This War Is For Real

[hillbilly]

Shootinstudent, it's interesting how most of the Malay "separatist" groups include the word "Mujahadeen" into their own names for themselves.

It's interesting how wanting to establish a separate Islamic state is an underlying cause of these "rebels" in Thailand. Yes, the context of their killings is very interesting, indeed.

Shootinstudent, you asked for proof of "Great American Satan?"

I double-dog dare you to get a copy of the book "Reading Lolita In Tehran" and read it cover to cover, and then ask me that again.

I'm going to bet, based on your screen name alone, that you are less than 25 years old have no real memories of the Islamic Revolution in Iran back in the 1970s.

The book "Reading Lolita in Tehran" will give you an inside look at the Islamic Revolution in Iran in the 1970s.

You will then understand exactly where the concept of the "Great American Satan" comes from.

hillbilly

 

[ElTacoGrande]

This war is definitely real. It is a real way to send our defense budget to the moon and clamp down on our civil liberties at home. I guess the War on Drugs wasn't a big enough war for them.

 

[shootinstudent]

Shootinstudent, it's interesting how most of the Malay "separatist" groups include the word "Mujahadeen" into their own names for themselves.

I don't see what's interesting about it at all. Eric Rudolph called himself a Christian. That's what radicals do: seize on all kinds of identity to justify their personal wars.

It's interesting how wanting to establish a separate Islamic state is an underlying cause of these "rebels" in Thailand. Yes, the context of their killings is very interesting, indeed.

It is not about religion. They speak a different language, are generally disenfranchised, and are exploited by the ruling ethnic groups. Singapore is a counter-example: Malay muslims (something like 20 percent of the population) are very well integrated, their heritage is respected, and there are no problems with terrorism.

I double-dog dare you to get a copy of the book "Reading Lolita In Tehran" and read it cover to cover, and then ask me that again.

I'm going to bet, based on your screen name alone, that you are less than 25 years old have no real memories of the Islamic Revolution in Iran back in the 1970s.

That's a great book. Another good one is Khaled Hosseini's The Kite Runner. I highly recommend both.

The "Islamic Revolution" in Iran is about power, just like the other terrorists. They've been funding a semi-Pagan dictatorship in Syria for decades now, with the bonds growing closer...does that sound like something a convert-or-die-crazed regime does, or a morally bankrupt dictatorship that doesn't really care about religion?

GoRon,

I agree, pure evil. But I think stopping these criminals requires taking an honest and hard look at why most people in the middle east are angry at the US, and resist our influence/meddling, even when the alternative is civil war with islamists.

 

[Bigreno]

For those that think the Muslims hate us because we "oppress" and "subjugate" them I'll post a few quotes from the qu'ran for you to read. Take from them what you will.

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah...And the Jews say Ezra is the son of God; and the Christians say Christ is the son of God; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; Allah's curse be on them; how they are turned away!" (Qu'ran 9:29-30)"

When the sacred months have passed away, THEN SLAY THE IDOLATERS WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM, AND TAKE THEM CAPTIVES AND BESIEGE THEM AND LIE IN WAIT FOR THEM IN EVERY AMBUSH, then if they repent and keep up prayer [become believers] and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them (9:5)

FIGHT THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN ALLAH, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, NOR FOLLOW THE RELIGION OF TRUTH, OUT OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE BOOK , until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and THEY ARE IN A STATE OF SUBJECTION. (9:29)

And that you should judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires, and be cautious of them, lest they seduce you from part of what Allah has revealed to you; but if they turn back, then know that Allah desires to afflict them on account of some of their faults; and most surely many of the people are transgressors. Is it then the judgment of the times of ignorance that they desire: and who is better than Allah to judge for a people who are sure? O YOU WHO BELIEVE! DO NOT TAKE THE JEWS AND THE CHRISTIANS FOR FRIENDS; THEY ARE FRIENDS OF EACH OTHER; AND WHOEVER AMONGST YOU TAKES THEM FOR A FRIEND, THEN SURELY HE IS ONE OF THEM; SURELY ALLAH DOES NOT GUIDE THE UNJUST PEOPLE. (5:49-51)

The next two are some of my personal favorites.

