some of their past statements they actually seem to believe that Allah will send someone to come down from upon high and lead their armies. When you believe that God is going to send you reinforcmenets you aren't stable. But since they believe it, they have no fear of losing, after all "God" is going to destroy Rome for them.

And if you had talked in 2000 and asked someone if they thought someone could Hjack some planes and crash them into important buildings, destroying them, I bet they would have asked what you were smoking.

No, I haven't. You've interpreted it that way because it pleases you to do so. What I have said is that the threat to the US is overblown by people who want to stay in power.

Nazz, would you describe yourself as a "leftist"?

I would describe myself as an extreme "rightist".

Do I agree with your statement above (in bold)?

Yes. I do. But the question is how overblown do "those in power" make the threat seem compared to how serious the threat actually is?

My opinion: Any group that uses asymmetrical warfare (the tactics of rust, mold and insects) had better either be VERY correct in their purpose and reasoning, or they must be dealt with like rust, mold and insects, and cleansed (continually) from our house that is human society.

So the question is, do you, or anyone here, stand up for the purposes of the mold that is the present "jihadis"..?

Do you consider them to be agents of degradation, or not? And if not, why?


-Iakeo

That is the kind of paranoia that is not needed when trying to deal with fanatics.

The Iranian gov't. actively recruits suicde bombers to attack Isreal and U.S. troops in Iraq. I don't think it's a stretch by any means to assume that they are willing to give whatever weapons they have at their disposal to Muslim terrorists. Just look at the weaponry taht Hezbollah just fought Isreal with. This head in the sands attitude about the Muslim world is exactly what the OP article was elluding to.

You've been saying all along that the chance of a terrorist attack is essentially zero.

Going to take it back now?
Find it motherfucker. Find those words or eat your own.

While I wouldn't say that liberals are "soft on terrorism" the types that try to claim that Christian are on average, equally as violent as Muslims on average really annoys me. As are those who say that we should shut up about human rights violations in the Middle East.

We should never shut up about human rights violations.

If I had posted it, everyone would say it was full of shit Muslim-bashing Liberal-bashing.
given your views that response would be hardly unjustified.

Here's what I was responding to, you lying sack of shit. That's what there is no threat of. You're not even trying anymore.

And New Brettonia, I was quoting you, so there's even less reason for you to try this bullshit. Go home and tell momma you just got your ass busted for lying.


See what I mean, PsychoticDan? Completely irrational and trying to pass this drivel off as intellectual debate. The strongest thing I've said to Nazz is that he's got his head firmly in the sand. But hey, maybe my standards are just too high.

I don't know about that. Nazz and I have disagreed in the past as well as in this very thread and he's always been a respectable debater. He's been personally insulted in this htread a couple times and is reacting. Usually if you stay civil with him he's civil with you.

I haven't personally insulted anyone. I've noticed that when the Nazz gets called on something, this is the standard reaction.

Point of fact - the Nazz has said that the chance of a terrorist attack is far less than the odds of being hurt by pollution, etc. In many ways, the Nazz has said that the odds of a terrorist attack is essentially nil.

And that is without twisting a single word, or lying. The standard Nazz tactic when getting caught like this is to accuse the poster of lying.

Just look at the weaponry taht Hezbollah just fought Isreal with. This head in the sands attitude about the Muslim world is exactly what the OP article was elluding to.

Word. Hezbollah has KATYUSHAS. I don't know much about the RAF, but I'm pretty sure that they didn't even have Katyushas.

Find it motherfucker. Find those words or eat your own.

You've said it too many times to count.

Of course, you're free to say something like, "I believe that Islamic terrorism poses a substantial, real risk of death, economic damage, and terror to people in the United States."

I haven't personally insulted anyone. I've noticed that when the Nazz gets called on something, this is the standard reaction.

Point of fact - the Nazz has said that the chance of a terrorist attack is far less than the odds of being hurt by pollution, etc. In many ways, the Nazz has said that the odds of a terrorist attack is essentially nil.

And that is without twisting a single word, or lying. The standard Nazz tactic when getting caught like this is to accuse the poster of lying.

As well as toss in a few cusses just to let us know he's really really really serious.;)

Point of fact - the Nazz has said that the chance of a terrorist attack is far less than the odds of being hurt by pollution, etc. In many ways, the Nazz has said that the odds of a terrorist attack is essentially nil.



To be strictly honest he said the chances of being injured in a terrorist attack was far less than being harmed by pollution.

To be strictly honest he said the chances of being injured in a terrorist attack was far less than being harmed by pollution.

Doesn't change anything - it means the risk is essentially low enough to be ignored.

If that's been your experience, I'm glad for you, but I have observed it differently. This isn't the first time Nazz has accused folks of peeing themselves over nothing, and using some entertainingly colorful language to do it, too.

Karma rolls that stuff back.

Okay, but if you look back at this thread you'll notice a decidedly different tone in my debate with hi than his debate with others even though we are debating the same things. Don't want to dwell on this, though.

The Iranian gov't. actively recruits suicde bombers to attack Isreal and U.S. troops in Iraq. I don't think it's a stretch by any means to assume that they are willing to give whatever weapons they have at their disposal to Muslim terrorists. Just look at the weaponry taht Hezbollah just fought Isreal with. This head in the sands attitude about the Muslim world is exactly what the OP article was elluding to.

This just sounds like a suspicion of what Iran may be doing. If we had hard proof that Iran was aiding attacks on our soldiers then it would be a case for war. A much better case then the one made for Iraq. I do kind of wonder if people think Iran has stockpiles of intercontinental ballistic missiles that can be given to terrorists? Or will ever get a bomb anytime soon anyway?

THINK OF THE CHILDREN
- Try to keep it civil, please?



And if you had talked in 2000 and asked someone if they thought someone could Hjack some planes and crash them into important buildings, destroying them, I bet they would have asked what you were smoking.
...or like me, ask "So what did you think about "Debt of Honor", the Tom Clancy novel from 1994?" :)

I haven't personally insulted anyone. I've noticed that when the Nazz gets called on something, this is the standard reaction.

Point of fact - the Nazz has said that the chance of a terrorist attack is far less than the odds of being hurt by pollution, etc. In many ways, the Nazz has said that the odds of a terrorist attack is essentially nil.

And that is without twisting a single word, or lying. The standard Nazz tactic when getting caught like this is to accuse the poster of lying.

Let me point something out to you, DK, since you insist on lying. Saying that one thing is more likely than another does not preclude the possibility of either happening. It points to likelihood.

When I have said that there is almost no likelihood of something happening--like the conversion of every nation on earth into Islamic nations--I have been clear on that.

When I made the comparison between the danger levels I face on a daily basis--driving a car versus falling victim to a terrorist attack--I have been clear on that as well.

That you choose to deliberately and dishonestly conflate the two is something I can't control. I can only defend myself. I often choose to use invective to do so.

You have, multiple times on the last two pages, distorted things that I wrote, and you have done so deliberately. That's lying, and any honest observer will agree to that. I don't toss that accusation around lightly--you are the primary recepient of it, though New Brettonia got it this time too, and with cause.

Liberals just can't get too riled up at those who have the impression from them that they don't see what's going on. With the issues of border control, treatment of prisoners, aggressive response and so on, they always seem to be on whatever side the terrorists would want them to be on. That's the impression they give. Unintentional, perhaps, but then I'd suggest they get working on changing that rather than just complain about it.

This just sounds like a suspicion of what Iran may be doing. If we had hard proof that Iran was aiding attacks on our soldiers then it would be a case for war. A much better case then the one made for Iraq. I do kind of wonder if people think Iran has stockpiles of intercontinental ballistic missiles that can be given to terrorists? Or will ever get a bomb anytime soon anyway?

Actually, there's been hard proof that Iran manufactures shaped charge mines for use as roadside IEDs in Iraq. Both the UK and US have found them, and been killed by them.

To be strictly honest he said the chances of being injured in a terrorist attack was far less than being harmed by pollution.

I'm glad that wasn't lost on everyone.

DK, I think what The Nazz is trying to say is that the threat of radical Islam to the average citizen is overblown. Far more people in the U.S. have been killed by automobile accidents, diseases, etc., than by Al Qaeda and the like. Never did he say radical Islam posed no threat.

While the threat of an individual attack killing any specific individual may be low, the effect of terror is not overblown. Even if no one says anything about it, each successive threat and attack terrorizes millions of people.

It has an effect.

Why don't you check how easy it is to get a seat on a flight to Heathrow right now from the US - at a time of year when flights are usually overbooked.

I don't toss that accusation around lightly--you are the primary recepient of it, though New Brettonia got it this time too, and with cause.

:rolleyes:

You guys should really get your heads out of your arses and realise how stupidly insignificant terrorism actually is (other than inspiring fear in the masses (their main objective), which your happy to allow continue).

Aren't you ever thankful of the luxury of being able to be so paranoid over the deaths of a paltry few thousand? (yes, when it's one attack on that scale in 5 years, its a paltry figure). I would choose that luxury over the very real fear of a third world farmer of drought, of pests or whatnot wiping out my crops leaving me with nothing to live on and face the death shared by millions annually. Or maybe someone whos life consists of finding whatever they can to live in rubbish dumps, who may cut themselves, may eat something dodgy (which is quite likely considering heh?) and just die slowly. Or a child in a remote village whose family lacks the simple medication that might save them from diarrhoea; they won't just miss a few days off school, it will kill 1.5 million of them every year.

Personally I'd eagerly choose the comfortable life of an office worker on the 103rd floor of WTC 1 over any of the above's (whose deaths far outnumber terrorisms). Wouldn't you? This merits none of the attention it gets

liberals continue to imagine that Muslim terrorism springs from economic despair, lack of education and American militarism
Muslim terrorism does stem from needless American attacks on Muslim countries. Iraq is the obvious choice. I blame that war for inspiring the attacks in Madrid and London.

