What is YOUR strategy for defeating Islamo-fascists? [Archive]

Aenlic

06-26-2006, 03:38

I didn't want to limit the discussion, therefore I did not provide a starting point for arguments.

Seriously. What would be your strategy?

And let's at least agree that islamofascism exists; terrorism is the military strategy of the Islamofascist movement.

When I served in Afghanistan, I spoke with an Afghani national who was imprisoned by the Taliban for 7 days and beaten because his beard was too short. He told me that the Taliban were not true muslims, he said they were nothing but "thugs" controlling the people "under the banner of Islam".

Uh, no. Sorry. We're not going to be able to agree that "Islamofascism" exists. It's a ridiculous term coined by people who are clueless about what fascism means. Fascism included major components of economic control by a wealthy elite and nationalism and even racism. That's rather different than what the Islamic fundamentalists proposing theocracies espouse. Islam, even fundamental Islam is far from racist. And economically, control by a wealthy elite might fit in Saudi Arabia; but in places where Islamists have taken control, like Taliban Afghanistan or Iraq, it was the religious who took control, not the wealthy. If you want to use a term like Islamist, then fine. It has come to be used to describe the fundamentalist Islamic theocrats.

How to defeat it?

First we need to quit screwing around defending our screw-up in Iraq and go back to going after bin Laden, who was and is the real threat. Once we eliminate him and his chief deputies we need to work on establishing good relations with the Arab people - that does not mean establishing good relations with some of the corrupt rulers who create the conditions which give rise to Islamists.

Then we need to do the things we should have done 20 years ago.

Like stop coddling Israel when they act as bad or worse than the Palestinians. We should have slapped their hands hard in 1973; but we didn't. And now we're paying the price. We lost the average Arab then. Prior to that we were seen in a more positive light by the Arabs. We admit that the Palestinians have a valid grievance. Think about it. How would you feel if tomorrow aliens appeared more powerful than us and they handed the US back to the Indians, Australia back to the Aborigines, NZ back to the Maori, Canada back to the Inuit, Northern Ireland back to the rest of Ireland, Constantinople back to the Greeks and so on? That's exactly what happened to the Palestinians 60 years ago. We need to fix what the Brits screwed up. If that means we threaten to completely withdraw support from Israel unless they work out a reasonable solution that is fair to the Palestinians first and defends Israeli territory second, then so be it. It has to be done.

Then we need to stop coddling the corrupt Saudi royal family and encourage democratic reforms there and in other wealthy (and truly fascist) countries in the area. The source of most of the 9/11 terrorists was Saudi Arabia. There's a reason for that. It has one of the foulest, most corrupt regimes in the world. Next is Yemen, source of most of the rest of the 9/11 terrorists. Pakistan is no picnic either.

Then we need to stop this idioitic policy of " the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and start supporting real democratic reforms and stop supporting dictatorial, fascist regimes just because it's expedient. One of our little CIA-trained toadies is fixing to come up for trial in the Hague - Charles Taylor. We trained him, supplied him and allowed him to sieze power in Liberia. Our fault. Just like we recruited, trained and funded Noriega. And the list goes on. We need to stop that crap immediately. We funded and trained bin Laden himself! We're reaping what we sowed.

Is any of that likely to happen, including sending our troops back from Iraq to return to what they were doing rather well before 2003, and find bin Laden? Not a chance. We're too stupid to do things right.

That's just my opinion on it. :wink:

rotorgun

06-26-2006, 03:47

I didn't want to limit the discussion, therefore I did not provide a starting point for arguments.

Seriously. What would be your strategy?

And let's at least agree that islamofascism exists; terrorism is the military strategy of the Islamofascist movement.

When I served in Afghanistan, I spoke with an Afghani national who was imprisoned by the Taliban for 7 days and beaten because his beard was too short. He told me that the Taliban were not true muslims, he said they were nothing but "thugs" controlling the people "under the banner of Islam".
May I say, first of all, thank you for serving your country in Afghanistan. While I may not agree with our present course in this conflict, I do feel that we must press on in Afghanistan for the reasons you give. I do feel that we are squandering our efforts by a divided strategy. If given the opportunity to command, I would reinforce the forces in Afghanistan so that the border could be properly patrolled. Pakistan must also be encouraged to do more towards finding, capturing, or eliminating terrorist and Taliban cells in their country. If they did not produce results, than they too must face invasion of their western regions. It is the only way to keep up the initiative and force this to a showdown with Al Queda and the Taliban. They must be systematically hunted down and eliminated. We owe it to the survors of the Twin Tower attacks if for no other reason.

In Iraq I would pull my forces out of the cities and protect the vital international interests such as oil fields, electrical plants, airfields, ports, and border crossing points. We must invite the enemy to fight on our terms by siezing the important assets. Let the Iraqis defend their own towns and cities for goodness' sake. Allowing the insurgents the opportunity to use IEDs and ambushes at close range in the urban environment is the hieght of lunacy. If they had to attack our strong points across more open fields of fire than it would be they who would now be taking more casualties. While I am in disagreement with the timing of this invasion of Iraq, it has been forced upon us and we must win. I only would like to see the so called generals try a change of strategy and tactics. I certainly expect more from them than what I see going on. If it is nessecary to patrol the cities for political reasons, than more use of combined arms Armor/Infantry teams should be SOP. HUMVEES just don't cut it in my book, no matter how much you "up-armor" them.

On the logistical side, we must discontinue the use of contractors to deliver supplies by convoy in the combat zones. They are not trained soldiers, and have little or no equipment to defend themselves after attacks. If the insurgents had to pay a higher price every time they hit a convoy they would probably not attack them so often. Contractors could be used to deliver the supplies to depots on the Kuwaitii border, but these trailers need to be pulled by military personnel from there. Armored vehicles and Helicopter Gunships should also accompany them to discourage the enemy as well. Rommel often included a small combined arms team in his supply trains to protect them from the roving long range desert patrols. Why the "West Pointers" can't take a page from history and use it I'll never know.

Well, I've ranted long enough. Time for some other "arm chair generals" to add their bit in.

Lemur

06-26-2006, 04:23

Seriously. What would be your strategy?
When they have a state sponsor, do what's necessary to end that sponsor. If that's diplomacy, great. If it's bribes, fine. If it's an invasion, just try not to get stuck with the cleaning bill.

For groups that lack state sponsorship, do what you would do with any well-organized criminal ring -- follow the money, infiltrate, and then follow the money some more. Every tool we learned to use with organized crime would be appropriate.

As the Israelis are fond of saying, with terrorism the three most important things are intelligence, intelligence, and intelligence.

[edit]

It should be patently obvious that the final step is kill 'em. Do not, under any circumstances get stuck with them on your hands. Intelligence has a vanishingly short half-life, so don't got warehousing them. Their value is brief. Either hand them back to their home states (who will probably kill them), or do what needs to be done in the field.

DemonArchangel

06-26-2006, 04:25

Rotorgun:

Well, in any case, sitting near the oil plants and other assets siphoning off oil is great for us, but it makes the Iraqis hate us, and is rather bad for our PR to boot. We need to be there in the cities, we need to reconstruct, we need to get people to like us. Then we need to put the people that like us into power and keep them there. In the meantime, a civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiites would be a good thing. It would keep both sides quiet for a long time afterwards, even though it would be bloody. What we need to do is to consoldiate the Sunnis in power again, but allow Shiites to get the guns. You know what would happen next.

I agree on your position. They need to get off of their pimpled asses and do something about their border with Afghanistan. Unfortunately, Pakistan's current administration is rather fragile politically. Not much Mr. Musharraf can do except smile and drool. And chances are good that his successor would be worse than him. Political reality is conspiring against us here.

GoreBag

06-26-2006, 04:33

Canada back to the Inuit,

All of it?

Navaros

06-26-2006, 06:36

Tachikaze

06-26-2006, 06:41

"The best defense is not to offend."

Divinus Arma

06-26-2006, 07:56

Aenlic

06-26-2006, 08:22

But Bush's good buddies are the Saudi royal family. Wouldn't Bush react rather unkindly to your characterization of them as turds? The majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. None were from Iraq, by the way. Not one.

As matter of fact, the people in power in Iraq prior to our invasion - Saddam and his Tikrit Sunni relatives - were already beating down these Islamic fundamentalists before we invaded, along with all the other Shiites and even the Sunni Wahhabi fundamentalists (Wahhabist fundamentalists from Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Egypt made up almost all of the 9/11 hijackers. Bin Laden is a Wahhabist. His deputy, Dr. al-Zawahiri was the leader of the Wahhabist Egyptian Islamic Jihad.)

So, why are we in Iraq if the goal is to defeat Islamic fundamentalism? By removing Saddam we strengthended the Islamists in Iraq by removing the moderate Sunnis from power.

Please explain, DA or Eclectic. :smile:

Ser Clegane

06-26-2006, 08:33

But with you liberals it's all the same. Blame America. Is there ever any doubt that liberals hate America?

Did you just call Navaros a liberal?? :inquisitive:

It seems your definition of "liberal" indeed is "whoever disagrees with me"...

ajaxfetish

06-26-2006, 08:46

I think Aenlic summed up my viewpoint very well, and probably a lot more eloquently than I could have.

Ajax:2thumbsup:

doc_bean

06-26-2006, 09:12

I wear a bacon suit and carry around bags of pig blood.