I WILL CAST TERROR INTO THE HEARTS OF THOSE WHO DISBELIEVE. THEREFORE STRIKE OFF THEIR HEADS AND STRIKE OFF EVERY FINGERTIP OF THEM. THIS IS BECAUSE THEY ACTED ADVERSELY TO ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER; AND WHOEVER ACTS ADVERSELY TO ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER - THEN SURELY ALLAH IS SEVERE IN REQUITING (EVIL). THIS - TASTE IT, AND (KNOW) THAT FOR THE UNBELIEVERS IS THE PUNISHMENT OF FIRE. O you who believe! When you meet those who disbelieve marching for war, then turn not your backs to them. And whoever shall turn his back to them on that day - unless he turn aside for the sake of fighting or withdraws to a company - then he, indeed, becomes deserving of Allah's wrath, and his abode is hell; and an evil destination shall it be. So you did not slay them, but it was Allah Who slew them and you did not smite when you smote (the enemy) but it was Allah Who smote, and that He might confer upon the believers a good gift from Himself; (8:12-17)

What is the matter with you, then, that you have become two parties about the hypocrites, while Allah has made them return (to unbelief) for what they have earned? Do you wish to guide him whom Allah has caused to err? And whomsoever Allah causes to err, you shall by no means find a way for him. THEY DESIRE THAT YOU SHOULD DISBELIEVE AS THEY HAVE DISBELIEVED, SO THAT YOU MIGHT BE ALL ALIKE; THEREFORE TAKE NOT FROM AMONG THEM FRIENDS UNTIL THEY FLY THEIR HOMES IN ALLAH'S WAY; BUT IF THEY TURN BACK, THEN SEIZE THEM AND KILL THEM WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM, AND TAKE NOT FROM AMONG THEM A FRIEND OR A HELPER. (4:89)

...hhmm. Sounds like a peaceful religion to me.:banghead:

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Yeah, 'cause, like, you don't need context when reading the Qur'an. 'Cause, like, it's not like "the infidels" mentioned in a particular passage are, like, people who infiltrated the camp the night before and tried to assassinate Mohommad, and the text is in response to an "Oh, God, how do we deal with the assassins as they claim to be Muslims, but we're forbidden to kill Muslims," or anything.

Nah, Fox News says "Infidels" = US, so we need to just, like, believe it. And read the Penguin Classics version of the text, rather than one that illuminates the words a bit more.

 

[shootinstudent]

Oh no, not another Quran quoting contest.

The Book sounds bad to you because you didn't read the book, you just read the "Robert Spencer's Selected Quotes" version.

I'm amazed at how many people are willing to bash this religion without having read its book, asked its members what they believe, or bothered to do anything like learn it at all. It is proof positive that the spirit of persecuting Jews based on rumor, "protocols", and other false information persists...it's just that now people will believe anything bad about Muslims instead.

It was grossly immoral and wrong to treat Jews that way, and it's wrong when it happens to Muslims too. How about instead of just finding a new target "evil religion", we try to actually learn something before we go deciding whose prayers are more evil than ours?

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

This is about religion for some, but by many others it relates to the fact that in the middle east we could care less who rules as long as we control the spice (wait, appropriate but non-sequiter Dune reference) I mean oil, and help evil men chill people's freedoms so we can drive SUVs, and support oil companies who can't compete in a free market, and need government muscle to survive, and continue their huge profit margins.

Look folks, "hatred of our freedoms and way of life" is irrelevant for most modern Iraqis, They're fighting us bc we're over there. We're in their land. They would have fought Saddam had they had the guns to do so.

Even the religious fanatics would leave us alone if we weren't in the Arabian Peninsula, which they look at as a holy place.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Tokugawa, you couldn't have summed up better for me:

I just do not care about thier issues or cause.
Just whack them.
Worring about their side of the coin is a waste of time and a diffussion of energy. When you have a wasp nest to get rid of you do not get introspective about the fact.
Just whack them.