Lack of correct education has a lot to do with it. Saudi-funded madrasas are especially to blame for spreading lies about the west.

Being generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity, liberals should be especially sensitive to the dangers of religious literalism. But they aren't.
Indeed, some of them fail to see that Islamic literalism is equally, or more dangerous than Christian literalism.

The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists.
That's an exaggeration. Fascists usually generalise about all Muslims.

DK, I think what The Nazz is trying to say is that the threat of radical Islam to the average citizen is overblown. Far more people in the U.S. have been killed by automobile accidents, diseases, etc., than by Al Qaeda and the like. Never did he say radical Islam posed no threat.He knows that, but he has some desire to try to discredit me, so he twists it to make it sound like I've said something different.

Listen, nobody's saying that there are an alarming number of crazy dumbasses in the middle east who follow a twisted form of Islam - that's covered. What we're discussing is how many of them there are (there aren't that many when compared to how many there are overall, so to say that "The muslim religion is violent" is to ignore all the peaceful muslims).

Essentially the real enemy is IGNORANCE. Say it with me now, IGNORANCE. Terrorists are for the most part IGNORANT people. They see no other way to get their goals realized, or they think god tells them to do such things because some tall guy with a beard and an electrolysis machine told them so. The violent ones aren't evil, they're just really really stupid. I don't fear them, I pity them.

We should be sending books instead of bombs. Bombs fuel rage, rage clouds judgement, clouded judgement is what encourages ignorance - books don't fuel rage.

They're truly just stupid people. Notice how I'm not saying "Islam is a stupid religion" or "All muslims are stupid", no, I'm saying that violent people in the middle-east are stupid.

Now, there are those who do it simply for power and greed, and those are one of the main types of people we need to target. That's why it was a bad idea to halt the search for Bin Laden and go after Hussein.

You guys should really get your heads out of your arses and realise how stupidly insignificant terrorism actually is (other than inspiring fear in the masses (their main objective), which your happy to allow continue).

Aren't you ever thankful of the luxury of being able to be so paranoid over the deaths of a paltry few thousand? (yes, when it's one attack on that scale in 5 years, its a paltry figure). I would choose that luxury over the very real fear of a third world farmer of drought, of pests or whatnot wiping out my crops leaving me with nothing to live on and face the death shared by millions annually. Or maybe someone whos life consists of finding whatever they can to live in rubbish dumps, who may cut themselves, may eat something dodgy (which is quite likely considering heh?) and just die slowly. Or a child in a remote village whose family lacks the simple medication that might save them from diarrhoea; they won't just miss a few days off school, it will kill 1.5 million of them every year.

Personally I'd eagerly choose the comfortable life of an office worker on the 103rd floor of WTC 1 over any of the above's (whose deaths far outnumber terrorisms). Wouldn't you? This merits none of the attention it gets

So.. just how bad would a terrorist attack have to be before you deem it significant? 1.5 million casualties? How about a city?

Actually, there's been hard proof that Iran manufactures shaped charge mines for use as roadside IEDs in Iraq. Both the UK and US have found them, and been killed by them.

Well, I haven't seen any hard proof, just alot of speculation and accusations. Simply because if such proof did exist then Bush would actually have a reason to attack Iran. I don't see the news screaming that Iran is supplying terrorists with mines and that would most certainly be news.

snip

It's times like this that I bring the famous phrase into play.

*clears throat*

It's not our fault they suck.

Just because we have it better than them, are we not entitled to defend ourselves from terrorism?

Muslim terrorism does stem from needless American attacks on Muslim countries. Iraq is the obvious choice. I blame that war for inspiring the attacks in Madrid and London.

And upon what "needless" American attack on Muslim countries do you blame the 1993 WTC bombing? The Cole bombing? The Embassy bombings? How about the Marine barracks in Beiruit?

Well, I haven't seen any hard proof, just alot of speculation and accusations. Simply because if such proof did exist then Bush would actually have a reason to attack Iran. I don't see the news screaming that Iran is supplying terrorists with mines and that would most certainly be news.

You obviously don't read all the news. And, it's probably not enough reason to attack Iran. After all, everyone sells weapons to the insurgents, including the Chinese, who don't give a shit who they sell weapons to.

You guys should really get your heads out of your arses and realise how stupidly insignificant terrorism actually is (other than inspiring fear in the masses (their main objective), which your happy to allow continue).

Aren't you ever thankful of the luxury of being able to be so paranoid over the deaths of a paltry few thousand? (yes, when it's one attack on that scale in 5 years, its a paltry figure). I would choose that luxury over the very real fear of a third world farmer of drought, of pests or whatnot wiping out my crops leaving me with nothing to live on and face the death shared by millions annually. Or maybe someone whos life consists of finding whatever they can to live in rubbish dumps, who may cut themselves, may eat something dodgy (which is quite likely considering heh?) and just die slowly. Or a child in a remote village whose family lacks the simple medication that might save them from diarrhoea; they won't just miss a few days off school, it will kill 1.5 million of them every year.

Personally I'd eagerly choose the comfortable life of an office worker on the 103rd floor of WTC 1 over any of the above's (whose deaths far outnumber terrorisms). Wouldn't you? This merits none of the attention it gets


You do have a point; most of us really can't conceive of how many people on this world live.
But that is no reason not to be concerned with continuing to reduce the risks to our people and our society. In large part, we can't save those dying peoples around the world. We CAN stop the next try at a 9/11 with a little luck.
More, we can act against those who would destroy our way of life and condemn US to the same kind of hell as those hardscrabble people you speak of. And that is definitely worth doing.

While the threat of an individual attack killing any specific individual may be low, the effect of terror is not overblown. Even if no one says anything about it, each successive threat and attack terrorizes millions of people.

It has an effect.

Why don't you check how easy it is to get a seat on a flight to Heathrow right now from the US - at a time of year when flights are usually overbooked.

Yes, but it is the media and the government who pound how scary and dangerous things are. One plot and now all airplanes are going to start falling from the sky? I for one am not going to curl up into a fetal position and whimper with fear. If I actually had some money I would love to jump on a plane and head for London.

It's times like this that I bring the famous phrase into play.

*clears throat*

It's not our fault they suck.

Just because we have it better than them, are we not entitled to defend ourselves from terrorism?

Actually, if you think about this, it does tie closely with other liberal causes that punish the well-off in the name of the (perceived) not so well-off. Not that all liberals support all these causes, but doesn't the idea that we're to blame for having it better than they do sound a lot like the arguments of:

-Higher taxes only for the wealthy
-Compensation for black people because of slavery
-increased welfare benefits
-various forms of affirmative action

You obviously don't read all the news. And, it's probably not enough reason to attack Iran. After all, everyone sells weapons to the insurgents, including the Chinese, who don't give a shit who they sell weapons to.

Well I do occassionally watch FOX news and this would be the kind of thing they would love to go on and on and on about. Haven't seen it though.

So.. just how bad would a terrorist attack have to be before you deem it significant? 1.5 million casualties? How about a city?

Yeah. That would do the trick. But has anything remotely on that magnitude ever occured? (terrorism related of course)

THINK OF THE CHILDREN
- Try to keep it civil, please?



Good advice. I have one reported flame in Moderation, but it's hardly the only flame in this thread. Y'all really do need to knock it off with the insults and bickering. If a debate with someone has descended into insults, that'd be a great time to stop responding. Do so.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

Yeah. That would do the trick. But has anything remotely on that magnitude ever occured? (terrorism related of course)

Surely you're not suggesting that, simply because it hasn't yet, that it never will.

See, that's the whole point. Prior to 2001, many people would never have believed a terrorist attack of that magniture could happen. That's probably the main reason we weren't exactly putting terrorism at the top of the priority list. Things are different now. Not only can we not make such assumptions, the inflammatory language coming from the terrorists suggests that we can expest the attacks to get WORSE if at all possible.

I invite you, or anyone else, to name one good reason why we should wait until that point.

Well I do occassionally watch FOX news and this would be the kind of thing they would love to go on and on and on about. Haven't seen it though.

The parts are definitely being pre-manufactured and shipped in. Iran's the obvious culprit, and a few have been intercepted being smuggled across the Iran-Iraq border, but Iran has claimed that they're not making them and that "someone" is using them as a transshipment point. They've also said they will try to prevent that in the future.

It's times like this that I bring the famous phrase into play.

*clears throat*

It's not our fault they suck.

Just because we have it better than them, are we not entitled to defend ourselves from terrorism?

You should realise that lost in all the hyperbole and over-dramatisation is the real size of what has actually occured is. In terms of human lives, the 100,000th of the US population that lost their lives on the 11th of September don't demonstrate a country that is at any risk at all.

This just sounds like a suspicion of what Iran may be doing. If we had hard proof that Iran was aiding attacks on our soldiers then it would be a case for war. A much better case then the one made for Iraq. I do kind of wonder if people think Iran has stockpiles of intercontinental ballistic missiles that can be given to terrorists? Or will ever get a bomb anytime soon anyway?
iran openly recruits students for "martyrdom operations" in Iraq and Isreal. I tried to pull up the yahoo news article about it but the link has expired. It's well known, though.

The parts are definitely being pre-manufactured and shipped in. Iran's the obvious culprit, and a few have been intercepted being smuggled across the Iran-Iraq border, but Iran has claimed that they're not making them and that "someone" is using them as a transshipment point. They've also said they will try to prevent that in the future.

In other words there is no proof who is shipping the weapons to Iraq.

You should realise that lost in all the hyperbole and over-dramatisation is the real size of what has actually occured is. In terms of human lives, the 100,000th of the US population that lost their lives on the 11th of September don't demonstrate a country that is at any risk at all.