Blow me up and get splattered with uncleanliness ! Let's see who gets 99 virgins then !

:2thumbsup:

English assassin

06-26-2006, 10:20

I remember a (probably apocryphal) account of a conversation reagan is supposed to have had with his advisors in 1980. On being told that the USSR had more tanks, planes, men, and missiles thjan the US, that it had more resources, that its people, whilst not necessarily wild about the regime, were content enough, he is said to have asked, well what DOES the US have more of. Money, he was told. Aha, then we'll outspend them...

So, to defeat the islamofascists (and I disagree, this is a useful and apt term, the criticisms above would largely apply to the term Islamonazi which is not in use), ask first what do we have more of? Unlike the USSR, the answer is just about everything, which is one reason why I can't get too excited about seeing this as the next incarnation of a bipolar world. (China, on the other hand, I can see in that role). The only concern ios that the demographics are moving strongly against the west so we need to resolve the issue fairly swiftly.

IMHO, and in no particular order: Turkey in the EU. Sends the message that secular Islamic states that play nice get treated like anyone else.

Phase out US support for Israel. I admit, after the election of Hamas, I have got more pro-Israeli (admittedly from a low base). But I'm not saying the Israelis shouldn't defend themselves. I'm saying the West shouldn't pick up the bill (either literally or metaphorically).

Reduce dependency on middle east oil. can't do any harm to remove one bargaining chip they do have.

No more invasions unless and until we have worked out how you build a viable state afterwards. This was a lot easier in the days when we could put a dictator in place. To be honest I'm not too sure how its done with a democracy, though if at all possible I'd have the UN do it. If I was the US I'd want to know why I have to be the Aunt Sally all the time.

More controversially, possibly self contradictorily: make it much harder to move between Islamic "home" countries and the west. Here in the UK, there is no problem with the fact that there are a lot of people with Bangladeshi or Pakistani origins who are UK citizens. But I think there is a problem that we ship over Imams and wives from tribal areas of Pakistan, and in fact that we don't really have a grip on a shifting population of "brothers" "uncles" and the like coming in and going out. Its as if the culture shock of the immigrant population is being recharged every generation, and I suspect there must be a culture shock back in Pakistan too. After all, these radical imams probably do no harm applying their medieval morality to an essentially medieval way of life, but put them down in the fleshpots of Bradford and all hell breaks loose. Then if they return to Pakistan they have a lifetime of material about how decadent and evil the west is.

Kralizec

06-26-2006, 12:13

We Dutchies no longer import our imams, new ones will be home grown and educated. I think Denmark is considering this too, no surprise as I think it's a sensible policy.

We need to cut down our dependency on oil, after that stop acting cuddly with the Saudi royals as that attitude is fostering hatred against the west under some muslims.

More restricted, sensible immigration. Only legitimate refugees and immigrants that posses skills we need badly, such as doctors. At the same time increase development aid (but not by writing checks to governments to do with as they please) and removing unfair trade barriers.

Israel/Palestine is probably the most complicated problem and there's no clear cut solution for it. Hopefully we will see an economicly viable Palestinian state rise in this decade.

Increased NATO support for Afghanistan.

That's about all I can think of right now :stupido:

Leet Eriksson

06-26-2006, 12:34

Provide amnesty, i think thats what the iraqi government are doing currently ~;p

On another note, the US has some wonderful imams, they could get more involved in saudias and egypts politics to spread awareness of the threat of terrorism, i think it helps the most knowledgable imam is actually american ~;p

caravel

06-26-2006, 13:08

The same way(s) as you defeat any fascist.

King Ragnar

06-26-2006, 13:37

Not get involved and concentrate on our own problems before we try to be heroes..

Alexanderofmacedon

06-26-2006, 15:14

Not get involved and concentrate on our own problems before we try to be heroes..

Exactly what I think. :bow:

solypsist

06-26-2006, 15:41

this always wins:

http://www.nationalpaving.com/photos/Mcdonalds.jpg

The Wizard

06-26-2006, 15:51

Education. Making sure that people know what Islam is, what it stands for, what it was intended to do, so they do not fall under the lying, cowardly abuse of the religion employed by Islamic fundamentalists.

You see, you do not blow up mosques and still claim to be a defender of the faith. You do not kill innocents in bomb blasts while Muhammad himself clearly stated that the lesser Jihad is all about punishing those that are guilty -- and only when they are conclusively proven to be so.

Ignorance is that universal factor that leads to extremism. Combat it through education and you will ensure that people will discard the lies of fundamentalism through simple, logic thought.

What comes in second place is providing them with a good living standard. People there are frustrated with their lot in life. If anything I'd gamble they'd like a stable income and a nice car more than the rules of the Taliban in over 99% of the cases. Making sure they have no frustration and jealousy towards the better-off regions in the world to vent is a sure-fire way to prevent that they will look for solutions in the shady sections of the political spectrum.

Finally, a plea: please, please don't rape the term 'liberal' so much. The use of the word in America is so wrong so as to make it almost akin to the abuse of the religion of Islam by extremists.

Goofball

06-26-2006, 18:37

You can't defeat them.

Or if you can, not without wasting even more billions upon billions upon billions of dollars doing so.

Better to stop trying.

Leave 'em alone and the world will be a better place.
I agree. Let's take every investment out of the middle east and let the turd flush itself down the toilet.

The problem is that they won't stop there. It isn't a matter of us "provoking them". They came over to OUR shores and took out a few thousand lives in one day.

But with you liberals it's all the same. Blame America. Is there ever any doubt that liberals hate America?

:dizzy2:
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Oh my Lord, that is about the funniest thing I have ever seen posted in the Backroom...

I think the only thing that there can be no doubt about is that you just toss the word liberal around whenever you realize your own arguments are floundering and you don't know what else to say.

Edit: Oops, should have read the entire thread first. Looks like SC beat me to the punch on this one.

Alexander the Pretty Good

06-26-2006, 20:16

Tachikaze - "The best defense is not to offend."

That worked real well in Canada. The great North that prided itself on bending over backwards not to offend anyone.

Homegrown terror cell. :book:

LeftEyeNine

06-26-2006, 21:14

IMHO, and in no particular order: Turkey in the EU. Sends the message that secular Islamic states that play nice get treated like anyone else.

Ah yes, "playing nice" here definitely means "fraction up every single minority in your country, even though they may be dead, give them peace by performing rituals" and "get treated like everyone else" means "obey our thirst, kneel down, bend over so we can use your country as an economic and military playground, as a doorkeeper. And if you are ever dreaming of some free travel among us, forget it. you get treated like no one else"

Sorry, mister, this message is not persuasive at all.

Those asking for solutions should first look back at what their governments did in times when they were using those "mullahs" during the cold war.

Myopia is a well known disability to USA for the years past. And if you are ever asking "so what does it have to do with Europe?", then review please that extremism is using the banner of Islam, it is a monster gone berserk, asaaulting anything and everything.

Edit: What is MY strategy ? Big guys, stop playing it behind the scenes.

Will they do it ever ? No never..

So what ? We are all screwed..

Big King Sanctaphrax

06-26-2006, 21:33

I say we challenge them to a football match! 22 men, 90 minutes, one ball, the fate of the Western world!

I'm fairly sure that the use of explosives is a red card offence, so I reckon we'd have a decent chance. Can you imagine the sponsorship money?

Divinus Arma

06-26-2006, 21:41

You're all liberals! Everyone! :laugh4:

Okay. I can admit when I'm wrong. Perhaps I've been a little too overzealous lately.

I just get frustrated when I hear calls to retreat or "redeploy", and that Bush is more dangerous than Al Qaeda. That is just as ridiculous as me calling everyone else a liberal. It is fine to hold a discussion on strategy, but to do so like the dems are is a national disgrace. Our enemies are getting exactly what they want. And I am not so blind as to say that Bush is a political/military genius. He's just the better choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

The Republicans are traitors to their own values. The Democrats are downright dangerous to this country.

Look at it this way: Would the media spill the beans about breaking the German and Japanese codes in WWII? Nope. But yet they think it is okay to expose our secret tactics now. Private congressional oversight of secret projects in one thing. National announcements of our intelligence capabilities is another. I almost expect to see: "American ground spies used in private homes discovered in Iraq! These are their names: Habib al-muhajidad, Aqbar Mohammed al Aqbar, Ali Bin-Tikriti Mohamaderjhan."

Our enemies are laughing at us now. The Democrats would destroy this country first in order to retake power.

Brenus

06-26-2006, 21:45

“fraction up every single minority in your country”. Nope. It can’t be. French Constitution says the France is one and can’t be divided.:sweatdrop:

“obey our thirst, kneel down, bend over so we can use your country as an economic and military playground”. Nope again, France vote no to referendum and doesn’t belong to NATO.:sweatdrop:

And too late, we’ve got nuclear power in 1960…:inquisitive:

My Turkish friend, Europe, the one they wanted us to accept can be stopped and we can build another Europe, not a free market, not a one which wants the power for the multi-nationals. Stop Philippe Lamy, down with Jose Manuel Barosso, let’s built together a space of freedom, justice (social and the other one too)respect and dignity for all…:2thumbsup:

Brenus

06-26-2006, 21:54

“Our enemies are laughing at us now”:
Oh dear dear… Your enemies laughed at you long time ago, with the sad story of the Impeachment of Clinton because he had a affair wit an adult woman, and he LIED. I was so embarrassed!!! Who can expect a guy to recognise in front of hundred cameras he had an affair… Sure his wife was listening…
All this thing because a guy cheated on his wife, and the prosecutor, a new American hero, defender of the US values, distributing to the media all what was said in the Court by all the witnesses, even before the decision of the Parliament…
I still laugh and cry when I think about it…:dizzy2:

Mount Suribachi

06-26-2006, 21:59

"The best defense is not to offend."