Whilst I would prefer to default to my inclination for grounded prose and rational musings, I believe it's a complete waste of energy trying to make sense of these lunatics or engaging at a level of "we're so above it all." Only one thing makes sense to terrorists: the end of a gun / sword / warhead. The answer is really simple, so why make it more complicated than it is?

I have no problem with strategically and tactically nuking them in a surgical fashion; we certainly have the technological capability. Why are we being such wusses??? Collateral damage / civilian casualties? Uhhh - as if there aren't any happening now?

 

[Derek Zeanah]

I have no problem with strategically and tactically nuking them in a surgical fashion; we certainly have the technological capability. Why are we being such wusses??? Collateral damage / civilian casualties? Uhhh - as if there aren't any happening now?

Yeah, cause, uh, like, a "surgical strategic nuke" wouldn't do anything like piss of more folks and make them join up with terrorists or insurgencies.

Because history has shown that, like, the best way to deal with insurgents is to beat them into the dirt. That one always works -- doesn't cause hard feelings or 'nuthin.

 

[shootinstudent]

Yeah, cause, uh, like, a "surgical strategic nuke" wouldn't do anything like piss of more folks and make them join up with terrorists or insurgencies.

Because history has shown that, like, the best way to deal with insurgents is to beat them into the dirt. That one always works -- doesn't cause hard feelings or 'nuthin.

Yeah! We need to just take the gloves off like them russians did in Afghanistan, or like them there mongols did! That's the spirit and proven success...just look at how well the russians and the mongols are doin'!

Whilst I would prefer to default to my inclination for grounded prose and rational musings, I believe it's a complete waste of energy trying to make sense of these lunatics or engaging at a level of "we're so above it all."

I recommend reading a middle eastern paper every day. Do that honestly and then tell me you can't make sense of these people. My favorite is a lebanese independent, the Daily Star: http://www.dailystar.com.lb

A nation that is willing to engage in genocide for any reason is a nation that is in fact the Great Satan. All these "nuke them!" plans will do is make the Clerics absolutely 100 percent correct when they say we are the great satan. If we ever pull something like this, I'd say that billion-person-Muslim population would all be insane and stupid to not fight to the last man to destroy us.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

shootinstudent, you've taken my point in a completely different direction.

A nation that is willing to engage in genocide for any reason is a nation that is in fact the Great Satan. All these "nuke them!" plans will do is make the Clerics absolutely 100 percent correct when they say we are the great satan. If we ever pull something like this, I'd say that billion-person-Muslim population would all be insane and stupid to not fight to the last man to destroy us.

I never once referred to genocide or suggested we nuke a whole race of people. Please re-read my post. I point to insurgent/terrorists who have declared war on America and who would kill anyone who does not embrace their beliefs. My point is simple, if perhaps too literal or brutally ineloquent for your sensibilities: We cannot negotiate with terrorists.

You don't know me, you don't know my politics and you certainly don't yet have the credibility with me to tell me what newspapers or books to read (assuming I don't already read them). I have read a lot of things - many not in English - while serving our country in faraway and remote lands. I have seen and lived things that I don't expect you to understand.

I also don't expect to alter your viewpoint, nor will I attack anyone else who may disagree with me now or going forward. I do, however, hope for a certain amount of reciprocal civility if not tolerance for my opposing beliefs.

Perhaps what disheartens me most about your posting(s) is the undercurrent of cynicism that rears its head now and then. There were days, hours and minutes in which my buddies and I had only one thing to cling to - Hope. For our country, our people and way of life. I'm proud to live in and fight for America. We are not a perfect nation, but neither are we "the Great Satan." To even suggest or think that we are, would be a dishonor to my fallen brothers and sisters.

 

[shootinstudent]

Semper Fidelis,

I never once referred to genocide or suggested we nuke a whole race of people.

Well, let me requote you:

I have no problem with strategically and tactically nuking them in a surgical fashion; we certainly have the technological capability. Why are we being such wusses??? Collateral damage / civilian casualties? Uhhh - as if there aren't any happening now?

Strategic nuclear weapons are genocidal by nature. They kill millions of people.

We cannot negotiate with terrorists.