Like I said, it's big to a civilisation that hasn't had an major conflict on home soil since 1945.

That's ok. I've killed militant Muslims so you don't have to.

Yeah, and that really quelled the whole thing down, didn't it?

Good advice. I have one reported flame in Moderation, but it's hardly the only flame in this thread. Y'all really do need to knock it off with the insults and bickering. If a debate with someone has descended into insults, that'd be a great time to stop responding. Do so.

And yet, perhaps ironically, I think I've been pretty good so far. Don't you?

Listen, nobody's saying that there are an alarming number of crazy dumbasses in the middle east who follow a twisted form of Islam - that's covered. What we're discussing is how many of them there are (there aren't that many when compared to how many there are overall, so to say that "The muslim religion is violent" is to ignore all the peaceful muslims).

Essentially the real enemy is IGNORANCE. Say it with me now, IGNORANCE. Terrorists are for the most part IGNORANT people. They see no other way to get their goals realized, or they think god tells them to do such things because some tall guy with a beard and an electrolysis machine told them so. The violent ones aren't evil, they're just really really stupid. I don't fear them, I pity them.

There's not need to fear the poor peasant, until some fellow with money straps a bomb to him and points him at me.

There's no need to fear the "ignorant" who have no education, until they are manipulated by the educated zealot into driving a bomb into a building.

The "ignorant" that don't have the tools to "see" are to be feared only as weapons.

The "ignorant" that have the education to DO but not the education to "see" are to be feared highly.


We should be sending books instead of bombs. Bombs fuel rage, rage clouds judgement, clouded judgement is what encourages ignorance - books don't fuel rage.

How would you distribute these books, if they are "blasphemy" to the local authorities? By power of arms?


They're truly just stupid people. Notice how I'm not saying "Islam is a stupid religion" or "All muslims are stupid", no, I'm saying that violent people in the middle-east are stupid.

Islam sees all other religions as inferior, and that eventually all people will (and must) come to Islam.

The question is when.

Those who would hasten the establishment of worldwide islam not through convincing by reason and good works, but by violence and intimidation are worthy of our fear.

Those who would hasten the coming of "the true religion" by reason and example are to be honored.


Now, there are those who do it simply for power and greed, and those are one of the main types of people we need to target. That's why it was a bad idea to halt the search for Bin Laden and go after Hussein.

No one halted the search for Bin Laden. Period.

But that's not the issue, unless you just want a rock to throw at Bush, which is fine.

The issue is how do you go after "the bad guys"..?


-Iakeo

Like I said, it's big to a civilisation that hasn't had an major conflict on home soil since 1945.

Emotionally maybe. But it would be good if people would be more aware of the reality and base policy on that instead.

iran openly recruits students for "martyrdom operations" in Iraq and Isreal. I tried to pull up the yahoo news article about it but the link has expired. It's well known, though.

Bush doesn't wanna go against Iran right now because he's fucked himself in Afghanistan and Iraq. He realizes that he can't do all three at once, so he's trying to (finally) be diplomatic, but the problem being he waited too long and at this point he's done too much to try and fix it now.

Liberals just can't get too riled up at those who have the impression from them that they don't see what's going on. With the issues of border control, treatment of prisoners, aggressive response and so on, they always seem to be on whatever side the terrorists would want them to be on. That's the impression they give. Unintentional, perhaps, but then I'd suggest they get working on changing that rather than just complain about it.

But that's invective from the right and is not constructive, either. The fact of teh matter is that liberals are not always taking sides that terrorists want them to take. It's liberals now taht are clamoring for nuclear and chemical facilities to be more stringently guarded than they are. It's the left that wants more secrity at our ports.

You should realise that lost in all the hyperbole and over-dramatisation is the real size of what has actually occured is. In terms of human lives, the 100,000th of the US population that lost their lives on the 11th of September don't demonstrate a country that is at any risk at all.

What breaks this argument is that you're trying to apply simple numbers to a human equation. 3,000 rocks out of 280 Million is a meaningless quantity. 3,000 out of 280 Million cars is statistically insignificant.

But what we're talking about here are 3,000 human lives. Each one priceless and infinitely valuable. Saying that isn't significant is like saying the Government shouldn't act to protect its people until some minimum number of its people are threatened.

Emotionally maybe. But it would be good if people would be more aware of the reality and base policy on that instead.

No, not just emotionally. It drags down our standard of life. Do you expect us to say "Fuck it, it's no big deal, we were due for one."?

Saying that isn't significant is like saying the Government shouldn't act to protect its people until some minimum number of its people are threatened.

Exactly what I'm trying to say.

You should realise that lost in all the hyperbole and over-dramatisation is the real size of what has actually occured is. In terms of human lives, the 100,000th of the US population that lost their lives on the 11th of September don't demonstrate a country that is at any risk at all.

Obviously, you don't know much about what used to be called "Destab Attacks". "Destab" is short for "destabilization". Both the US and USSR, via proxies, got very good at this kind of warfare during the Cold War.
The concept is not to inflict damage; it is to make a country ungovernable. In some cases there are nations that are STILL destabilized twenty or thirty years after the initial campaigns ended.
9/11 was a Destab Attack on the United States. Quantity of casualties is irrelevant; the idea was to neutralize Americans' belief in our government and it's ability to protect us.
For all that I have problems with much of what the son-of-a-Bush has done, he HAS been able to prevent the destabilization effects. We may argue a lot over the right thing to do, but we're as much Americans as we ever were.

There's not need to fear the poor peasant, until some fellow with money straps a bomb to him and points him at me.

Wouldn't put money on that, were I you. Its the presumption that the poor peasant is incapable of motivation except by the trouble maker who needs to be dealt with sternly. String him up and the rest will be back to bowing and scraping in no time...very 19th century.....


There's no need to fear the "ignorant" who have no education, until they are manipulated by the educated zealot into driving a bomb into a building.
.

Yet to refer to the NYC attack, we're talking Western educated and privileged attackers. But I suppose you put "ignorant" in quotes so you can redefine the term later to try to appear clever.....

But that's invective from the right and is not constructive, either. The fact of teh matter is that liberals are not always taking sides that terrorists want them to take. It's liberals now taht are clamoring for nuclear and chemical facilities to be more stringently guarded than they are. It's the left that wants more secrity at our ports.

Is that why Bin Laden advised Americans to vote for Kerry?

It's not "invective from the right." I'm talking about the fact that there are liberal leaning Senators that want to extend Geneva Convention rights to terrorist prisoners (Yes, McCain is left leaning these days).

There are liberals in Congress that want to extend all sorts of rights, resources and amnesty to illegal aliens (And you're dreaming if you think it's only Mexicans coming across that border.)

It's generally liberals that wnt to reduce or restrain military response to terrorism. (Yeah, some didnt even want us to go into Afganistan)

Look, you're doing it yourself right now. You're playing the role of an apologist instead of looking objectively at the reasons why liberals are perceived this way.

It may well be that liberals are more aggressive in controlling ports and guarding power plants, but we need to see more of that. It's like the point I made earlier about "peaceful" muslims not being like the fanatics. If we dn't see that, then you're not effectively conveying it!

Obviously, you don't know much about what used to be called "Destab Attacks". "Destab" is short for "destabilization". Both the US and USSR, via proxies, got very good at this kind of warfare during the Cold War.
The concept is not to inflict damage; it is to make a country ungovernable. In some cases there are nations that are STILL destabilized twenty or thirty years after the initial campaigns ended.
9/11 was a Destab Attack on the United States. Quantity of casualties is irrelevant; the idea was to neutralize Americans' belief in our government and it's ability to protect us.
For all that I have problems with much of what the son-of-a-Bush has done, he HAS been able to prevent the destabilization effects. We may argue a lot over the right thing to do, but we're as much Americans as we ever were.

I don't see Americans losing confidence in the government from one attack. It would take more to shake the knowledge of our power and security. I certainly don't feel any less secure then I did pre-9/11.

Bush doesn't wanna go against Iran right now because he's fucked himself in Afghanistan and Iraq. He realizes that he can't do all three at once, so he's trying to (finally) be diplomatic, but the problem being he waited too long and at this point he's done too much to try and fix it now.

Yep. We got hit on 9/11 and, since our leader and his cabinet were stupid morons, we reacted like an untrained fighter. We jsut stood up, blinfolded and started swining wildly in the air at whatever was in our way. Our first punch (Afghanistan) landed correctly. Since then we have just been swinging at whatever moves and we have hurt oursleves, our allies and we are now punch drunk and too worn out to continue.

I don't see Americans losing confidence in the government from one attack...

EXACTLY. So what do you suppose the terrorists will do about that?

It's generally liberals that wnt to reduce or restrain military response to terrorism. (Yeah, some didnt even want us to go into Afganistan)

Really? Even Germany went to Afghanistan, and they're powerwussies.

Really? Even Germany went to Afghanistan, and they're powerwussies.

lol

I don't see Americans losing confidence in the government from one attack. It would take more to shake the knowledge of our power and security. I certainly don't feel any less secure then I did pre-9/11.

You're right, one attack, even a major one, wouldn't have done the job. But if al Qaeda had manged three or four follow up attacks, even if not on the same scale, then major damage could have resulted.

(I should also note that I think al Qaeda fucked up. There's a reason neither side in the Cold War tried destabilizing each other's core nations - high stability nations are very hard to destabilize.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clamsands
There's not need to fear the poor peasant, until some fellow with money straps a bomb to him and points him at me.


Wouldn't put money on that, were I you. Its the presumption that the poor peasant is incapable of motivation except by the trouble maker who needs to be dealt with sternly. String him up and the rest will be back to bowing and scraping in no time...very 19th century.....

If the poor fellow is truly poor, how does he get the resources to do any real damage?