Best convert to Islam then Tachi. Oh, and put Spain back under Islamic rule, punish the Austrians for stopping the Ottomans outside Vienna,reinstate the Caliphate and obliterate Israel. I think that just about covers what offends them.

Ah yes, "playing nice" here definitely means "fraction up every single minority in your country, even though they may be dead, give them peace by performing rituals" and "get treated like everyone else" means "obey our thirst, kneel down, bend over so we can use your country as an economic and military playground, as a doorkeeper. And if you are ever dreaming of some free travel among us, forget it. you get treated like no one else"

I've had this out with other Turks on this forum - trust me, I'm no friend of the EU, but Turkey would gain a lot more than they would lose from EU membership. Far from being econically raped, Turkey would benefit hugely from the EU financially. Its the relatively poor countries that benefit the most. Go to Ireland, and everywhere you go you see signs saying "this road paid for by the EU", "this Industrial Estate paid for by the EU" etc etc. Kinda annoying when its your tax £££ thats paid to rebuild the infrastructure of a country who love to hate you, the "fecking evil English" (TM). As for a military playground, you've been a member of NATO for decades, so I dont see what the problem is there.

Aenlic

06-26-2006, 22:39

Private congressional oversight of secret projects in one thing. National announcements of our intelligence capabilities is another.

But don't you see, Eclectic, there is no Congressional oversight? None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. The Republican controlled Congress has given the Bush administration a completely free hand and refuses to exercise their constitutionally mandated oversight function. They flat out refuse! Bush OK's blatantly illegal wiretaps on US citizens, ignoring the already broad rules of the FISA warrant system. They just simply ignore it. And Congress turns a blind eye. There is simply no oversight at all. So that just leaves the media. If the media is the only oversight left to limit our overzealous and constitutionally challenged government, then I say more power to them. At the moment, in the USA, we've ceased to have a system of government distinguished by three separate branches designed to limit the power of any one. Right now we have a dictatorial and almost monarchial system (the executive) with a bunch of toadies and sycophants in the oversight branch (the legislative) and the other branch pretending to be the see no evil and hear no evil and speak no evil monkeys (the judiciary). Until that stops, the media is the only thing even close to resembling checks and balances on runaway executive branch power. If the media is muzzled as well, then what do we have left that in any way resembles what the US Constitution enshrined?

Kaiser of Arabia

06-27-2006, 00:36

Take out the Ayatollah Khameni. Not Khomeni, he's dead.

Cut Iran off from the rest of the middle east, half the terrorist groups lose their funding. China loses half its oil. We all win.

Crack down in Iraq. Defeat the insurgency at all costs. Same in Afghanistan. Take the nukes away from Pakistan. SEARCH KASHMIR FOR AQ LEADERSHIP (I swear, they are all in Kashmir). Introduce the Middle East to Classic Rock and Black Cherry flavored Soda.

Get more British SAS and Royal Marines to help us secure places. They're better at securing places and all, we just kill the bad guys. B-52s. Cracker Jacks.

Give 200 billion dollars to Israel. Screw the national debt, we're at the point where it is so large we can begin to ignore it. Help Israel establish itself again. Get it more Merkavas.

AntiochusIII

06-27-2006, 00:55

Take out the Ayatollah Khameni. Not Khomeni, he's dead.Why? Just another guy would replace him, even more zealous and well-defended

Cut Iran off from the rest of the middle east, half the terrorist groups lose their funding. China loses half its oil. We all win.Yeah... how?

And we'll have yet another country firmly united in the common glorious goal of hating the US, whereas now at least a few Iranians are sensible liberals (ahem, ahem) compare to their more zealous countrymen.

Crack down in Iraq. Defeat the insurgency at all costs. Same in Afghanistan. Take the nukes away from Pakistan. SEARCH KASHMIR FOR AQ LEADERSHIP (I swear, they are all in Kashmir). Introduce the Middle East to Classic Rock and Black Cherry flavored Soda.How do you know Bin Laden is in Kashmir? I always thought he works at The Bellagio over here in Vegas or something...

And why would you take the nukes from Pakistan alone? That pretty much gives India a free hand against them.

And I don't think the defeat of the insurgency is by the ruthless crackdown British Empire style anymore. That is, unless you are ready to something no less than a genocide.

Get more British SAS and Royal Marines to help us secure places. They're better at securing places and all, we just kill the bad guys. B-52s. Cracker Jacks.Okay...

If the British SAS and Royal Marines are really as good as you said in not shooting everybody, well, then it might be a good idea.

Give 200 billion dollars to Israel. Screw the national debt, we're at the point where it is so large we can begin to ignore it. Help Israel establish itself again. Get it more Merkavas.Erm...

Israel is perfectly capable of maintaining its own military, thank you. Far more capable than just about 95% of other countries in the world. I mean, how many nations could maintain its own design of a modern Main Battle Tank? Why help them and put America in an even worse financial state for nothing?

Tachikaze

06-27-2006, 02:10

Best convert to Islam then Tachi. Oh, and put Spain back under Islamic rule, punish the Austrians for stopping the Ottomans outside Vienna,reinstate the Caliphate and obliterate Israel. I think that just about covers what offends them.
Really? Have the "Islamo-Fascists" attacked every non-Muslim nation? Is that the only criterion?

Tachikaze

06-27-2006, 02:22

I think that just about covers what offends them.
More conservative generalizing that Redleg will probably ignore.

Reenk Roink

06-27-2006, 02:29

Did you just call Navaros a liberal?? :inquisitive:

It seems your definition of "liberal" indeed is "whoever disagrees with me"...

I think Div...err...Eclectic meant it is a broad statement, not only directed at Navaros...

Well, to be sure, Navaros can't be considered a 'conservative' in the sense either...

Hey, he hates Ann Coulter... :2thumbsup:

Education. Making sure that people know what Islam is, what it stands for, what it was intended to do, so they do not fall under the lying, cowardly abuse of the religion employed by Islamic fundamentalists.

You see, you do not blow up mosques and still claim to be a defender of the faith. You do not kill innocents in bomb blasts while Muhammad himself clearly stated that the lesser Jihad is all about punishing those that are guilty -- and only when they are conclusively proven to be so.

Ignorance is that universal factor that leads to extremism. Combat it through education and you will ensure that people will discard the lies of fundamentalism through simple, logic thought.

What comes in second place is providing them with a good living standard. People there are frustrated with their lot in life. If anything I'd gamble they'd like a stable income and a nice car more than the rules of the Taliban in over 99% of the cases. Making sure they have no frustration and jealousy towards the better-off regions in the world to vent is a sure-fire way to prevent that they will look for solutions in the shady sections of the political spectrum.

The best long term solution in my opinion. :rtwyes:

These people need a secular education to get them somewhere in life, and they need better, or shall I say, less selective and unexaggerated, religious education.

Think about the terrorists...

Not the well off leaders, who follow an ideology derived from Syed Qutb, who in turn was influenced by Wahhab, considered a deviant/heretic by the orthodox Ottoman scholars, who was influenced by Taymiyya, considered unorthodox at best by the orthodox scholars in his day.

But your average Abdul terrorist. How 'religious' is he?

Some of the 9-11 hijackers frequented strip clubs...

In a Rolling Stone interview with a former fighter who quit due to the killing of civilians by al-Qaeda, the guy did intoxicating drugs and fell for a non-Muslim waitress, while still a soldier...

Pretty telling I'd say...

Navaros

06-27-2006, 05:33

Did you just call Navaros a liberal?? :inquisitive:

It seems your definition of "liberal" indeed is "whoever disagrees with me"...

Actually I understand why he might do that and I don't think it's unreasonable for him to have done so.

These days society is divided into two camps for the most part: liberal and not-liberal.

Generally speaking, liberals must tow the line of being anti-"invade all the Muslims", and not-liberals must tow the line of "invade all the Muslims!"

Most people are not comfortable standing alone, so they conform to one of these two group-think mentalities so as not to fear being "cast out" of their fellow "group-thinkees". Not just about this issue, but about many issues in life.

It is highly rare for someone to exist outside such paradigms, hence it makes all the sense in the world for someone who was not familiar with my posting history to have made such a comment.

Mount Suribachi

06-27-2006, 06:20

More conservative generalizing that Redleg will probably ignore.

Generalising? More like stated goals of AQ.

Papewaio

06-27-2006, 06:47

English assassin

06-27-2006, 14:20

GoreBag

06-27-2006, 15:11

That worked real well in Canada. The great North that prided itself on bending over backwards not to offend anyone.

Homegrown terror cell. :book:

And no damage done, if I recall..

yesdachi

06-27-2006, 16:18

The value of life needs to be greater to them; they need to have something to live for that is not hating us. I’m not sure I know a realistic solution but all the easy ones are also easily derailed by the hate makers. We can do a thousand good deeds and they are all negated by one exploited mistake (and our mistake ratio is considerably more than 1:1,000) and IMO our own citizens are all too eager to exploit our mistakes, regardless of our intentions.