That's all well and good, but what does using nuclear weapons to kill a few million civilians have to do with fighting terrorists? Do you honestly believe that this will work?

I have read a lot of things - many not in English - while serving our country in faraway and remote lands. I have seen and lived things that I don't expect you to understand.

That's fine, but you just said that you don't understand "these lunatics." Since you are talking about using nukes, I can only assume that you mean millions of middle easterners, farsi and arabic speaking even. So regardless of what I understand of the middle east and its inhabitants, your last post made it explicit that you do not now understand them, nor do you believe understanding them is worth any effort.

We are not a perfect nation, but neither are we "the Great Satan." To even suggest or think that we are, would be a dishonor to my fallen brothers and sisters.

Please reread my post. I said specifically that if we were to employ nuclear weapons as retaliation for terrorism, we would in fact be the Great Satan. Killing millions of people who have done you no harm is pure evil, and that's exactly what using nuclear weapons will accomplish.

And like I said before: If we actually responded to terrorism with nuclear weapons, any Muslim on the planet who refused to fight the US would be a fool. Behaving like barbarians would (notice the conditional) in fact make the radical clerics right.

Since I do not think the radical clerics are currently in the right, I would like to keep things that way by avoiding genocidal acts like the use of nuclear weapons.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Quote:
Strategic nuclear weapons are genocidal by nature. They kill millions of people.

But this is incorrect. Nukes are not genocidal by nature - they are genocidal by how they're deployed. I believe I said SURGICALLY, not strategically nuke targets

Quote:

That's all well and good, but what does using nuclear weapons to kill a few million civilians have to do with fighting terrorists? Do you honestly believe that this will work?

I never named the location of the targets, so how do you know it would kill millions?

Quote:
That's fine, but you just said that you don't understand "these lunatics." Since you are talking about using nukes, I can only assume that you mean millions of middle easterners, farsi and arabic speaking even. So regardless of what I understand of the middle east and its inhabitants, your last post made it explicit that you do not now understand them, nor do you believe understanding them is worth any effort.

I didn't say that I didn't understand the lunatics. I said it would be a waste of energy trying to make sense of them. Perhaps "relate to" is a better term than "understand." We can read all we want about the terrorists, trying to analyze their mindset and anticipate their next move, but we will never be able to fully relate to them. We certainly won't change [the radicals'] minds about us.

Quote:
Since I do not think the radical clerics are currently in the right, I would like to keep things that way by avoiding genocidal acts like the use of nuclear weapons.

This is all very well. And the fact is, you and I know it's pretty unlikely we will use nukes, no matter how surgical or precise. But incendiary as my original post may be, it speaks to a fear that a lot of us have - that "noblesse oblige" notwithstanding, it's doubtful the radical elements have the scruples to desist from the same - they won't think twice, once they have the capability, to rain total annihilation on our heads. We may thus be honorable and above savagery, but we'll also be very dead. This is not about "first strike" - it's about about survival. We're all wired for fight or flight; I think you know now where I stand.

 

[shootinstudent]

But this is incorrect. Nukes are not genocidal by nature - they are genocidal by how they're deployed. I believe I said SURGICALLY, not strategically nuke targets

Yeah, how do you "surgically" use a strategic nuke? You did say "strategic and tactical" nukes....so how exactly are those surgical weapons?

I never named the location of the targets, so how do you know it would kill millions?

Because you said it was being "wussy" to worry about civilian casualties. Forgive me if I assumed too much. This is a great opportunity for you to clarify yourself. Which targets do you propose nuking?

nd the fact is, you and I know it's pretty unlikely we will use nukes, no matter how surgical or precise. But incendiary as my original post may be, it speaks to a fear that a lot of us have - that "noblesse oblige" notwithstanding, it's doubtful the radical elements have the scruples to desist from the same - they won't think twice, once they have the capability, to rain total annihilation on our heads. We may thus be honorable and above savagery, but we'll also be very dead. This is not about "first strike" - it's about about survival. We're all wired for fight or flight; I think you know now where I stand.

I have no idea where you stand now, because this last post did everything to imply I was wrong to assume you supported using nukes to kill millions of people in the first half, and then in the above, to claim that this is a war of "annihilation" and that if we take the "honorable" path, we'll be "very dead."