What is your argument here?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Clamsands
There's no need to fear the "ignorant" who have no education, until they are manipulated by the educated zealot into driving a bomb into a building.

Yet to refer to the NYC attack, we're talking Western educated and privileged attackers. But I suppose you put "ignorant" in quotes so you can redefine the term later to try to appear clever.....

The "poor" folks are not the problem, except as "weaponry" for the "rich" folks.

The "rich" folks are the problem, as they have reasons AND resources to act.

The TARGETS need to be specifically those "educated" and "resourceful" zealots.

The other question, of course, is how to deprive these TARGETS of their human "weapnry".

Got any suggestions?


-Iakeo

You're right, one attack, even a major one, wouldn't have done the job. But if al Qaeda had manged three or four follow up attacks, even if not on the same scale, then major damage could have resulted.

(I should also note that I think al Qaeda fucked up. There's a reason neither side in the Cold War tried destabilizing each other's core nations - high stability nations are very hard to destabilize.)

I haven't seen any follow up however. I don't believe the terrorists are as organized or widespread as some want to believe which makes it harder to break through our increased security. That one attack did however cause Bush to institute policies that caused widespread resentment. They haven't accomplished a single other attack against America yet the fear remains. Pumped up by the media of course.

Is that why Bin Laden advised Americans to vote for Kerry?You sure that's what he wanted?

It's not "invective from the right." I'm talking about the fact that there are liberal leaning Senators that want to extend Geneva Convention rights to terrorist prisoners (Yes, McCain is left leaning these days).They should be subject to the Geneva Conventions. Just because they don't ascribe to them doesn't mean we need to get into the cesspool with them. Ask any interogation expert and they will tell you that information gained under duress is unreliable. Where I differ from many liberals is that I do not believe they should be subject to the protections offered by the U.S. Constitution. They are not criminals who were caught stealing ion our streets. They are prisoners of war in a war that they declared.

There are liberals in Congress that want to extend all sorts of rights, resources and amnesty to illegal aliens (And you're dreaming if you think it's only Mexicans coming across that border.)Yeah. There are liberals in the Oval Office tha want the same thing.

It's generally liberals that wnt to reduce or restrain military response to terrorism. (Yeah, some didnt even want us to go into Afganistan)I think the only person in Congress that didn't want to go into Afghanistan was Maxine Waters. Using her as an example of liberals is like using David Duke as an example of conservatives.

Look, you're doing it yourself right now. You're playing the role of an apologist instead of looking objectively at the reasons why liberals are perceived this way. I'm not playing the apologist at all. I'm the one who posted this thing in the first place. What I'd like to see is a constructuve debate that is not reduced to platitudes and invective. The fact of the matter is our response to 9/11 was so incompetent that I'm wondering if we can ever clean up the mess Bush has left. I believe we need to fight this war, but we need to be a lot smarter about when we talk and when we attack.

It may well be that liberals are more aggressive in controlling ports and guarding power plants, but we need to see more of that. It's like the point I made earlier about "peaceful" muslims not being like the fanatics. If we dn't see that, then you're not effectively conveying it!

Sure. I wouldn't have posted this if I thought that there was a realistic understanding of the threat we face on teh part of the left, but is that more or less dangerous than fighting this war with astounding incompetence? I'm not sure...

I haven't seen any follow up however. I don't believe the terrorists are as organized or widespread as some want to believe which makes it harder to break through our increased security. That one attack did however cause Bush to institute policies that caused widespread resentment. They haven't accomplished a single other attack against America yet the fear remains. Pumped up by the media of course.

Not in the US, no. They've managed some pretty big hits in the UK and Spain, though.
I suspect they really didn't expect to lose their base of ops in Afghanistan. Remember that one of their tenets of belief is that the US is weak; they may well have been knocked onto a back foot by our invasion of Afghanistan; who knows how many plans got knocked awry then?

I'm going to bed. This has been a surprisingly constructive and interesting debate. I hope you guys keep it going 'til I'm back tomorrow.

'Night.

They should be subject to the Geneva Conventions. Just because they don't ascribe to them doesn't mean we need to get into the cesspool with them. Ask any interogation expert and they will tell you that information gained under duress is unreliable. Where I differ from many liberals is that I do not believe they should be subject to the protections offered by the U.S. Constitution. They are not criminals who were caught stealing ion our streets. They are prisoners of war in a war that they declared.

One problem, PD. If we acted literally the way the Hague and Geneva conventions allow, we could immediately execute without trial any combatant not in an identifying uniform. The conventions protect, explicitly, only uniformed combatants.

Not in the US, no. They've managed some pretty big hits in the UK and Spain, though.
I suspect they really didn't expect to lose their base of ops in Afghanistan. Remember that one of their tenets of belief is that the US is weak; they may well have been knocked onto a back foot by our invasion of Afghanistan; who knows how many plans got knocked awry then?

I can agree that going after them in Afghanistan disrupted whatever future plans they may have had. However instead of finishing them off there we have become distracted in Iraq. Without it perhaps we would have finished off the Taliban insurgents or (here's a shocker) actually have captured Osama bin Laden.

You sure that's what he wanted?
I will search for a link, but this info is old so I make no promises.


They should be subject to the Geneva Conventions. Just because they don't ascribe to them doesn't mean we need to get into the cesspool with them. Ask any interogation expert and they will tell you that information gained under duress is unreliable. Where I differ from many liberals is that I do not believe they should be subject to the protections offered by the U.S. Constitution. They are not criminals who were caught stealing ion our streets. They are prisoners of war in a war that they declared.

We agree as far as the issue of criminal prosecutions, but the fact is, the Geneva convention does not apply to them. That's not to say I'd be happy to see them tortured, mind you, but neither they nor anyone they represent were signatories of that treaty, and thus they're not covered. Frankly, they'd still be excluded anyway, as set forth in the provisions of the Geneva convention that govern the "rules of war."


Yeah. There are liberals in the Oval Office tha want the same thing.

Sadly, I must agree.


I think the only person in Congress that didn't want to go into Afghanistan was Maxine Waters. Using her as an example of liberals is like using David Duke as an example of conservatives.
Fair enough


I'm not playing the apologist at all. I'm the one who posted this thing in the first place. What I'd like to see is a constructuve debate that is not reduced to platitudes and invective. The fact of the matter is our response to 9/11 was so incompetent that I'm wondering if we can ever clean up the mess Bush has left. I believe we need to fight this war, but we need to be a lot smarter about when we talk and when we attack.

I agree with your sentiments. The problem (generally) is that the idea of trying to change people's minds about liberalism and its relationship to terrorists with words won't work. It has to be done with action.


Sure. I wouldn't have posted this if I thought that there was a realistic understanding of the threat we face on teh part of the left, but is that more or less dangerous than fighting this war with astounding incompetence? I'm not sure...
Sadly, we seem to have plenty of both.

Found this piece in the Los Angeles Times this morning. I couldn't agree more.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
Head-in-the-Sand Liberals
Western civilization really is at risk from Muslim extremists.


A cult of death is forming in the Muslim world — for reasons that are perfectly explicable in terms of the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad. The truth is that we are not fighting a "war on terror." We are fighting a pestilential theology and a longing for paradise.



Which is what is seen in gaza and the west bank..... praising brave suicide bombers and longing to have the courage to be one and encouraging children that 'martydom' is a valid choice along with being a fireman or teacher.

Or perhaps you should look at the latest musings from the shura council.... a group of extremist islamic followers that say the west is doomed, the pope should be killed for daring to speak critically and its time to slaughter all those who dont want to convert to Islam.

and before you start screaming right wing nutjob at me, Bush is an idiot led by a bunch of morons following their own agenda and not the countries interest

El-Presidente Boris

The latest marty arrives in paradise:
'Sorry Abdul, we've run out of virgins.... but we've got 72 camels.....'

I can agree that going after them in Afghanistan disrupted whatever future plans they may have had. However instead of finishing them off there we have become distracted in Iraq. Without it perhaps we would have finished off the Taliban insurgents or (here's a shocker) actually have captured Osama bin Laden.

(Sigh). All too true. And wouldn't that have felt so much more satisfying, trying that Saudi maniac instead a broken down old dictator?

I will search for a link, but this info is old so I make no promises.




I know what he said in his video jut a few days before the election, but I'm not sure what his actual intent may have been. I'm not sure that having Bush as a president isn't playing directly into AQ's hands. What would have been the result if he had released a video saying, "Please vote for Bush so we can carry on our Jihad?" Think Kerry would have been president? Remember, it was just a few weeks earlier that some Scandanavian country sent all those letters to college students in Ohio asking them to vote for Kerry and the result was a decided uptick in the poles for Bush. To be honest, had those letters not been sent I have to wonder if kerry wouldn't be prsident right now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Utracia
I can agree that going after them in Afghanistan disrupted whatever future plans they may have had. However instead of finishing them off there we have become distracted in Iraq. Without it perhaps we would have finished off the Taliban insurgents or (here's a shocker) actually have captured Osama bin Laden.

(Sigh). All too true. And wouldn't that have felt so much more satisfying, trying that Saudi maniac instead a broken down old dictator?

Perhaps we should have simply sterilized all of Afghanistan (ie killed every living human being), which of course would have included Osama.

Or would it have..!?

Perhaps we should have, just for thoroughness, have sterilized Pakistan as well..!

That would have taught those folks not to plot against us.


So, what was your plan for getting Osama in Afghanistan when he was "supposedly" there?

What's your plan to get him now, considering he might be somewhere else?

What's your plan to make the world a lovely and beautiful place, now that wishes make things real,.. eh boobie..?