I think the only short term strategy is either less overall interaction (not likely) or more authoritative interaction. More education for them and less oil dependence for us are also good things but won’t happen in the short term.

Tachikaze

06-27-2006, 17:13

Generalising? More like stated goals of AQ.
Are all "Islamo-Fascists" (the topic of this forum) members of Al Qaeda?

Divinus Arma

06-27-2006, 20:59

That 5.3 workers per 100000 die each year in the USA or about 6600 (1995 study). That means the two towers was a 50% increase to about 7.9... it would put the USA on between France and Luxemburg for the fatality rates that year.

You just matter-of-factly discounted the lives of everyone who died on 9/11 as a "work fatality"?

:shame:

drone

06-27-2006, 22:24

You just matter-of-factly discounted the lives of everyone who died on 9/11 as a "work fatality"?

:shame:
Would you prefer "Excuse to trample civil liberties"?

9/11 was a tragic day, don't get me wrong. But we as a country dwell on it way too much, and the Powers That Be continue to exploit it for their own gain. 3000+ people added to the vast statistical pool of American deaths in 2001 don't make that much of a difference. Aside from the financial loss from the attacks, only 2 things stand out: it was a sudden, televised event, and the inordinately high loss of life from emergency services.

As it stands now, I would have to say the terrorists have won. We have a reduction of civil liberties, and people are still living in fear, even in prob 0% target zones. The US is not what it once was, all because we didn't tighten up a hideously loose airport security system that everyone knew was a problem.

Papewaio is right, the way to defeat them is to not let them control your life. Be mindful of them, support common sense actions to defend the country, but to live in fear is to surrender.

I've always been curious about this, on 9/11/2001, what did other .Orgahs do? The DC area was a ghost town, everybody went home around noon, kids got pulled out of schools. I stayed at work, didn't see any reason not to. What was it like in other cities (and other countries)?

Edit-> Oh yeah, I forgot. Yes, I do hate freedom. ~;)

Aenlic

06-27-2006, 22:40

Keba

06-27-2006, 23:07

I've always been curious about this, on 9/11/2001, what did other .Orgahs do? The DC area was a ghost town, everybody went home around noon, kids got pulled out of schools. I stayed at work, didn't see any reason not to. What was it like in other cities (and other countries)?

I got back from school to find a confusing direct feed of something that looked like an airplane hitting a skyscraper. I watched for the next fifteen minutes, frowned a bit, shook my head and wondered what in the nine hells was going on. I later caught it on the news, again and someone was nice enough to explain all those images (which, by the way, came without sound initially).

As for emotional response ... none really. Others I know reacted in varying ways, but it was pretty far away. It didn't affect daily lives at all, but most were at least somewhat affected by the events.

Watchman

06-28-2006, 01:24

this always wins:

http://www.nationalpaving.com/photos/Mcdonalds.jpg
Errr... soly ? Methinks that's pretty much exactly the symbol of what the wacky beardy guys are fighting against. The way I see it, Div... Eclectic actually hits pretty close to the target with the term "IslamoFascist". I mean, think about it. What was fascism as an ideology ?
Reactionarism. The denouncement of bewildering modernity which was casting down all kinds of dusty old values and traditions as "corrupt" and whatever and a quest to return to some mythical, trumped-up, romanticized, mystified Golden Age when everything was good and proper and Fine Upstanding Citizens could Get What They Were Due and People Behaved Themselves and so on and so on.

That's pretty much what the AQ boys and the rest are all about (not counting the straight opportunists "looking out for #1" or plain revolutionaries against corrupt regimes), really. The Muslim world has been on the receiving end of massive amounts of "Western" cultural influences and ideas for at least the past fifty years or so, and not a few of those still meet ferocious resistance from minority conservatives here - off-hand I can immediately name secularization, gay rights, abortion, gender equality and a couple of other things like disturbingly oversexed visual culture. And we have had in some cases almost half a millenia of prior experience in these sorts of major changes (not a few of them involved a whole lot of bloodletting here too for quite a while), and still aren't coping. How the Hell are they supposed to, all the more so as they're simultaneously going through slow and painful political reforms and trying to adapt to the increasingly hectic, ruthless and overbearing global economy ? Plus feeling themselves under attack by "the West", not wholly unjustly if you consider issues like Palestine or Afghanistan (and, as of late, Iraq and now Iran) from their perspective.

Small wonder really there's violent extremist sects turning up. What the heck we're supposed to do to get rid of them is really a bit beyond me. This isn't anymore an ideology we're talking about, it's a bloody meme like Nationalism or Communism or whatever it now exactly was the French Revolution let loose back in the day (this one was probably originally let loose by the Iranian Revolution, but had been brewing in fertile ground already for a while by that point). I don't know how to fight those; I don't think anyone really does. Great Powers with vast resources, including the brainpower-and-research departement, have unsuccesfully been trying to contain, disarm and/or exterminate these things for at least two hundred years now. Far as I know the working counters (or rather, local antibodies which largely immunized one community or another to the effects) were pretty much always stumbled on by accident, and only recognized ex post facto.

Papewaio

06-28-2006, 04:15

You just matter-of-factly discounted the lives of everyone who died on 9/11 as a "work fatality"?

:shame:

Twice as many people die due to work fatalities... is there a war on exposed flywheels, locked fire escapes, faulty electrical equipment, mine saftey?

No, why not? Because there is danger in everything we do. A lot of what we eat is carcinogenic...
burnt meat... cancer causing, but lack of iron causes issues such as anemia, uncooked meat can cause even worse problems.
Sun light... cancer causing, but lack of vitamin D causes a whole raft of issues.

It is about leveling the right response to the issue. Do you wear a crash helmet everytime you open a bottle of champagne? It could kill you.

Which is more deadly bees, sharks or coconuts?

How about mosquitos... they kill 2 million people per year by spreading maleria and other diseases.

How about dirty drinking water? 2 to 5 million people per year die just from diarrheal diseases, another half a million due to other diseases. Most of them will be children.

3000 people is alot, too many. But it is not a good enough reason to change our lives and quake in fear. It is not a good enough reason to give up hard won liberties for false securities.

Mount Suribachi

06-28-2006, 08:44

Are all "Islamo-Fascists" (the topic of this forum) members of Al Qaeda?

Not at all, but they are the biggest, the widest reaching and the best known of the various terror groups. And the point remains, their goals are extrememly hardline and go back to "injustices" from hundreds of years ago. And lets not forget OBL started out fighting Godless socialists. Just like you ~;)

That's pretty much what the AQ boys and the rest are all about (not counting the straight opportunists "looking out for #1" or plain revolutionaries against corrupt regimes), really. The Muslim world has been on the receiving end of massive amounts of "Western" cultural influences and ideas for at least the past fifty years or so, and not a few of those still meet ferocious resistance from minority conservatives here - off-hand I can immediately name secularization, gay rights, abortion, gender equality and a couple of other things like disturbingly oversexed visual culture. And we have had in some cases almost half a millenia of prior experience in these sorts of major changes (not a few of them involved a whole lot of bloodletting here too for quite a while), and still aren't coping. How the Hell are they supposed to, all the more so as they're simultaneously going through slow and painful political reforms and trying to adapt to the increasingly hectic, ruthless and overbearing global economy ? Plus feeling themselves under attack by "the West", not wholly unjustly if you consider issues like Palestine or Afghanistan (and, as of late, Iraq and now Iran) from their perspective.

Thats pretty much the best thing I've ever seen you write on here Watchman - I'm pretty certain we'd disagree on just about everything surrounding that; the rights and wrongs, whose fault it was, how to rememdy it etc. But as an analysis I think its just about spot on.

BDC

06-28-2006, 09:33

doc_bean

06-28-2006, 10:39

Hurin_Rules

06-28-2006, 17:45

Not sure if this has been said in the thread yet (I'm working on a dial up modem here for the summer, and time is precious), but the crucial thing is to bolster the moderate Muslims. Every Muslim country has its fair share of moderates who do not want to see every non-Muslim blown up in a giant fireball. These moderates have often been marginalized (or just plain scared) by the radicals, but ultimately they are the key to defeating Islamo-fascism.

How do we support the moderates? Well, by promoting democracy non-violently, adopting foreign policies that undermine rather than give a casus belli to radicalism, ending the policy of promoting despots because they serve western economic interests (the Bushites have been talking, although not really acting, more appropriately in this regard in recent years), contributing foreign aid, etc.

But first and foremost, above all of this is Israel. This is the giant fly in the ointment, the single greatest factor leading to Islamo-fascism today. Some solution must be achieved, and as soon as possible. Nothing is being done right now, and without an end to the Israel/Palestine mess, Islamofascism is here to stay. Personally, I think the US needs to lean on Israel to get out of the West Bank, and the Europeans need to lean on the Palestinians to give up terror. Again, it is a question of supporting moderates like Abbas; without support from America etc., we have seen what happened to Abbas: he lost his elections and his people chose the Islamofascists. That's what you get when you don't support the moderates.

Uesugi Kenshin

06-28-2006, 19:07

Originally Posted by drone
I've always been curious about this, on 9/11/2001, what did other .Orgahs do? The DC area was a ghost town, everybody went home around noon, kids got pulled out of schools. I stayed at work, didn't see any reason not to. What was it like in other cities (and other countries)?

I was at school when it happened, the administration didn't want us to know yet, apparently it would be better to hear it from our parents for one reason or other. Luckily my Social Studies teacher decided to grab a TV and show her classes and tell us everything she knew.