So which is it? Are you advocating nuking millions of civilians in order to avoid being "noble but very dead", or are you advocating "surgical strikes" that somehow employ nukes but don't result in millions of deaths?

 

[Mr.V.]

Killing millions of people who have done you no harm is pure evil

No it isn't. I'd say killing millions of innocent people if my or my family's immediate survival depended on it wouldn't be evil. It wouldn't be good either. It would simply be survival. "Pure evil" doesn't really exist. We like to call stuff that to win arguments. Just look how often people try to compare each other to Nazis (who I'd also argue weren't pure evil).

We like to call Osama bin Laden "pure evil" because he's a terrorist. But few people actually listened to his argument for terrorism even though it isn't a huge logical leap for us Westerners to make.

bin Laden's argument is that it's okay to murder civilians of a democratic nation because we support the army with taxes and we vote for its leaders (Bush, Rummy, Condi etc). He's holding us, the people, responsible for the actions of our elected leaders.

If someone in the US/Canada/Britain/etc commits a crime and you help them in any way (including financially) you're partway culpable. We consider it to be aiding and abetting. It isn't that removed an argument for Osama to decide that because we fund the army and elect its leaders, that we civilians are aiding and abetting the actions it takes.

We just don't like to get killed for that reason so we call it "terrorism" and argue that it violates the rules-of-war. Whatever those are. I think few people in here if they got into a fight to the death would hesitate to kick their assailant in the nuts even though it's not widely accepted as an honorable move.

So let's flip the coin for a second. Terrorists don't get money from turning dung-pies into gold bullion. They get it from people. Occasionally from donations. Frequently from foreign governments. Sadly many oppressed by those governments act complicitly without direct approval. But in the end, Middle Easterners support terrorists, jihadists, freedom-fighters, insurgents whatever you want to call them just like American's support the army, soldiers, crusaders, imperial-terrorists whatever you want to call us.

In WWII we committed numerous terrorist acts. The brits firebombed dresden, we firebombed hundreds of japanese cities killing millions of innocent civilians even before little-boy and fat-man. They weren't actually terrorist acts. They just don't jibe well with the honorable rules of war...Rules to which the japanese certainly didn't subscribe either.

The firebombings and nuclear attacks did work though. The japanese got the message as "pure evil" as it was and we didn't have to do the honorable thing by a ground invasion of Japan to liberate the people from their tyrannical regime.

Shootinstudent...From a social science level you could argue that despite how reasonable and insightful all your points may be, they weigh little against the empirical evidence...using nuclear weapons ended a war with a very unforgiving and brutal but hardly evil foe who now makes light-weight, very dependable cars and pretty plasma HDTVs.

Nuking civilians isn't honorable but few ways of winning are or have ever been. It isn't evil. It wouldn't be evil if they nuked us. And it wouldn't be evil if everyone nuked everything and the earth froze in the insuing winter. It would be pretty stupid though and humans are certainly capable of "pure stupid".

 

[shootinstudent]

The firebombings and nuclear attacks did work though. The japanese got the message as "pure evil" as it was and we didn't have to do the honorable thing by a ground invasion of Japan to liberate the people from their tyrannical regime.

Except that the Japanese were an obedient population with central leadership. How do you propose to get terrorists who say, are not in the country you nuke, to lay down their weapons? Why would a terror cell operating in Canada worry about nukes hitting Saudi Arabia or Iran?

Sorry, but this plan just plain does not work when the problem is as distributed as terrorism. The Russians proved that in Afghanistan and are proving it again in Chechnya: millions dead, by horrific means, and the fight is not even close to out of them. All that happened with each massacre was that for every dead Afghani or Chechen, five signed up to kill the murdering invaders. Why would a nuke be any different?

But in the end, Middle Easterners support terrorists, jihadists, freedom-fighters, insurgents whatever you want to call them just like American's support the army, soldiers, crusaders, imperial-terrorists whatever you want to call us.