-Iakeo

I know what he said in his video jut a few days before the election, but I'm not sure what his actual intent may have been. I'm not sure that having Bush as a president isn't playing directly into AQ's hands. What would have been the result if he had released a video saying, "Please vote for Bush so we can carry on our Jihad?" Think Kerry would have been president? Remember, it was just a few weeks earlier that some Scandanavian country sent all those letters to college students in Ohio asking them to vote for Kerry and the result was a decided uptick in the poles for Bush. To be honest, had those letters not been sent I have to wonder if kerry wouldn't be prsident right now.

I do see your point, and it's a valid one, but consider also that Bin Ladin has also frequently (as well as in that video) called upon Americans to convert to Islam, and I doubt thathe's only saying that to incite us the other way. I just don't think he's using that tactic.

I can certainly agree that religion is the biggest stumbling block to bringing peace to the planet. It is too bad that ridding the world of such dangerous dogma cannot be accomplished anytime soon.
Yes, just look at those fire-breathing religious maniacs. (http://www.cpt.org/)

:rolleyes:

And sadly, a lot of people buy into that very mode of thought, including, it seems, Mr. Harris, who I'd given more credit than that.
I don't see that. He clearly stated that he's not talking about everyone in the middle east.

What's more important, he tries to make it sound as if liberalism is some monolithic mindset, with no room for variation, when in fact the opposite is true
As a liberal Sam Harris is surely proving that liberalism is not a monolith.

However the man seems to be implying that we are at war with the entire religion of Islam. Sounds as if he is begining to believe Bush's rhetoric and that is unfortunate.
Did you read the article. I pointed out a few flaws, but he clearly said that we are not at war with the entire religion of Islam.

He criticises Bush a lot too.

Obviously, the author of this article feels that the Ocean Drive contingent is representative of all liberal thought.
Isn't it truly bizarre that there are any OceanDrives out there? People who are liberal, but find little to condemn about violent theocratic ideologies (that aren't Christian).

I'm not certain protesting in america is going to do anything about a war between to other countries. I'm liberal and I'm not that stupid.
That's what embassies are for. We protest at the embassy (and yes I did protest at the Israel and Iranian embassies in the past war). Not many people joined me at the Iranian one. I wonder why....

I just love the mantality that says that when people immigrate to your country that you somehow owe them a comfortable living.
For our own good we should give them the opportunity to make something of themselves.

No, what you've done is gone through one subset of Islam and tarred all believers with the same brush. Good job!
It's getting ever more difficult to believe that it's only a few extremists. Islam seems to currently be simply more conservative and thus intolerant than the other religions.

the vast majority of Muslims do not support it.
I don't think that anyone has claimed that. At most Harris said tens of millions, meaning 2-3% of Muslims.

Different contexts. In 1939 the war came in the form of Nazi armies rampaging through Europe; in 2001 it came in the form of muslim fundamentalists attack innocent civilians.
You still make quite the overstatement. 9/11 was one attack, not the start of an occupation.

And after 9/11 Mosques were destoryed and Muslims beaten by "good christians". When you piss people off they do things like this, its not a muslim only trait. Do you really think if someone posted pictures of Jesus upside down on a cross getting sodomized by the pope their wouldn't be outrage amongst the jesus lovers?
Sources? I never heard of any Mosques getting destroyed. And rather than condemning Islam for the attack, even a donut like Bush could go and (correctly) say that Islam is mostly a religion of peace.

Don't think I'm justifying beating up Muslims or destroying their mosques, but isn't 9/11 attack rather a more aggressive incident than a sentence uttered by the Pope?

Or how about Robert Maplethorpe puiblishing pictures of his "Piss Christ" where he submerged a crucuifix in a bottle of his own urine. Lot's of protests about that. No deaths, though. No mainstream political or religious pontifs calling for his head. No riots or burning buildings...
It was Andres Serrano actually. But it's true that criticism of Christianity is generally more tolerated by Christians than criticism of Islam by Muslims. I am Christian but I strongly agree that people have the right to criticise my religion without being attacked for it.

Comparing pollution to islamic fundamentalism. How... apt.
While I don't think that terrorism should be ignored (like the Nazz), it's a fact that the twin danger of climate change and rapidly rising oil prices are a much greater danger than terrorism.

Tell that to the people who worked in the World Trade Centre.
The average American didn't work there.


Put up a cartoon about Mohommad and we get riots. Criticize Islam for violence and a nun is murdered.
It's shocking that people think that Pope is the bad guy in this situation.

Hate to bring up the war again, but I'm sure people were saying the same thing when the first few bombs landed on Britain.
I'm tired of people basing arguments on unprovable "I'm sures".

No, I haven't.
Muslim fundamentalists do not threaten the sovereignty or safety of 700 million Europeans or over 400 million North Americans or however many billion are in Asia these days.

I don't consider 5 attacks in 5 years to be a massive assault on Western civilization.
No assault is acceptable. I would agree however, that what we're now going through is not similar to WWII as Potatohead here keeps saying.

Moral of the story: you'd be surprised how far fundamentalist govt.s will go to support their cause.
Iran isn't going to nuke anyone even if they acquire such weapons. For all the ideology in the world, self-preservation is the bottom line for the government of Iran.

-Iakeo
Not you again. You've shown up before and proven to be a stubborn, irrational moron.

Doesn't change anything - it means the risk is essentially low enough to be ignored.
Pollution shouldn't be ignored.

One problem, PD. If we acted literally the way the Hague and Geneva conventions allow, we could immediately execute without trial any combatant not in an identifying uniform. The conventions protect, explicitly, only uniformed combatants.

Maybe, I'd have to see that. But even if it's true it doesn't matter. The fact is that, no matter how much we want to pretend it isn't true, no matter how angry we get and no matter how frustrated we get with the modern media we cannot ignore the fact that this was is as much about appearences as it is about bombs. We need to appear to take the moral high ground on every issue because it's things like Abu Graib that inflame hatred and turn allies against us.

Perhaps we should have simply sterilized all of Afghanistan (ie killed every living human being), which of course would have included Osama.

Or would it have..!?

Perhaps we should have, just for thoroughness, have sterilized Pakistan as well..!

That would have taught those folks not to plot against us.


So, what was your plan for getting Osama in Afghanistan when he was "supposedly" there?

What's your plan to get him now, considering he might be somewhere else?

What's your plan to make the world a lovely and beautiful place, now that wishes make things real,.. eh boobie..?


-Iakeo


Hm, so my general agreement that we should have finished the job in Afghanistan rather than going off half-cocked into Iraq as well constitutes a lack of appreciation of real situation?
Or are you just trying to be cute and failing?

Perhaps we should have simply sterilized all of Afghanistan (ie killed every living human being), which of course would have included Osama.

Or would it have..!?

Perhaps we should have, just for thoroughness, have sterilized Pakistan as well..!

That would have taught those folks not to plot against us.


So, what was your plan for getting Osama in Afghanistan when he was "supposedly" there?

What's your plan to get him now, considering he might be somewhere else?

What's your plan to make the world a lovely and beautiful place, now that wishes make things real,.. eh boobie..?


-Iakeo

Didn't you just get yourself banned?

Whatever, I am hardly a military tactician but it doesn't take one to know that we have been distracted by Iraq and Afghanistan has practically been forgotten. If we didn't get bogged down there then we could have focused totally on the job we started in Afghanistan. I don't know how you suddenly leap to hysterically assuming I'm advocating massacring people. Perhaps you need to relax.

Didn't you just get yourself banned?
November '04 :) Permabanned.

And upon what "needless" American attack on Muslim countries do you blame the 1993 WTC bombing? The Cole bombing? The Embassy bombings? How about the Marine barracks in Beiruit?
Don't know, I'm 20 so I wasn't really old enough to know the details when those events occured. I'm talking about the Iraq war 2003-present.

But what we're talking about here are 3,000 human lives. Each one priceless and infinitely valuable.
You support the Iraq war, don't you? Hypocrisy much?

Is that why Bin Laden advised Americans to vote for Kerry?
No he didn't.

"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization. Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."
http://www.mindspace.org/liberation-news-service/archives/000650.html

if you don't believe that source just search the web for a phrase from the letter, you'll find many more sources.

It's not "invective from the right." I'm talking about the fact that there are liberal leaning Senators that want to extend Geneva Convention rights to terrorist prisoners (Yes, McCain is left leaning these days).
The rights were made for prisoners of war, and alleged terrorists fill that category nowadays.

It's generally liberals that wnt to reduce or restrain military response to terrorism. (Yeah, some didnt even want us to go into Afganistan)
Very few opposed the Afghan war. Liberals didn't oppose the Iraq war because we want to help terrorists. We believe that that war will not do anything to prevent terrorism.

Don't know, I'm 20 so I wasn't really old enough to know the details when those events occured. I'm talking about the Iraq war 2003-present.
No, it doesn't work that way. You said that Islamic terrorism was a result of unjust U.S. wars. Islamic terroism has been around a lot longer than that, therefore yuo need a better explanation.


You support the Iraq war, don't you? Hypocrisy much?

So anyone who values life AND supports a war is a hypocrite? Does tat mean that everybody who supported WWII had no respect for life?


No he didn't.

Scroll down.


http://www.mindspace.org/liberation-news-service/archives/000650.html

if you don't believe that source just search the web for a phrase from the letter, you'll find many more sources.

..and I found a bunch of other fly by night sites that fed right off of each other.

For a similar exercise, do a Google search for soda and pop rocks combining to pop people's stomachs.


The rights were made for prisoners of war, and alleged terrorists fill that category nowadays.
Prisoners of War are explicitly defined in the Geneva accords, and these terrorists do NOT fit that definition. You can't just shrug your shoulders and make it happen by wishful thinking.


Very few opposed the Afghan war. Liberals didn't oppose the Iraq war because we want to help terrorists. We believe that that war will not do anything to prevent terrorism.

Already addressed this.

