[grampster]

Since Communism has been repudiated and relegated to the trash heap of unworthy aspirations it seems that the single greatest tension in the world today is now between radical fundamentalist Islam who believes the world should aclimate itself to its 13th century precepts or die, and the rest of us.
If this is accurate, what then shall we do about it?

Now I could get into a long winded disertation about this apparent reality, but all I'm going to say is this:

If negotiating and parleying, hobnobbing and giving moral equivalancy with and to radical fundamentalist Islamo terrorist murderers who hate the Jews and everybody else that does not believe and live as they do under pain of death without mercy with no opportunity of redress... (deep breath) Then following that chain of reasoning, when Timothy McVeigh was captured the government and the people of the US of A should have put him up at Camp David and negotiated with him as to what it is he wanted to see changed according to whatever agenda he had, begged his forgiveness for getting off topic and then implemented his reforms and demands.

Time Magazine would probably give him "Man of the Year" and he would have won, along with Bill Clinton, the Nobel Peace Prize.

Am I wrong here?

to keep this on the topic of 2A and rights in general, do we seriously confront serious issues or do we continue to suffer fools who would take away our freedoms with arguments and positions that are ludicrous.



:barf:

[tyme]

DOA. Only the radical left-wing supports radical Islam. And the radical left-wing doesn't control the country. They don't even control the Democratic party. All they can do is get their rantings on C-SPAN by holding rallies that get media coverage.

[DigitalWarrior]

Grampster, I respectfully disagree (anyone surprised?).

First, radical is used to denote extreme left wing, whereas Fundamentalism is a reactionary trait.

The difference is judging McVeigh as an individual versus classifying a group of people (gun-nuts and militia-types) as scum. Individuals can be guilty. Fact is McVeigh was tossed out of militas for being to extreme and Bin Laden cannot go home to Saudi Arabia because he is too extreme.

Do you see the parallel I am making?

[grampster]

The point I was trying to make, probably not very clearly, was to sort of point out the irony in the left wing point of view regarding terrorism and terrorist organizations. My rather muddy attempt tried to show that individuals that engage in terroristic acts for political reasons (like McVeigh) are treated as criminals and are either imprisoned or executed for those abberant acts of hate and murder.

Yet the left insists that negotiation and tolerance are to be used in dealing with groups who behave in the same manner. (like al quaida, the PLO and rest of their ilk) The left's insistance on negotiating with terrorists lends moral equivilancy to those groups while the left is silent, or even more hypocritically, sometime joins the hue and cry for the death or imprisonment of individuals. I fail to see that there is any difference between groups or individuals. I also don't agree that there is any moral equivilancy between individual terrorists or terrorist organizations and the rest of us. When you are dealing with an intractible enemy (emphasis on intractible) the only answer is overwhelming force. You cannot reach agreement with anyone or any organization who's only reason for existance is your anhililation. Groups or individuals, doesn't really matter.

I'm still not sure if I am being clear in my meaning.

grampster

[AJ Dual]

DigitalWarrior is essentially correct, unfortunately the Osama Bin Laden exampe of being "too extreme" for Saudi Arabia dosen't quite pan out.

Osama can't go back to our "friend" Saudi Arabia, not because of his extremisim, but a little thing called plausable deniability. :rolleyes:

That the lower levels of the Saudi royal family, and the wealthy class aren't funding terrorisim without the king's knowledge and tacit approval is just plain silly.

The Al Saud "royal" family was merely the tribe that happened to make the best deal with the British way back when. This leaves them relatively unpopular with several other groups in the area. Striking at us and Israel with their money, spent through proxies such as Hamas, and AlQueida, deflects that unpopularity, while being our "allies" confers the benifits of U.S. patronage at the very same time.

Quite the nice three-cornered little game they're playing. :scrutiny:

Hopefully backing out of our military bases in Saudi Arabia is the first step in disengaging from them, and perhaps preparatory to call them out on it.

[Art Eatman]

Yeah, clearer...

"You cannot reach agreement with anyone or any organization who only reason for existance is your anihilation." Gotta agree with that.

One of the hypocrisies of our times which has unendingly amazed me is that Arafat is supposed to be of any use whatsoever in any sort of "Peace Process". And now, we add to that idiocy the notion that there can be any sort of accomodation with such as Al Qaida and--worse yet--the teachings of Jihad by the mullahs...

Art

[DigitalWarrior]

I do need to study in detail the last 1500 years of middle easetern history, so I can be more accurate.

"You cannot reach agreement with anyone or any organization who only reason for existance is your anihilation."

That was a great insight! I agree whole-heartedly!

I still think that membership in such a group, or adherence to the principles of that group must be proved.

[grampster]

DW,
Look for the book "The Closed Circle" I can't remember the author. Very good personal look at the middle eastern mindset by an Englishman who was born and lived most of his life among the Arabs.

grampster