First of all: Are you implying that Bin Laden is morally justified in attacking civilians? If he's not, then are you arguing that it's okay to shoot other innocent civilians in retaliation for our own innocent civilians being shot?

But in any case, I think this is an inaccurate view. If the middle easterners all supported terrorists, they'd be a lot more powerful than they are. There also wouldn't be thousands of condemnations of terrorism from the Mosques and secular authorities like there are now. Bin Laden has no country, and never has...he has to run and hide from everyone. So which leaders are behind terrorism again?

In sum, not only will nuking a country in response to what stateless-gangs do achieve nothing but to prove that the US is out to kill all muslims (in which case, we truly would have a billion people supporting the terrorists...and they'd be dumb not to), it's based on a flawed theory of collective responsibility.

Then there's also the worry that a sympathetic country like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan would see a real need to arm terrorists with nukes for a "pre-emptive strike" on America...or will we just nuke every industrialized muslim state in the world with one strike, to make sure that the other muslim states don't get nervous and decide it's smart to nuke the US before it's their turn?

 

[Sindawe]

As Winston Churchill once observed about my own ethnic/cultural background...

"The Hun is either at your throat or at your feet."

Like as not, we are again in such a situation.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

No it isn't. I'd say killing millions of innocent people if my or my family's immediate survival depended on it wouldn't be evil. It wouldn't be good either. It would simply be survival. "Pure evil" doesn't really exist. We like to call stuff that to win arguments. Just look how often people try to compare each other to Nazis (who I'd also argue weren't pure evil).

I don't know about you, but my moral code is a bit clearer than this. To my way of thinking, deliberately targeting innocents is the definition of evil.

The firebombings and nuclear attacks did work though. The japanese got the message as "pure evil" as it was and we didn't have to do the honorable thing by a ground invasion of Japan to liberate the people from their tyrannical regime.

I believe you're wrong here. The point of targeting mass civilian centers (from the Nazi and Allied points of view) was to dishearten the enemy and spoil support for their war effort. It did exactly the opposite. While fire bombing did a decent job of removing critical infrastructure, it's not something we can get by with nowadays. Baby BBQs just don't go over well in the mass media, regardless of how you try to dehumanize the enemy.

In the case of Japan, you had one guy who was faced with surrender or the total destruction of his people and society. He did something compassionate, and his people followed along. There's no-one in the Middle East who can make that kind of commitment for everyone else.

 

[Mr.V.]

I don't know about you, but my moral code is a bit clearer than this. To my way of thinking, deliberately targeting innocents is the definition of evil.

If you had a rifle trained on your face and said it's you or 1 million innocents...how would your moral code hold up? If you chose the 1 million would it be an evil choice? I'm guessing the average evil person would say...it's the guy holding the gun whose evil and I'm just trying to survive.

First of all: Are you implying that Bin Laden is morally justified in attacking civilians?

It isn't an honorable choice of targets by what we consider to be honor. But is it good or evil? I don't know. I'm not so quick as to label something "pure evil" so I can easily discount it and move on.

then are you arguing that it's okay to shoot other innocent civilians in retaliation for our own innocent civilians being shot?

Well again...what is an innocent civlian? I'm stuck on that. A rifleman in the army is clearly not an innocent civlian. What about someone in the army who functions in the supply chain like mechanics or supply troops? Is it fair to kill them? What about a general who orders troops but doesn't actually shoot at people? What about Don Rumsfeld? Would it be morally okay for an enemy to kill him? He's an innocent civilian just like our president. What about us innocent civilians who elected don rumsfeld and george bush, pay their salaries, and give them our approval of their actions?

Not one person addressed why we think it's okay to hold people who aid and abet felonies partly culpable for the crimes but also call Osama bin Laden "pure evil" for holding us to the same standard?

 

[Derek Zeanah]

If you had a rifle trained on your face and said it's you or 1 million innocents...how would your moral code hold up? If you chose the 1 million would it be an evil choice? I'm guessing the average evil person would say...it's the guy holding the gun whose evil and I'm just trying to survive.

If you would honestly choose to prolong your own life than save the lives of innocents (much less a million of them), then you are truly a worthless human being.