No, it doesn't work that way. You said that Islamic terrorism was a result of unjust U.S. wars. Islamic terroism has been around a lot longer than that, therefore yuo need a better explanation.
I said the attacks since 2003 have been caused by the Iraq war.

Maybe other attacks were caused by the first gulf war, American presence in Arabia or support for Israel?

So anyone who values life AND supports a war is a hypocrite? Does tat mean that everybody who supported WWII had no respect for life?
So anyone who values life and who supports unneccessary wars is a hypocrite. WWII was different because it was preserving life from Nazi brutality.

..and I found a bunch of other fly by night sites that fed right off of each other.
See, many sources show it. It's true and was published in a couple of Arab newspapers.

Prisoners of War are explicitly defined in the Geneva accords, and these terrorists do NOT fit that definition. You can't just shrug your shoulders and make it happen by wishful thinking.
If they are not protected by the Geneva conventions, then the conventions need to be edited to include them. In the war on terrorism, terrorists are the POWs even if they're not uniformed.

Already addressed this.
As long as you know that liberals have no interest in helping terrorists, that's what is important.

I am no liberal however if are going to critize and speak bad of Islam we should do it about Christianity as well. I read the end of faith, it was a good book. I think there is little doubt religion severly hurts society and should be done away with. Thats why all Christians, Muslims, and jews should be put into camps until we figure out what to do with them. And no, I am not the least bit joking.

:mad:

Um, no.

People who think that all Christians, Muslims, and jews should be put into camps would be better, only cuz they are haters.

And haters are ub3r 3b1l.

If the poor fellow is truly poor, how does he get the resources to do any real damage?

By sacrifice eg the Vietnamese.



The "poor" folks are not the problem, except as "weaponry" for the "rich" folks.

The "rich" folks are the problem, as they have reasons AND resources to act.

The TARGETS need to be specifically those "educated" and "resourceful" zealots.

The other question, of course, is how to deprive these TARGETS of their human "weapnry".

Got any suggestions?


-Iakeo


Stop the unilateral backing of Israel at the UN. Cease backing dictatorships in the region.

Of course there's a threat of violence, and occasionally, that violence even makes it to the shores of the US. But Bush makes it out to seem like there's this massive horde of people in the middle east who live their entire lives thinking of nothing but coming to the US and committing genocide, and what's more, that they have the capability to do just that. And sadly, a lot of people buy into that very mode of thought, including, it seems, Mr. Harris, who I'd given more credit than that.
Exactly!!

Well, for starters, his characterization of the way "liberals" feel about the conflict between Israel and Lebanon/Hezbollah. He makes it sound as though liberals as a whole were backing Hezbollah, when that's far from the truth. Pointing out that neither side is blameless in a conflict is far from backing one side over another.

What's more important, he tries to make it sound as if liberalism is some monolithic mindset, with no room for variation, when in fact the opposite is true, and it doesn't help that he uses the more extreme examples of liberal thought to make his case.
Absolutely!!

Well, for starters, his characterization of the way "liberals" feel about the conflict between Israel and Lebanon/Hezbollah. He makes it sound as though liberals as a whole were backing Hezbollah, when that's far from the truth. Pointing out that neither side is blameless in a conflict is far from backing one side over another.

What's more important, he tries to make it sound as if liberalism is some monolithic mindset, with no room for variation, when in fact the opposite is true, and it doesn't help that he uses the more extreme examples of liberal thought to make his case.

not quite relevant to the op..but do not the "liberals" do the same to conservatives?
the right is just a monolithic block packed with masses of greedy corporate types..or uneducated trailer trash southeners?

i think i have covered this ground before.

i am economically conservative...and liberal on social issues...mostly...and am accused of being both by both extremes.

you are correct in stating that both sides use the rhetoric of the extreme to prove their points..but is that really an honest assessment of either side?

bill maher(the comedian),whom i respect(all though i dissagree with some of his points,but agree with most) said that muslims and arabs specifically are bringing up the rear of civilization.
i cant argue with that assessment,i have many muslim friends...but really..a culture that keeps women in canvas bags,professes they are the religion of peace but riots over misconstrued words or cartoons(the irony is laughable)and seems to think the mere fact you are a jew means you should die..is seriously in the wrong century.

you can say all day the christians or whomever did this and that in the past...but the fact is..it was in the past..not in the now.

and i know..the majority of muslims do not support this nonsence perpetrated in their religions name.
fact is they elected hamas,and support hezbollah...that is plain backward.
and forgetr about iran,i know it goes deeper then the whole i hate jews thing...but get with the program allready..live peacably with others and fight your fight non violently..or exspect some backlash or disdain from the world.

i wont apologise for bush,and i wont apologise for religous power whores...but i certainly wont elect them...as seems the case in the mid east.

rant off

If that's been your experience, I'm glad for you, but I have observed it differently. This isn't the first time Nazz has accused folks of peeing themselves over nothing, and using some entertainingly colorful language to do it, too.


That's largly because folks need to quit peeing themselves over nothing.

You have, multiple times on the last two pages, distorted things that I wrote, and you have done so deliberately. That's lying, and any honest observer will agree to that. I don't toss that accusation around lightly--you are the primary recepient of it, though New Brettonia got it this time too, and with cause.

That's a standard DK tactic, that's why I try to avoid wasting time replying to him unless I can say something sarcastic and smart-ass like.

It's times like this that I bring the famous phrase into play.

*clears throat*

It's not our fault they suck.

Just because we have it better than them, are we not entitled to defend ourselves from terrorism?

Times like what you snipped everything you replyed to again so we have no idea what you're talking about . . .

I read it earlier this morning. If I had posted it, everyone would say it was full of shit Muslim-bashing Liberal-bashing.

A great article.

There there DK (gives pat on the back)

Originally Posted by Utracia
I don't consider 5 attacks in 5 years to be a massive assault on Western civilization.
I do. When has there been a precedent like this in history? And how many attacks were foiled?
And this is the fundamental difference in thinking. But I would ask you, NB, why you think of 5 attacks as a major assault on a civilization? To me, for it to be a major assault, it would have to have a major result or consequence. It would have to shake Western civilization to its core. Have these attacks shaken Western civilization to its core? I don't think so. I think all we have in these 5 attacks is some bunch of miserable, hateful losers trying to launch a major assault on Western civilization. We do not have them actually succeeding in doing so.

Ya don't get it, do you? It's not that they might succeed, it's that they might try. The Nazis tried their crap; they didn't win, but it doesn't make WWII any more pleasant, does it?

Lots of people try lots of things. The world is a dangerous place. So what? When shit happens, you either cope or you don't, but you can't run your entire life as if you're in the shit even when you're not.

Lots of people try lots of things. The world is a dangerous place. So what? When shit happens, you either cope or you don't, but you can't run your entire life as if you're in the shit even when you're not.
Like Denis Leary says, "Life's hard. Get a helmet."

While the threat of an individual attack killing any specific individual may be low, the effect of terror is not overblown. Even if no one says anything about it, each successive threat and attack terrorizes millions of people.

It has an effect.

Why don't you check how easy it is to get a seat on a flight to Heathrow right now from the US - at a time of year when flights are usually overbooked.

There are only two negative effects terror can have.

First, it has the immediately negative effect of killing people, which is very tragic, especially for those the dead leave behind.

Second, there is the effect we allow it to have. There is a line between taking precautions and living in fear, and every time we cross that line, bin Laden smiles.

Whatever happened to "We have nothing to fear but fear itself"? Your assumption that millions of people are being cumulatively terrorized strikes me as -- well, frankly, as kind of crazy. Where do you get this notion? Show me these millions. How can you possibly measure such a thing? How does this terrorization manifest itself? By people taking precautions when risks are high? I suppose if Mt. Vesuvius were to explode (as it is expected to do at any moment), and people canceled their vacations to Italy while the eruption was in progress, you would claim that millions were being "terrorized" by volcanoes?

And what do you expect will be the result of all this free-floating terror? Do you think millions will suddenly snap and jump into burkhas and turn themselves into obedient slaves of al qaeda? Or do you think millions will suddenly snap and do what you want them to do, i.e. start killing Muslims?

The fact is, DK, that terror does not last. Millions cannot exist in a state of terrorization because the pressures of life do not allow for it. Thus, no matter what the terrorists do, they will never have a cumulative effect on any society -- UNLESS, we choose to change ourselves in response to them, in which case, it's not a cumulative effect caused by them but, rather, a deliberate choice of our own. Your weird little fantasy of millions being terrorized is just that -- a fantasy.

Surely you're not suggesting that, simply because it hasn't yet, that it never will.

See, that's the whole point. Prior to 2001, many people would never have believed a terrorist attack of that magniture could happen. That's probably the main reason we weren't exactly putting terrorism at the top of the priority list. Things are different now. Not only can we not make such assumptions, the inflammatory language coming from the terrorists suggests that we can expest the attacks to get WORSE if at all possible.

I invite you, or anyone else, to name one good reason why we should wait until that point.

Because you're not allowed to punish people for crimes they haven't committed yet.

Yes, it's true, murderers, terrorists, insurgents, lunatic cults, etc, all exist and they all desire or intend to harm others and society. But mere desire and intent are not enough to justify war or detention or the restriction of civil rights to entire groups or all of society. We have such things as cops and laws and courts and prisons to deal with the ever-present deadly threats that surround us all the time, and they often do succeed in nipping them in the bud through investigations and arrests for lesser crimes, interrupting the conspiracies before any bombs get blown up. Sometimes, it works, and yes, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes the bomb goes off. Sometimes the tornado hits your house instead of your neighbor's. Oh, well, you can't win them all.

You're acting as if people are pooh-poohing terrorism and saying that we should take no precautions at all. Nobody is saying any such thing. What we are saying is that unrealistic inflation of the problem actually interferes with implementing proper measures that might actually be effective in stopping terrorism, rather than the violent over-reaction we have seen which has done nothing but increase terrorism.