Seamus Fermanagh

06-28-2006, 19:16

Reality tv. No one is going to bomb anywhere if they're following the exploits of a bunch of bored D-list celebs in a jungle. Make a radio version for extra penetration into poorer regions. Give out free tvs and electricity too.

Whilst you're at it give out free water and gas for heating/cooking. Really hard to be angry at the people who are literally keeping you.

A modern version of panem et circum? There is historical precedent for the concept, I agree -- but it is not without its flaws.

However, I disagree completely with your last statement regarding the one's "keeping you." History suggests that this alone breeds hatred and contempt by the kept for their keepers along with condescension and disrespect by the keepers for those in their charge. This rears its head among guards and prisoners -- even where those roles have been assigned for an experiment! -- and among children and parents (teen-agers growing up).

Seamus Fermanagh

06-28-2006, 19:24

Build faster then they can destroy.
Smile.
That 5.3 workers per 100000 die each year in the USA or about 6600 (1995 study). That means the two towers was a 50% increase to about 7.9... it would put the USA on between France and Luxemburg for the fatality rates that year./]

I have to agree with the Eclectic DivArm on this Pappy. Your tone is too dismissive of my fellow citizens' (and guests') murders. I think your subtext -- don't let the need to revenge 3,000 out of 300 million distort your ability to function -- may have some validity, but I too was annoyed with the way it is phrased herein.

[QUOTE=Papewaio]Play nicely with the ones who aren't fascists.
Play harsh but by our rules against the ones who are facists.
Go for the financiers.
Go in with overwhelming force.
Expect casualities. Plan on them and equip to patrol in an urban environment. Prioritise for Armoured troops, vehicles, medical support and all associated training, not stealth fighters and B-52 bombers don't play to the asymmetry.

Have a Goal. Goals have aims and endpoints, dreams have aims but no endpoint.

Consolidate your powerbase and eliminate theirs. It is far more cost effective to provide clean water, farming tools and basic education with higher education scholarships then to randomly drop bombs on mountains hoping you hit the person you thought might have been there.

The rest of this advice is sound. The USA has enjoyed greater success wherever some of these points were kept in mind. Our success has been too costly where we have not. However, the last point listed -- a classic of the "hearts and minds" approach, has all too been twisted against us (though your education sub-point is a nice touch).

Silver Rusher

06-28-2006, 19:31

That's exactly what happened to the Palestinians 60 years ago. We need to fix what the Brits screwed up.
Tut tut tut... always blaming us for everything :wall:

Aenlic

06-28-2006, 21:56

Tut tut tut... always blaming us for everything :wall:

Ok, well, not all Brits. Mostly the Peel Commission. And a few others, like Parliament, various PM's, the League of Nations and eventually the UN. The U.S. is guilty as well. And the Arabs and Jews, of course. Still, I'd like to hop in a time machine and pop in on the Peel Commission and yell, "What were you thinking?" while smacking them heartily with a rolled up newspaper.

But, really now, for such a tiny nation you guys sure have stuck your fingers in an awful lot of pies over the past few centuries; and the results haven't been particularly stellar. Just be glad that the current pie-sticker is the USA; which takes a lot of the pressure off you.

Watchman

06-28-2006, 21:56

Oh come on, you guys and the French buggered the whole region unto the seventh generation already after WW1.

Mount Suribachi

06-28-2006, 23:01

To be fair, the great powers of the world have been screwing around with the Middle East for 3000 years. To blame it all on Britain and France is to wear blinkers.

I just wish Finland had been a global superpower at one stage, then we could blame all the worlds evils on you.

Watchman

06-28-2006, 23:07

You wish. The best we've ever managed was being the Swedes' major recruitement zone, and that was because our backwoods were so poor conscription-excempt noble estates were fewer here.

Okay, we sided with Hitler too. But all *that* netted us was ass-kicking.

Much of the current buggery in the Middle East is, however, related to the way the French and the English (plus, one presumes, a few other scavengers) partitioned the former Ottoman territories to their liking and paid pretty much zero attention to the locals in process. Most of the rest can be blamed on the mess in Palestine, Cold War, oil, or any combination thereof.

Ancient history has preciously little to do with it.

Papewaio

06-29-2006, 03:32

Build faster then they can destroy.
Smile.
That 5.3 workers per 100000 die each year in the USA or about 6600 (1995 study). That means the two towers was a 50% increase to about 7.9... it would put the USA on between France and Luxemburg for the fatality rates that year.

I have to agree with the Eclectic DivArm on this Pappy. Your tone is too dismissive of my fellow citizens' (and guests') murders. I think your subtext -- don't let the need to revenge 3,000 out of 300 million distort your ability to function -- may have some validity, but I too was annoyed with the way it is phrased herein.

I'm not being dismissive of their deaths. I'm being dismissive of the damage done. AQ didn't do anymore damage then half normal yearly deaths through work. When put in that context they go from being something to fear to something to swat and forget.

Would you give up your privacy rights if you lived in Luxemburg so that the government could make the work place safer? No way, because the security blanket is not worth the loss of rights. Yet if the US had Luxemburgs worker death rate it would be the equivalent of two sets of twin towers every year, that is 30,000 in the last 5 years. Think about it. Would you give up your privacy rights in the US to attempt to halve the rate of deaths in the work place? Why not? Thats 3000 people per year?

3000 is a terrible number, but is it worth losing freedom for. Surely it should be the other way round, it should be something to remind us to fight for our collective values not to be rounded up like cattle to the yards. Why should we give up so much privacy and go around in a continual state of alert but not alarmed when there are so many things that are far more hazardous to us in our daily lives. A sense of proportion for our reaction has to be regained.

Divinus Arma

06-29-2006, 15:25

I never thought I would agree with Watchman, but I do. Great points on the culture-clash of Globalization v. Muslim UltraConservatism.

And Hurin Rules, I agree that Israel is a major fly in the ointment. We certainly disagree as to a solution, but I can at least agree that Israel is the preeminent undercurrent of Muslim Anti-western sentiment.

I think the solution for Islamo-fascism begins with Israel. The question is what to do?

Destruction of either side will not happen. And I unedrstand the position of both parties, as well as the tactics of both.

Palestinians, being incapable of arming and sustaining a regular order force of any consequence, engage in asymmetrical warfare and launch from civilian areas in order to create the military versus public realtions decision dilemma for Israel. Palestinians rightfully desire statehood in their homeland, economic prosperity, and freedom of movement.

Israelis, on the other hand, are in a position of military and economic strength, but suffer from international condemnation of their defense decisions against Palestinian tactics. They cannot give in entirely to the military conflict and allow constant bombardment by Palestinian rockets and suicide bombers, since they will never be seen as the victim due to their economic prosperity and thus never recieve international support against Palestinian tactics, no matter how softly they walk. Likewise, they can not engage in a full scale military war against palestinians because the "solution" would be as evil as the Jews' own experience.

There can be only one answer. Israel must pull out of its settlements in Palestinian areas. The Palestinian government must then completely abandon assymetrical warfare tactics. If Palestinians are to recieve unconditional western support, then they must be unconditional victims. You can not claim to be a victim when you launch rockets while hiding behind families.

I am a staunch supporter of Israel, but I would not support them if Israel launched new unprovoked incursions into Palestinian lands.

Palestine would then win the PR war, and win themselves statehood and prosperity.

Seamus Fermanagh

06-29-2006, 18:07

I'm not being dismissive of their deaths. I'm being dismissive of the damage done. AQ didn't do anymore damage then half normal yearly deaths through work. When put in that context they go from being something to fear to something to swat and forget.

Would you give up your privacy rights if you lived in Luxemburg so that the government could make the work place safer? No way, because the security blanket is not worth the loss of rights. Yet if the US had Luxemburgs worker death rate it would be the equivalent of two sets of twin towers every year, that is 30,000 in the last 5 years. Think about it. Would you give up your privacy rights in the US to attempt to halve the rate of deaths in the work place? Why not? Thats 3000 people per year?

3000 is a terrible number, but is it worth losing freedom for. Surely it should be the other way round, it should be something to remind us to fight for our collective values not to be rounded up like cattle to the yards. Why should we give up so much privacy and go around in a continual state of alert but not alarmed when there are so many things that are far more hazardous to us in our daily lives. A sense of proportion for our reaction has to be regained.

The question of freedom/privacy versus the need to be effective at countering terrorist attacks is important, and it is tough to come up with an ideal answer. After all, if you restrict freedoms and privacy so much that we are no less an expression of fascism than they, then why fight -- you've already lost. However, I think there is a fundamental difference between the unfortunate loss of life in Luxembourg (mining accidents mostly, I suppose) and the purposive murder of innocents. To the individuals and families involved, any death is a tragedy, but the purposive attack by an "outside force" of one's citizens is a direct breach of the social contract between government and the governed -- it's one of the basic purposes for government.

We manage to kill 30,000 of our fellow citizens with automobiles on an annual basis, and we work to limit that loss, but it is not qualitatively in the same category, howevermuch the deaths of those individuals are equivalent as individuals. This qualitative difference is central for me, in that the War on Terror -- and we agree that there are any number of components that could have been/still could be handled better -- is not out of proportion because of the role/nature of government.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

06-29-2006, 21:25

Kill 'em? Kiss 'em? Bribe 'em?
All of the above, in reverse order. #2 only if they were women.