I don't know a nice way to say that. There are a number of things that I value greater than my own life, and there are a number of things I would willingly die for. To me your scenario is a no-brainer.

I guess you're on the other end of the spectrum. I find it terribly sad and depressing not that your kind exists, but that you exist on this forum. I thought we were better than that.

 

[dmallind]

The whole idea of "kill 'em all because some of 'em did bad things" can stand up to no logical scrutiny. The more rational posters have tried to point this out with examples of white, American, Christian atrocities, or any combination thereof, but the red herring persists that Muslims are different simply because of their faith.

Yes radical fundamentalist Muslims scare/disgust the heck out of me because they are by definition illogical and willing to kill and die for a holy cause. They scare/disgust me EXACTLY as much as fundamentalist Christians and for EXACTLY the same reason. Islam is more dangerous as a faith? BULLCRAP! From "our" (not mine really, but the way of thinking most people apply here assumes that every Iraqi or Iranian is equivalent to the raving loons, so surely all Americans are equal to Phelps and Robertson? ) "Holy" book

Ex. 22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

Lev 26:7-8 And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword. And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword

Num 31:17-18 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Deut 6:14-15 Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you; For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.

Deut 7:2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them

And PLENTY more of that crap. Every mishmash of folk tales, oral history and ill-educated guesses about the nature of the world (aka religion) can be shown to be pretty damned ethnocentric, xenophobic and violent. You have to look way past the surface of a religion to understand why people are willing to be fundies of ANY stripe.

Poverty breeds fundamentalism. Ignorance breeds fundamentalism. Ostracism breeds fundamentalism. Powerlessness breeds fundamentalism. Resentment breeds fundamentalism.

It is far from pansy-ass hand-wringing blame-America liberal commie pinko fag subversive claptrap to understand WHY people are willing to kill themselves to kill a few of you. If you want it in simplistic macho terms then think of it as intelligence gathering on the enemy. If you want it in more rational terms it is the only way to solve the problem. As we have learned in the last few years, killing them doesn't exactly breed an absence of fundamentalist hatred now does it?

 

[Manedwolf]

Did anyone listen to what Osama Bin Laden said in his last auido tape?

Yup. And every time he opens his mouth, MY question is why his head wasn't on a stick over FIVE YEARS AGO, rather than a half-**ed job in Afghanistan, then breaking off to go on poorly-planned Iraq adventures.

He should have been Target 1 until he was DEAD, no other adding targets, no other objectives. Saddam was never as much of a threat as he was and is.

And his continued existence is ALSO seen by weakness by those in the region. Revenge, an eye for an eye, is part of the culture. Really, if we'd taken him out immediately, there would have just been a lot of nods. He hit us, we hit him.

Now? He's got more followers than ever.

Why is he not dead?

 

[Mr.V.]

Derek--

fine...that question was easy as it allowed you to do the honorable action to sacrifice yourself for others and paint me out to be a coward.

What if you had to choose between your wife/child/friend whatever and some random tourists? if you don't choose or decide to try to fight...everyone dies. Would you choose your loved ones over the innocent strangers? if so how many innocent strangers would it take before you became "pure evil" for the selfish act of perserving your innocent loved ones over the other innocents.

Using nuclear weapons in Japan is not a choice I would have made. But I don't think that FDR was "pure evil" for doing it either. And I really get frustrated by how people like to use their own personal "absolute"-morality brush to paint over tough decisions that people make or made under difficult circumstances.

And while you were trying to shame me...you avoided my other question which was what defines an "innocent" person. I'll post it again for your convenience if you would like to address it...

 

[Derek Zeanah]

fine...that question was easy as it allowed you to do the honorable action to sacrifice yourself for others and paint me out to be a coward.

I think you painted yourself into that corner.

What if you had to choose between your wife/child/friend whatever and some random tourists?

The wife comes first. Of course, in her limited career (she's only been an MD for 4 years now) she's saved hundreds of children's lives. I know I'm biased, but the wife comes first versus some random crowd with cameras.

if so how many innocent strangers would it take before you became "pure evil" for the selfish act of perserving your innocent loved ones over the other innocents.