There are only two negative effects terror can have.

First, it has the immediately negative effect of killing people, which is very tragic, especially for those the dead leave behind.

Second, there is the effect we allow it to have. There is a line between taking precautions and living in fear, and every time we cross that line, bin Laden smiles.

Whatever happened to "We have nothing to fear but fear itself"? Your assumption that millions of people are being cumulatively terrorized strikes me as -- well, frankly, as kind of crazy. Where do you get this notion? Show me these millions. How can you possibly measure such a thing? How does this terrorization manifest itself? By people taking precautions when risks are high? I suppose if Mt. Vesuvius were to explode (as it is expected to do at any moment), and people canceled their vacations to Italy while the eruption was in progress, you would claim that millions were being "terrorized" by volcanoes?

And what do you expect will be the result of all this free-floating terror? Do you think millions will suddenly snap and jump into burkhas and turn themselves into obedient slaves of al qaeda? Or do you think millions will suddenly snap and do what you want them to do, i.e. start killing Muslims?

The fact is, DK, that terror does not last. Millions cannot exist in a state of terrorization because the pressures of life do not allow for it. Thus, no matter what the terrorists do, they will never have a cumulative effect on any society -- UNLESS, we choose to change ourselves in response to them, in which case, it's not a cumulative effect caused by them but, rather, a deliberate choice of our own. Your weird little fantasy of millions being terrorized is just that -- a fantasy.

an astounding bit of clarity...thank you.

...
The fact is, DK, that terror does not last. Millions cannot exist in a state of terrorization because the pressures of life do not allow for it. Thus, no matter what the terrorists do, they will never have a cumulative effect on any society -- UNLESS, we choose to change ourselves in response to them, in which case, it's not a cumulative effect caused by them but, rather, a deliberate choice of our own. Your weird little fantasy of millions being terrorized is just that -- a fantasy.

You must not be thinking from the point of view of citizens of Baghdad...

Obviously, you don't know much about what used to be called "Destab Attacks". "Destab" is short for "destabilization". Both the US and USSR, via proxies, got very good at this kind of warfare during the Cold War.
The concept is not to inflict damage; it is to make a country ungovernable. In some cases there are nations that are STILL destabilized twenty or thirty years after the initial campaigns ended.
9/11 was a Destab Attack on the United States. Quantity of casualties is irrelevant; the idea was to neutralize Americans' belief in our government and it's ability to protect us.
For all that I have problems with much of what the son-of-a-Bush has done, he HAS been able to prevent the destabilization effects. We may argue a lot over the right thing to do, but we're as much Americans as we ever were.
I'm sorry, but are you suggesting that, if George Bush hadn't been president on 9/11/2001, we'd all be ---- doing what, exactly? Precisely how was that one attack going to destabilize the US? Do you really have so low an opinion of your fellow Americans that you think one attack is enough to ---- again, do what to us, exactly? How do you think Americans would have reacted to 9/11 if we didn't have Bush to keep us on track?

As for that "we're as much Americans as we ever were" statement, I'm not so sure about that. Before 9/11 Americans were opposed to torture, and stood up to their government in defense of their own liberties, and did not look for strongmen to hide behind because we were all strong men and women.

Someone told me something they heard in a conversation recently comparing our reaction to 9/11 to our reaction to Pearl Harbor. It went like this:

"They're crying boo-hoo, we're so scared, 9/11 was so horrible we'll never get over it, wah, wah, wah, please keep us safe. When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt was like, 'Oh, so you destroyed our naval fleet, eh? Well, screw you, Tojo. We're gonna build a new naval fleet. Our WAITRESSES are gonna build it. And then we're gonna kick your asses with it. Suck on that."

That's an American talking, pal. All these spineless little worms crying and scurrying every time Bush mentions "evil doers" -- I don't know what the hell these critters are.

Originally Posted by Utracia
I don't see Americans losing confidence in the government from one attack...
EXACTLY. So what do you suppose the terrorists will do about that?
Fail.

You're right, one attack, even a major one, wouldn't have done the job. But if al Qaeda had manged three or four follow up attacks, even if not on the same scale, then major damage could have resulted.

(I should also note that I think al Qaeda fucked up. There's a reason neither side in the Cold War tried destabilizing each other's core nations - high stability nations are very hard to destabilize.)

Again, exactly what damage do you think they would have? How do you think they could destabilize us?

Or to put it another way -- what do they have to do to make you give in to them?

Like Denis Leary says, "Life's hard. Get a helmet."

I have that printed on my helmet. :D

an astounding bit of clarity...thank you.
Anytime. :)

See, that's the whole point. Prior to 2001, many people would never have believed a terrorist attack of that magniture could happen. That's probably the main reason we weren't exactly putting terrorism at the top of the priority list. <snip>They say that those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

Am I the only person who recalls that the 9/11 attack was the second attempt to bring down the WTC...

How does that fit in to your assessment?

You must not be thinking from the point of view of citizens of Baghdad...

This is a shallow and meaningless remark. It won't take long to dissect it.

1) Who is terrorizing the citizens of Baghdad? There are many in Baghdad who say it is the US through its mismanaged and unnecessary war.

2) Are there millions of terrorized people in Baghdad? At the rate they are being killed, there won't be for long. (That's right, that's how cold-blooded I can be.)

3) And how is their terror manifesting itself? Through shopping and applying for jobs and hanging out in cafes, apparently, since that is where most of the attacks seem to be happening. Yep, they're so scared they're ... carrying on with life as much as possible.

4) The citizens of Baghdad are not my concern. They were not my concern before my country invaded them, and I still don't care whether they live or die now, even though my country is now saddled with them by virtue of having broken their country. I fail to see why I should organize my life and my nation to match what people in Baghdad think or do. (Chilly in here, ain't it?)

Found this piece in the Los Angeles Times this morning. I couldn't agree more.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
That's a horribly reasoned argument. It places the cause of extremism at the doorstep of Islam. Wake up-- there have been extremists from every ideology to grace this green earth. Have you ever noticed that the popularity of Wahhabi Islam is directly proportional to how much the West is fucking around with the Middle East at the time? There is a simple solution to terrorism: Stop being the international asshole that we are. America, through its economic exploitation of third-world countries (for things like OIL!), its interference (staging military coups all over the world for the sake of pro-America dictatorships), and the wars it fights, has made itself very unpopular.

There are only two negative effects terror can have.

First, it has the immediately negative effect of killing people, which is very tragic, especially for those the dead leave behind.

Second, there is the effect we allow it to have. There is a line between taking precautions and living in fear, and every time we cross that line, bin Laden smiles.

Whatever happened to "We have nothing to fear but fear itself"? Your assumption that millions of people are being cumulatively terrorized strikes me as -- well, frankly, as kind of crazy. Where do you get this notion? Show me these millions. How can you possibly measure such a thing? How does this terrorization manifest itself? By people taking precautions when risks are high? I suppose if Mt. Vesuvius were to explode (as it is expected to do at any moment), and people canceled their vacations to Italy while the eruption was in progress, you would claim that millions were being "terrorized" by volcanoes?

And what do you expect will be the result of all this free-floating terror? Do you think millions will suddenly snap and jump into burkhas and turn themselves into obedient slaves of al qaeda? Or do you think millions will suddenly snap and do what you want them to do, i.e. start killing Muslims?

The fact is, DK, that terror does not last. Millions cannot exist in a state of terrorization because the pressures of life do not allow for it. Thus, no matter what the terrorists do, they will never have a cumulative effect on any society -- UNLESS, we choose to change ourselves in response to them, in which case, it's not a cumulative effect caused by them but, rather, a deliberate choice of our own. Your weird little fantasy of millions being terrorized is just that -- a fantasy.
Great post!! :)

Why your name is not on the best debaters thread in lieu of the genocidal megalomaniacs' name is mind boggling.

That's a horribly reasoned argument. It places the cause of extremism at the doorstep of Islam. Wake up-- there have been extremists from every ideology to grace this green earth. Have you ever noticed that the popularity of Wahhabi Islam is directly proportional to how much the West is fucking around with the Middle East at the time? There is a simple solution to terrorism: Stop being the international asshole that we are. America, through its economic exploitation of third-world countries (for things like OIL!), its interference (staging military coups all over the world for the sake of pro-America dictatorships), and the wars it fights, has made itself very unpopular.
Bolding mine. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Heck even Deep Kimchi agrees with you on that point. :)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11617712&postcount=99

Read'em and weep!! :)

Great post!! :)

Why your name is not on the best debaters thread in lieu of the genocidal megalomaniacs' name is mind boggling.

You're too kind :fluffle: but I think it's my long sentences that do me in. At least I once won the All-NYC Conversation Killer Award (1985).

Again, exactly what damage do you think they would have? How do you think they could destabilize us?

Or to put it another way -- what do they have to do to make you give in to them?

Break into my house and hold a gun at my head, pretty much. But I'm relatively hard to intimidate.

The traditional second hit in a destab campaign is to major infrastructure - blow up a train station, demo a bridge, blast a power station, anything that will affect large numbers of people. The idea here is to touch people where they live, change the terror campaign from something that happens to other people to something that's part of people's lives.
After that, you hit the military hard - something like the suicide bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut would do nicely. This shows the people that the military is impotent against you. Note that the Pentagon strike would be covered here.
Hit four should be a major political figure - the President, Vice, Speaker of the House, something like that. This shows the government isn't able to protect itself, let alone you - and the fourth plane was targetted on the Capitol, if I recall correctly.
You can mix and match depending on local conditions, of course; but the ultimate upshot is to make the people of the country you're destabilizing more afraid of you and believe you to be more powerful than the government. Really effective Destab campaigns have gotten the government itself to believe this - even when it was far from true.
Do I think that, ultimately, it would have worked in the US? No. We're too stable, and believe in a group of ideals upon which we base our government, which most countries do not have. But a well-run destab campaign, which I think GWB forestalled with his swift and resolute actions, could have done a hell of a lot of damage.