Pannonian

06-29-2006, 21:49

There can be only one answer. Israel must pull out of its settlements in Palestinian areas. The Palestinian government must then completely abandon assymetrical warfare tactics. If Palestinians are to recieve unconditional western support, then they must be unconditional victims. You can not claim to be a victim when you launch rockets while hiding behind families.

I've wondered what the reaction would be in Israel and America if the Palestinians were to stop terrorist attacks completely, offer to allow the settlers to stay on Palestinian land, but declare a state of Palestine encompassing all the land within the 1967 borders, with any settlers left inside no longer Israeli citizens but Palestinian citizens, paying taxes to the PA and subject to Palestinian law. This solution would conform to international law and agreements in just about every way.

Watchman

06-29-2006, 23:36

I seem to recall there being something like a year-long and rather one-sided truce by Hamas not all that long ago, you know.
IIRC Israel mainly used the occasion to assasinate more Hamas bigwigs (often with airstrikes and massive collateral damage; why the Hell do you need to use a Hellfire to kill an old man in a wheelchair in a packed mosque front yard anyway...?).

I guess that's one way to build neighbourly relations.

Anyway, the stupid part of the whole thing is that both sides have what the other wants, and could actually afford to give it too. The Palestinians simply need land; enough to build a wholly viable sovereign state on (becoming Israeli citizens is another alternative, but for numerous reasons - some of them rather petty and stupid IMHO - only very theoretically). Israel needs security, mainly from angry and bitter Palestinians who want land.

Israel has the land - it sure as heck isn't going to need all of it to survive, and in any case respite from the constant fighting alone ought to compensate for the costs. Palestinians have the guerillas - should the original resons those exist in the first place be taken away, odds are they'd make like IRA.

Seems simple enough. Israel gives land, Palestinians stop trying to drive them from it. Both can go do something more sensible.

Where it gets :wall: is that both have way more than enough uncompromising hardliners with enough influence to make things really difficult (Eretz Yisrael and the desire to eradicate Israel are tied in moronic wistfulness, IMHO), and both parties refuse to move before the other makes the first move - coupled with a lovable tendency to refuse to see anything the other guy does as that first move and not a nefarious plot.

...I'm starting to see why some scholars in my discipline see trust as so important in general...

I never thought I would agree with Watchman, but I do. Great points on the culture-clash of Globalization v. Muslim UltraConservatism. :bow: , I guess. I do try.

rotorgun

07-01-2006, 04:13

Ok, well, not all Brits. Mostly the Peel Commission. And a few others, like Parliament, various PM's, the League of Nations and eventually the UN. The U.S. is guilty as well. And the Arabs and Jews, of course. Still, I'd like to hop in a time machine and pop in on the Peel Commission and yell, "What were you thinking?" while smacking them heartily with a rolled up newspaper.

But, really now, for such a tiny nation you guys sure have stuck your fingers in an awful lot of pies over the past few centuries; and the results haven't been particularly stellar. Just be glad that the current pie-sticker is the USA; which takes a lot of the pressure off you.
Not meaning to offend our British bretheren here, but I tend to agree with most of what Aenlic says. In a sense, the whole situation in Iraq, and the Middle East in general is a mess left behind when the British empire began to dissolve after WWII, no? The whole Iraq thing came about by arbitrarily creating a single nation out of three completely disparite groups of people to begin with, all to consolidate ownership of the oil fields I might add. As far as the Isreal issue goes, that's what comes of just shoving a nation down the throats of the people currently living there with no thought about how it was going to be recieved.

Now I am not saying that the United States has a clean nose in all this, but we sure do seem to get involved with cleaning up alot of international clutter, to include our own. I have read somewhere that the only reason that the, so called, coalition is so adamant on keeping Iraq as one nation, instead of dividing it into the three nations it actually is, is to protect the British interests in the oil field. It seems that it was a condition of their cooperation with the Bush/Cheney administration. I just hope it all works out.

Aenlic

07-01-2006, 04:17

Redleg

07-01-2006, 15:34

Well thanks for the defense, Rotorgun; although I wasn't being entirely serious. :wink:

I pic on the Brits, because for the most part they are capable of taking a bit of ribbing, as opposed to so many on this side of the pond who suffer from severe pompous ass-umptions.

And after all, the whole thing with the Peel Commission is history now. The current culprit is the U.S., which has a bad history of not learning from history.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Especially since your just as guilty as the next individual....

Most individuals when they make assumptions will normally make an ass of themselves. I made one in a thread - and you made several in the same thread.

Carrying the comments to another thread demonstrates a point very well. That one often fails to learn from thier own mistakes.

Israel, Palenstine, Iraq, Afganstan, and several other situations comes to mind that again demonstrate that point very well. Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

Thanks very kindly for demonstrating that point once again Aenlic

I am rather amused by your own failure to learn.

:laugh4:

Aenlic

07-02-2006, 00:11

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Especially since your just as guilty as the next individual....

Most individuals when they make assumptions will normally make an ass of themselves. I made one in a thread - and you made several in the same thread.

Carrying the comments to another thread demonstrates a point very well. That one often fails to learn from thier own mistakes.

Israel, Palenstine, Iraq, Afganstan, and several other situations comes to mind that again demonstrate that point very well. Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

Thanks very kindly for demonstrating that point once again Aenlic

I am rather amused by your own failure to learn.

:laugh4:

Did you just try on a shoe and claim it fits, Redleg? Really now, the world doesn't revolve around you as much as you think. If you're going to follow me around like some pathetic little lost puppy, the least you could do is wag your tail and look cute. We can pick up girls that way. :laugh4:

Redleg

07-02-2006, 03:50

Did you just try on a shoe and claim it fits, Redleg? Really now, the world doesn't revolve around you as much as you think. If you're going to follow me around like some pathetic little lost puppy, the least you could do is wag your tail and look cute. We can pick up girls that way. :laugh4:

To bad you really haven't learned from the history, its really rather amusing.

Continue on......:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Aenlic

07-02-2006, 06:03

To bad you really haven't learned from the history, its really rather amusing.

Continue on......:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Yep, tried on the shoe, and not only did it fit; but you're claiming it was custom made too. Not everything is about you, Redleg. I realize that comes as a shock to you. Sit down and take deep breaths. There, now. Feel better?

Here's a clue, so you can avoid engaging in the old Chinese proverb about open mouths next time. Try not to take yourself too seriously. None of the rest of us do... take you seriously, that is. :laugh4:

AntiochusIII

07-02-2006, 13:47

Back to topic:

"the great questions of the day will not be decided by speeches and the resolutions of majorities...but by blood and iron."

:mellow:

Keba

07-02-2006, 14:32

Back to topic:

"the great questions of the day will not be decided by speeches and the resolutions of majorities...but by blood and iron."

:mellow:

Ya, that one worked real well so far, didn't it? Only had to rebuild continents (usually Europe) several times.

Besides, these days, it would be decided by ashes and atoms, not blood and iron.

Redleg

07-02-2006, 14:32

Yep, tried on the shoe, and not only did it fit; but you're claiming it was custom made too. Not everything is about you, Redleg. I realize that comes as a shock to you. Sit down and take deep breaths. There, now. Feel better?

It seems your still assuming things not in evidence. Must be the failure to learn from history. :laugh4: :laugh4:

Here's a clue, so you can avoid engaging in the old Chinese proverb about open mouths next time. Try not to take yourself too seriously. None of the rest of us do... take you seriously, that is. :laugh4:

Still rather amusing - it seems you really don't understand the lessons of history.....about your own behavior that is......:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Redleg

07-02-2006, 16:13

Now that I have amused myself....

Back on topic.

How to defeat the extremists that are called Islamic fundmentalists, and in some cases refered to as Islamo-fascists. There are even other names but one does not need to get stuck on a name - only focus on the concept of what it is about. (that is the first step.)

If you don't understand the nature of the problem you can not find a solution to it.

Now some would state education would resolve part of the issue. That is not a bad answer but it not complete. One can be educated but have no understanding. One can be educated but be full of baised views that the lessons of history are ignored.

Then there is the very nature of the regimes where the extremist fundmentalism has taken root. Most if not all are based upon some type of despotism - where a single ruler has control over the whole nation. Saudi Arabia for instance has a King but that King uses the religious police to enforce laws that are not necessarily in the civil code. This is often overlooked in the West because the west focuses on theoracy in Iran. Both of these nations have some of the same issues concerning their extremists. While the focus is vastly different in many cases - the similiarities are present.
One fosters the extremists by its own contradictions - one activily invites the extremists because of its focus.

Now the equation becomes even more difficult.
How does one defeat extremist behavior in a nation that one considers to be an ally? How does one defeat extremist behavior in a nation that one is attempting to build a relationship with? How does one defeat extremist behavior in a nation that one considers to the enemy?

To claim education would solve the problem does not provide an adequate answer.
To claim that removing proverty will solve the problem does not provide an adequate answer.
To claim that democracy will solve the problem does not provide an adequate answer.
To leave the problem alone - well frankly is to not learn from the lessons of the past.

So what is the best start to defeat the fundmental extremists that call themselves muslims.

Frankly, here is where President Bush and his adminstration screwed up. An opporunity to use all three areas that I believe would help solve some of the issues that cause fundmental extremists to use violence was lost.