That's hard to say, really. I guess there's some calculus there -- figure out how many lives are saved by a competent pediatrician every year, multiplied by the number of years she's likely to continue working. I don't know a number though.

I think you're trying to paint that scenario from Spider Man -- a busload of strangers versus the one you love. The deciding factor is which could I live with. Any decision that shamed me would be a wrong one, and my wife is one that intuitively understands these things so there'd be no guilt if I chose other-than-her. If I were her I'd say "leave me and save the frigging bus," and I think she'd do the same so that's a starting point, at least.

Using nuclear weapons in Japan is not a choice I would have made. But I don't think that FDR was "pure evil" for doing it either.

That's a different calculus. Figure 600,000 BBQ'd women and children, the projected cost of US forces (1 million or so, I believe), plus the likelihood that the Japanese would sacrifice themselves to a man (and woman and child) and come up with your answer.

Personally I'm offended by the concept of total war, and the idea that major population centers are legitimate military targets. One could make the argument that destroying their ports, and most of their manufacturing capability, and blocking all incoming and outgoing traffic from their island could have eventually led to an acceptable solution as well. I'm not sure that it was ever considered as an option though -- I believe FDR wanted an immediate end to the hostilities and took steps with that priority first in his mind. Could be mistaken, though.

And I really get frustrated by how people like to use their own personal "absolute"-morality brush to paint over tough decisions that people make or made under difficult circumstances.

If you believe in any sense of religion or morality, then you believe in absolutes. I believe every religion would reject without thought the "legitimacy" of targeting day care centers, for instance. Children are sacred, period. Now, I understand you may not think this way, but I believe there are some absolutes in life.

Kind of like "torturing kitties to death for entertainment purposes is wrong, even if you get a lot of joy out of it."

what defines an "innocent" person.

I think toddlers qualify as innocent in almost all cases. As do those with Downs Syndrome and similar maladies. I think for the most part you can assume that "noncombatants" = "innocents." At the very least, this should be your default starting point. If it turns out the noncombatants happen to be housed in a maximum security prison for non-political crimes, then so be it.

 

[Baba Louie]

Mr V... FDR might have used atomics against Berlin, but it took HST to use them against Japan. (Just FWIW)
Some history worthy of a read. Watch out for the jingoistic statements in Ms Stock's essay, be they true or not.
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=15712&catcode=13

We now call it "islamic fundamental terrorism", before we called it "communism". What it is, is "Totalitarianism" this time based on a Theocracy...

...and I'm against it. Be it Marxism, National Socialism, Christianity, Neo-Conservatism, Buddhism, what-have-you-ism... not for it in any way... and I'm afraid, that our current enemies are all for it. What have they got to lose? Their life? Like the Japanese in WWII, losing their life in the name of the cause is a... GOOD THING.

But, it may be that with a population approaching 7 billion people, it is time for "Mother Earth" to rid the planet of a few of us in order to get back to keeping the planet habitable... and warfare, based on cultural and religious differences is as good a way as any. (Just another way of looking at things, folks)

And yes... this War is For Real. Right now it's over there, with intermittant safety stops here in our country, brought about by our own government in an effort to stop internal nastiness before it becomes the norm over here.

For the life of me, I can't imagine why the current bad guys haven't walked a couple or three back-pack type nukes over our southern border and made their point... (Lord knows the border is porous enough) unless they don't YET have the means to do so... or the timing isn't right... or we're keeping them occupied somewhere else.

Today, Iran says if the US attacks them, they'll attack Israel. Makes perfect sense... to someone with a long-held grudge (can you say Hezbollah?)

Sacrifice myself so that 1 million innocents can live? Maybe yes, maybe no. Depends. In the overall scheme of things, would the 1 million really care about my sacrifice? Would they stay "innocent"? (gotta agree on our definitions folks) Would the world be a better place as a result? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

(Sorry for drifting off topic, mods and Mr Buckbee, just seemed the thing to do, what with the heated fervor we're all approaching)

Neither side will give in, neither side will stop. A new administration here WILL cave in. Appeasement. Things might calm down for a spell, and then heat up again.

And so it goes.