Shame I wasn't here when the OP posted. I'd have brought popcorn...

That's a horribly reasoned argument. It places the cause of extremism at the doorstep of Islam. Wake up-- there have been extremists from every ideology to grace this green earth. Have you ever noticed that the popularity of Wahhabi Islam is directly proportional to how much the West is fucking around with the Middle East at the time? There is a simple solution to terrorism: Stop being the international asshole that we are. America, through its economic exploitation of third-world countries (for things like OIL!), its interference (staging military coups all over the world for the sake of pro-America dictatorships), and the wars it fights, has made itself very unpopular.

You are living in a dream world

China blocks sanctions on Iran because Iran is a big trading partner with China, China blocks sanction on Sudan, why ,because the dictatorship there supplies China with oil, China is also doing deals in west and central africa for.. yupp oil.
UN sanctions on Libya are relaxed in 2004... the next day 3 major european oil companies sign exploration/extraction deals with the Libyan government thats hardly a shining beacon of democracy.

And if you think a pro-US dictatorship is bad, guess you'd heartedly approve of an Islamic dictatorship (taleban for example) or how about a nice socialist arab dictatorship like Syria, who massacred 20 000 of its own citizens in 1982..... then bleats how the evil Israelies are in helping the killers of 1000 people in southern Beriut a couple of months later.

El-Supremo Boris

Break into my house and hold a gun at my head, pretty much. But I'm relatively hard to intimidate.
Ha! No, you're not. What you're saying here is all they'd have to do is say "Convert or else" in a forceful manner and you'd hop right to it.

All I can say is, you must lead a sheltered life. (Note: the following is 20% bragging, 30% bitter nostalgia, and 50% reality check.) Having their houses broken into and getting their lives threatened happened nearly every month to my friends who had apartments near Alphabet City in NYC back in the 80s. I had a couple of friends who got violently mugged countless times (it was uncanny, but truth be told, they were tempting targets), and others for whom it was commonplace for thieves, drug addicts or just plain ranting lunatics to just climb into their houses through the perpetually broken windows even while they were sitting there watching them do it. None of them ever decided to join a gang or switch religions out of terror for their lives. Hell, most of them still live in the city. I lived in Queens, myself, where we had organized rings of professional burglars stalking the hallways of our apartment buildings and marking the doors of everyone who had a dog -- including one notation I saw, indicating that a neighbor's dog had died. One time, when I was kid, the apartments directly above and below me got robbed at the same time while I was home alone. We did not move out of that building. Why would we? It was a fantastic apartment. We never even got into the habit of closing our windows, even when, another time, more than half the apartments in the building got robbed in a single afternoon. Shit happens, and even burglars have to make a living, don't they? We saw no reason to deny ourselves fresh air. My neighborhood was also occasionally stalked by serial rapists (I got into a fistfight with one once, in a park), and we were even within Son of Sam's territory. I fit the profile of his victims in those days. Did I move? Nope, I just cut my hair, since he seemed to prefer shooting girls with long hair. In other words, I took a reasonable precaution and carried on with my life.

In addition, throughout most of my childhood, in the 70s and 80s, terrorists were bombing New York City. We had both the Weather Underground (commies who eventually blew themselves up) and Omega 17 (anti-Castro commie-haters who got broken by the FBI after 20 years), as well as numerous no-name gangs of wannabes. Omega 17 assassinated foreign dignitaries and bombed Cuba-friendly businesses in NY and Miami. The Weathermen sent bombs through the mail to random business offices. Did office workers quickly become communists to appease them? No, they just made the bosses open their own damned mail. A woman my mother worked for got her hands and part of her face blown off by a letter bomb. Every day, the bomb squad responded to suspicious packages abandoned on the street. Some were bombs, some not, but precautions were always taken, since abandoned package bombs were popular with the IRA and there was a famous IRA terrorist in prison in New York at that time (can't remember his name; Donovan, Donaghue, something like that). When I was a little kid, the cops would come to our classrooms to give talks about safety and what to do in an emergency and how we should never touch a package we found on the street but should go find a cop immediately instead. None of that stopped us from playing in parks and running around the streets with our friends.

Nowadays, these cowards who call themselves Americans hear about suspicious packages and freak out and cry about how they don't feel safe and how we have to kill the evil doers. Please. These people need to grow some balls. I lived for 31 years in that frigging war zone called New York, and I didn't leave until my paycheck got too small and the roaches got too big. If my pay had kept pace with the vermin, I'd be there still, and if I ever get rich enough to make it worthwhile I'll move back, and let the bombs fall where they may. It's New York, man. Where else would you rather die?

Oh, and of course, don't forget the first WTC bombing in 1993, during which decade the NYPD was fielding over 200 bomb incidents per week (I got that from the mouth of a bomb squad cop I knew). Yeah, but 9/11 was so unprecedented that nobody could have foreseen it, and now we have to shred the Constitution and declare war on the Middle East and start torturing prisoners to make up for it.

The traditional second hit in a destab campaign is to major infrastructure - blow up a train station, demo a bridge, blast a power station, anything that will affect large numbers of people. The idea here is to touch people where they live, change the terror campaign from something that happens to other people to something that's part of people's lives.
After that, you hit the military hard - something like the suicide bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut would do nicely. This shows the people that the military is impotent against you. Note that the Pentagon strike would be covered here.
Hit four should be a major political figure - the President, Vice, Speaker of the House, something like that. This shows the government isn't able to protect itself, let alone you - and the fourth plane was targetted on the Capitol, if I recall correctly.
Yeah, whatever. Based on your own statement below (last paragraph), none of this matters much, does it?

You can mix and match depending on local conditions, of course; but the ultimate upshot is to make the people of the country you're destabilizing more afraid of you and believe you to be more powerful than the government.
And then what happens? Hm? You still have not told me what you think would happen if Americans came to think that. So? Any ideas? Or are you ready to admit that this argument is just as nonsensical when it comes from you as when it comes from our enemies?

Really effective Destab campaigns have gotten the government itself to believe this - even when it was far from true.
Which government? The US government? I knew that Bush and Cheney were a sniveling pair of spineless cowards, but I was not aware that they actually already believed bin Laden to be more powerful than the US.

Do I think that, ultimately, it would have worked in the US? No. We're too stable, and believe in a group of ideals upon which we base our government, which most countries do not have.
Well, then, why are you wasting our time trying to scare us about a thing that you admit could never possibly happen?

But a well-run destab campaign, which I think GWB forestalled with his swift and resolute actions, could have done a hell of a lot of damage.
Please, try not to turn this into a soft-core drool thread for your personal hero. Instead, answer the question I asked earlier (several times): Precisely what do you think would have happened to the US if your golden boy, Bush, had not been president in 2001?

Please, try not to turn this into a soft-core drool thread for your personal hero. Instead, answer the question I asked earlier (several times): Precisely what do you think would have happened to the US if your golden boy, Bush, had not been president in 2001?

We would have had gridlock in Congress which would have been much better than we have now except on one issue - we would have still gone to war in Afghanistan, President Gore or not. The main difference is that we woudl not have taken the detour into Iraq and acted like a drunken, blinfolded sailor who just got hit from behind. We would have had the restraint, if for no other reason than because of partisan bickering, to not jump into Iraq and he weapons inspectors woul have had time to do their jobs. We woudl have still had a fully capable military because they wouldn't be tied up in Iraq so the sabre rattling coming out of Iran and North Korea would have been toned down or non existant. Our allies in Europe probably would still be our allies. We probably would have supported more fully the democratically elected government in Lebanon where, until recently, we actually had a majority approval rating. With our support they would have been able to clean Hezbollah out of southern Lebanon probably preventing the recent Isreali/Hezbollah dance that troded roughshod over the fledgling democracy and it's people.

We would have had gridlock in Congress which would have been much better than we have now except on one issue - we would have still gone to war in Afghanistan, President Gore or not. The main difference is that we woudl not have taken the detour into Iraq and acted like a drunken, blinfolded sailor who just got hit from behind. We would have had the restraint, if for no other reason than because of partisan bickering, to not jump into Iraq and he weapons inspectors woul have had time to do their jobs. We woudl have still had a fully capable military because they wouldn't be tied up in Iraq so the sabre rattling coming out of Iran and North Korea would have been toned down or non existant. Our allies in Europe probably would still be our allies. We probably would have supported more fully the democratically elected government in Lebanon where, until recently, we actually had a majority approval rating. With our support they would have been able to clean Hezbollah out of southern Lebanon probably preventing the recent Isreali/Hezbollah dance that troded roughshod over the fledgling democracy and it's people.
Ah, that's what I thought would have happened. :)

We would have had gridlock in Congress which would have been much better than we have now except on one issue - we would have still gone to war in Afghanistan, President Gore or not. The main difference is that we woudl not have taken the detour into Iraq and acted like a drunken, blinfolded sailor who just got hit from behind. We would have had the restraint, if for no other reason than because of partisan bickering, to not jump into Iraq and he weapons inspectors woul have had time to do their jobs. We woudl have still had a fully capable military because they wouldn't be tied up in Iraq so the sabre rattling coming out of Iran and North Korea would have been toned down or non existant. Our allies in Europe probably would still be our allies. We probably would have supported more fully the democratically elected government in Lebanon where, until recently, we actually had a majority approval rating. With our support they would have been able to clean Hezbollah out of southern Lebanon probably preventing the recent Isreali/Hezbollah dance that troded roughshod over the fledgling democracy and it's people.

I like you. You think like me.