After 9/11 the world was willing to listen, to focus as a world community to attempt to solve the problem. Communication between groups was following the true concept of communication - people were discussing issues and attempting to resolve them by actually listening. The invasion of Afganstan to remove the Taliban was seen as the correct course of action because of the failure of the Taliban Regime to have an open dialoge to remove the extremists that used terror from their midst.

There was a strong opporunity that was lost to reverse the course of the extremist mindset. Because the United States Adminstration failed to learn a critical lesson of the past. Just because you can fight two wars at the same time - doesn't mean its the best course of action to follow. That sometimes it is best to finish one operation before moving on to the next. Iraq had to be resolved, but most likely it could of waited for the year or two that would of seen the completion of military operations in Afganstan and the rebuilding to begin to have major impact.

Rebuilding Afganstan into a democracy that the people wanted would of been a better lesson in history for the world to see. Defeat of the extremist regime, rebuilding what was destroyed, allowing the people to chose their own form of government, and capturing or destorying the violent extremists might have actually reduced their impact upon the world. However because of the failure of the adminstration to stay focused on the task at hand - which had the world community backing - to include nations where fundmental extremists have a major impact - the United States did indeed lost a major opporunity to help solve a problem.

No matter how much I believe that Saddam Regime should have been removed - I would be using blinders if I did not agree that Afganstan should have been finished first. Economy of force often works better when its concenerated on one task at a time.

Then there is the very nature of the Islamic faith that must be addressed by the leaders of that religion. The activities of the fundmental extremists seems to be having a impact on the more moderate followers of Islam. More and more religious leaders are condemning the acts of violence done in the name of Islam.

And now we get to the main point - for extremists to be defeated requires a concentrated effort of both the outsiders of that religion and from within the religion itself. Until both happens in concert - the problem will continue.

Fragony

07-02-2006, 16:31

Ancient history has preciously little to do with it.

As long as it serves as an excuse, it does.

Islamo facists are just a little better at the propaganda, and all the fundi's and their leftist allies oh so willingly fall for it. It is just blind hate nothing more, they play their mind like a violenmaster does his Stradivarius. Saw a lovely piece of Iranian television, a pretty goodlooking hostes asked a 5 year old girl what she thought about jews. Well that 5 year old must have gone trough a lot given the filth she managed to recite. In a display that can only be described as orgasmic the hostess proclaimed 'isn't she cute, i 'd eat her alive'. Islamic facists know only hate, so the only way to stop them is killing them. They want it anyway so they can respect each and every one of their 72 virgins so we have the same aim in mind.

rory_20_uk

07-02-2006, 16:52

In a body, when tissue becomes so diseased, necrotic and soaked in poison it has t be excised until the surrounding flesh bleeds (to show it is still healthy). It doesn't matter how it got to this state, it needs to be removed.

I mention this as it seems to be the same with this area. I view it as unsalvagable without a wide excision.

The necrotic mass in the centre is burned to stop the poison speading systemically. With the increase in Islamic fundamentalists spreading through other societies we may have been to late - but we can still try.

~:smoking:

Aenlic

07-02-2006, 23:18

Now that I have amused myself....

Back on topic.

Except for the pompous attitude expressed above, not a bad post, Redleg.

I've not quoted all of the post, because it speaks for itself. But I must ask some questions. If you can avoid being pompous, as demonstrated at the beginning of your post, perhaps we can have a meaningful discussion. Hmm?

Earlier in the post you seemed to define Islamic Fundamentalists as extremists, in the context of this discussion. Please correct me if that is not the case. Are all religious fundamentalists extremists? I think some clarification is needed to avoid confusion. I'm not questioning it, one way or the other. I just want to be absolutely sure a double standard isn't being applied before we continue.

And now we get to the main point - for extremists to be defeated requires a concentrated effort of both the outsiders of that religion and from within the religion itself. Until both happens in concert - the problem will continue.

Shouldn't we also clean our own house before asking that others clean theirs? It seems to me that before we insist that a group or country or religion fight religious extremism, that we should do it at home as well. If Islamic Fundamentalism is equivalent to extremism, then isn't Chrisitian Fundamentalism also equivalent to extremism? What about Jewish Fundamentalism? And if our own president subscribes to that very same Christian Fundamentalism, characterized by evangelism and a belief that the "end times" are near, then isn't it a bit of a double standard for us to insist that Islamic Fundamentalism be removed from Islam?

If, however, the definition of extremism as applied to religious fundamentalism must include violence then we are still not free from the same. We can't claim that we don't have our home grown, non-Islamic religious and philosophical extremists. We have religious extremists setting off bombs at Planned Parenthood clinics and Olympic events, don't we? We have extremists blowing up federal buildings. We have extremists touring the country disrupting military funerals to promote extremist Christian religious positions.

I think it deserves some discussion, least, as to whether or not we're being a bit premature in insisting that others clean the windows in their own glass houses.

I also highly recommend reading The Clash of Civilizations by Samuel P. Huntington, but then also reading this excellent critique of Huntington (http://www.transnational.org/features/2002/Loy_WestvsRest.html) by David Loy. Reality, I think, resides somewhere in between the two.

In the end, I can't help but wonder if perhaps we are going too far in suggesting that we are simply bringing freedom and democracy to the rest of the world, while at the same time insisting that for that freedom and democracy to be real it must include MacDonalds and emaciated skimpily-clad cocaine-using models and Simon Cowel. (shrug)

Redleg

07-02-2006, 23:51

Except for the pompous attitude expressed above, not a bad post, Redleg.

You might want to stop with the pot calling the kettle black type of comments because it does not lead to intelligent conservations.

I've not quoted all of the post, because it speaks for itself. But I must ask some questions. If you can avoid being pompous, as demonstrated at the beginning of your post, perhaps we can have a meaningful discussion. Hmm?

You want an intelligent converstation then have one - check your ego at the door.

Remember this simple fact - I respond in the same manner in which people initial use toward me. When you respond in the manner in which you wish to be addressed - then I will address myself in the same manner. Don't scream that I am being pompous when many of your posts are even more pompous and egostastical then my own. By the way you can correct my spelling of egostastical if you so desire. I am only an edumated redneck.

Earlier in the post you seemed to define Islamic Fundamentalists as extremists, in the context of this discussion. Please correct me if that is not the case.

Close enough not to quibble over, but I will clarify what I mean exactly during the continuation of this post. Edit: I broke your post down in the manner in which I could best answer your questions and keep track of what my thoughts are on the questions posed, this was to keep it simple for me - but if it creates more confusion then just inform me.

Futher edit: After reading through my response - I see that I included things several times, answered a question earlier then posed, but i will leave it alone for now. If its to confusing then I will write a couple of paragraphs without attempting to quote your follow-up post. Just inform me of which way you perfer.

Are all religious fundamentalists extremists?

Nope - not all religious fundamentalists are extremists. I normally associate extremists with those that advocate violence in order to convert others to their belief. For instance Witnesses are fundmentalists but I would not call them extremists - since they do not attempt to force me to believe as they do.

I think some clarification is needed to avoid confusion. I'm not questioning it, one way or the other. I just want to be absolutely sure a double standard isn't being applied before we continue.

No double standard is being applied by myself. Some do call fundmentalist beliefs to be extremists - which does sort of fit into the definition of extremists - but for the purpose of this discussion - lets focus only on the fundmental extremists that advocate violence in order to convert or force others into their belief patterns. Its a lot more complex then that - but without face to face discussion - it would be to easy to get wrapped into the weeds of the discussion without focusing on the trees.

Shouldn't we also clean our own house before asking that others clean theirs?

I ask you why both can not be accomplished at the same time. Should a free nation not stand up against tyranny imposed upon the many by the few regardless if their house is in complete order? Should we a nation of free people not express our dissatification with the religious tyranny of violence imposed upon the world by fundmential extremists?

You read a lot of history - image if you will if the world would of confronted the despotism of Hilter when it first started?

One should never turn a blind eye to a wrong because your house is not completely clean. Another anolgy would fall into this line of reasoning. Why should I not help my neighbor repair his house, to prevent it from collasping around his ears? Would the excuse that my house is dirty, be a justified reason for not rendering aid and assistance when I spot the crumbling foundation of his house?

It seems to me that before we insist that a group or country or religion fight religious extremism, that we should do it at home as well. If Islamic Fundamentalism is equivalent to extremism, then isn't Chrisitian Fundamentalism also equivalent to extremism?

The answer to your question is above - but to clarify I don't consider fundmentialism in itself to be incorrect or wrong. The issue I have is when the fundmentialist begins to advocate violence - then its crossed a line into being a fundmential extremist. Some would consider chrisitian fundamentalism to be also extremists - and I would agree if the fundamentalist is advocating violence. For examble I have the fundmental belief that I am against abortion, but I do not advocate the destruction of abortion clinics - that is going to an extreme. The extreme being the use of violence to force others to believe as I believe.

What about Jewish Fundamentalism? And if our own president subscribes to that very same Christian Fundamentalism, characterized by evangelism and a belief that the "end times" are near, then isn't it a bit of a double standard for us to insist that Islamic Fundamentalism be removed from Islam?

I don't advocate removing Islamic Fundamentalism from their religion - I advocate the removing of the individuals who believe that violence is the right expression of that fundmental belief. The expression, advocation, and conducting of violence is where the fundamentalist crosses the line into fundmental extremist.

Each individual is entitled and has the right to their personal belief - regardless of how I belief or not - but they do not have the right to force thier beliefs on others by violence or fear.

Yes the United States has been guilty of this in the past as a Nation State, but that does not mean that the United States should not protest nor attempt to remove the cancer that is Islamic Fundmental extremist behavior from influencing the world. Is there a better way then using violence, should this have been addressed more carefully by the elected officials?

The answer to that question is yes - but reality does not always remember that there might be peaceful solutions to the problem.

The arguement that it creates more problems in the short run is sound - but when one looks at history - to the extremist views of facism and the corruption of communism into the advocation of violence - how can one not advocate the standing up for freedom of all individuals.

If, however, the definition of extremism as applied to religious fundamentalism must include violence then we are still not free from the same. We can't claim that we don't have our home grown, non-Islamic religious and philosophical extremists. We have religious extremists setting off bombs at Planned Parenthood clinics and Olympic events, don't we? We have extremists blowing up federal buildings. We have extremists touring the country disrupting military funerals to promote extremist Christian religious positions.

This is correct - and I will point out one sentence from above One should never turn a blind eye to a wrong because your house is not completely clean. You may feel free to disagree with that conclusion based upon the fact that it makes the action seem hypocritical, but what is hypocrisy when applied to the world stage and confronting violence?

I think it deserves some discussion, least, as to whether or not we're being a bit premature in insisting that others clean the windows in their own glass houses.

Discussion is above - feel free to disagree with the premise of my arguement. But I don't see it as an anology of which is cleaner - but which is dirty and which is about to collaspe.

I also highly recommend reading The Clash of Civilizations by Samuel P. Huntington, but then also reading this excellent critique of Huntington (http://www.transnational.org/features/2002/Loy_WestvsRest.html) by David Loy. Reality, I think, resides somewhere in between the two.

Sometime in the future prehaps - the recent business trip was for training on turning a directed work system into a self directed work team (also called a high performance team.) I will have to much professional reading to do over the next two months to prepare myself for this transition in management/leadership styles.

In the end, I can't help but wonder if perhaps we are going too far in suggesting that we are simply bringing freedom and democracy to the rest of the world, while at the same time insisting that for that freedom and democracy to be real it must include MacDonalds and emaciated skimpily-clad cocaine-using models and Simon Cowel. (shrug)

I would agree that its going too far if the people are not allowed to form the government system of thier choice. A democratic theoracy might just work in the middle-east (given the examble of Iran) if the theoracy is willing to allow people freedom of expression. The flavor of democracy will be different - but its not necessarily wrong regradless of the form it takes.

Aenlic

07-03-2006, 01:24

You might want to stop with the pot calling the kettle black type of comments because it does not lead to intelligent conservations.

You want an intelligent converstation then have one - check your ego at the door.

Remember this simple fact - I respond in the same manner in which people initial use toward me. When you respond in the manner in which you wish to be addressed - then I will address myself in the same manner. Don't scream that I am being pompous when many of your posts are even more pompous and egostastical then my own. By the way you can correct my spelling of egostastical if you so desire. I am only an edumated redneck.

Well, apparently, you aren't capable of avoiding being pompous. So, I guess it was a lost cause to hope for it. Is the condition congenital or the result of some blunt force trauma to the head?

Close enough not to quibble over, but I will clarify what I mean exactly during the continuation of this post. Edit: I broke your post down in the manner in which I could best answer your questions and keep track of what my thoughts are on the questions posed, this was to keep it simple for me - but if it creates more confusion then just inform me.

Futher edit: After reading through my response - I see that I included things several times, answered a question earlier then posed, but i will leave it alone for now. If its to confusing then I will write a couple of paragraphs without attempting to quote your follow-up post. Just inform me of which way you perfer.

I must admit, I am impressed by this continuing display of pomposity. I asked if you could manage a cogent post without it, and you proved that you couldn't. C'est la vie. Can you just not see how pompous the above is? I asked you to stop being pompous and you can't seem to do so. Tell you what. I'll stop calling you on it, when you stop doing it. Fair enough?

Nope - not all religious fundamentalists are extremists. I normally associate extremists with those that advocate violence in order to convert others to their belief. For instance Witnesses are fundmentalists but I would not call them extremists - since they do not attempt to force me to believe as they do.

They don't? Religious fundamentalists in this country had "under God" added to the pledge of allegiance in the mid-1950's. All immigrants to this country are required to say the pledge of allegiance in order to attain citizenship (they are also required to take an oath stating that they are not communists, although most people don't know that). Is that not forcing people to believe a certain thing? They have two choices, if they wish to participate in this land of freedom and democracy, one is to take a pledge with which they may not agree, as perhaps atheists or animists or some other non-montheist religion, or they can pack up and go home. Seems rather forceful to me. The last sentence in the above post seems to clearly equate extremism not just with violence but with "force" in a less physical sense. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase it?

No double standard is being applied by myself. Some do call fundmentalist beliefs to be extremists - which does sort of fit into the definition of extremists - but for the purpose of this discussion - lets focus only on the fundmental extremists that advocate violence in order to convert or force others into their belief patterns. Its a lot more complex then that - but without face to face discussion - it would be to easy to get wrapped into the weeds of the discussion without focusing on the trees.

I didn't suggest that you were applying a double standard. I needed clarification. I asked for it and you provided it.

I don't think you can apply a condition of violence as being the only coercive force involved. Many Islamic fundamentalists see the "West" as forcing non-Islamic values upon them. Their reaction is to push back. Sadly, that gives the extremists a starting point in recruiting.

Since you seem to be fond of history, I would remind you of an infamous incident in Iran under the West-supported Shah. He made a law requiring students to dress in western fashion at state-supported schools. This came on top of other laws restricting traditional Islamic dress. This resulted in a peaceful protest by students and women and children, wearing Islamic dress. They were ordered to disperse, in spite of just being a peaceful protest march. They were gunned down by the machinegun-wielding SAVAK members. Hundreds of students and children and women were killed. It was one of the last straws before the revolution which kicked out the Shah and installed an "extremist" Islamic government. Sadly, the U.S. continues to support the Shah's son, Reza Cyrus Pahlavi, in his political aspiration, even though much of his supporter groups consist of ex-SAVAK secret police members.

Ignoring the part we in the West have played in causing Islamic fundamentalist extremism is folly.

I ask you why both can not be accomplished at the same time. Should a free nation not stand up against tyranny imposed upon the many by the few regardless if their house is in complete order? Should we a nation of free people not express our dissatification with the religious tyranny of violence imposed upon the world by fundmential extremists?

We can, but not if we condemn it out of one side of our mouths while promoting our own form of tyranny with another. The rest of the world doesn't necessarily see our brand of capitalist-powered "democracy" as a good thing. But we ignore tend to ignore that.

You read a lot of history - image if you will if the world would of confronted the despotism of Hilter when it first started?

The world didn't confront Hitler when he started. FDR had to practically drag an isolationist and, in some cases, pro-Hitler capitalist aristocracy. Don't forget that people like Henry Ford praised Hitler, or that Harriman and our current president's grandfather made fortunes dealing with Hitler in the 1930's (and, in fact, several of the companies associated with Prescott Bush and Harrriman had their assets siezed under the "Trading with the Enemy Act" of 1942)

One should never turn a blind eye to a wrong because your house is not completely clean. Another anolgy would fall into this line of reasoning. Why should I not help my neighbor repair his house, to prevent it from collasping around his ears? Would the excuse that my house is dirty, be a justified reason for not rendering aid and assistance when I spot the crumbling foundation of his house?

I agree on this whole-heartedly. As long as it isn't simply a platitude and it'll be back to business as usual of ignoring our own limitations, culpability and aggression while condemning others.

The answer to your question is above - but to clarify I don't consider fundmentialism in itself to be incorrect or wrong. The issue I have is when the fundmentialist begins to advocate violence - then its crossed a line into being a fundmential extremist. Some would consider chrisitian fundamentalism to be also extremists - and I would agree if the fundamentalist is advocating violence. For examble I have the fundmental belief that I am against abortion, but I do not advocate the destruction of abortion clinics - that is going to an extreme. The extreme being the use of violence to force others to believe as I believe.

What about economic coercion and threats? What about things like Freeport-McMoRan essentially owning the entire government of Indonesia as that country's largest taxpayer? It is the source of much of the Islamic extremism in Indonesia (the most populous Muslim-majority nation in the world). I don't think you can just limit the argument to violence. Because violence isn't the source of the anger of Islamic extremists. It's their tactic in response, yes. But we can't ignore the foundations of the conflict and win. As an example, I'd point out the Marshall Plan after WWII. If we'd ignored the fundamental reasons for the rise of Hitler, then we wouldn't have engaged in a plan which effectively alleviated those conditions. The Marshall Plan helped to keep us from falling right back into the punish the Germans mindset which led us from WWI to WWII.

I don't advocate removing Islamic Fundamentalism from their religion - I advocate the removing of the individuals who believe that violence is the right expression of that fundmental belief. The expression, advocation, and conducting of violence is where the fundamentalist crosses the line into fundmental extremist.

Again, I think ignoring our own culpability in the foundations of that extremism is a mistake. We can't on one hand insist that we aren't really forcing our culture and our economics and our politics down other people's throats (which is their perception, right or wrong) is for their own good and then make distinctions that violence is wrong. They see our economic and cultural influence as coercion, as violence done against them. It's the argument that bin Laden uses. It is far from being correct, but it has just enough truth to it that it seems plausible to those on the receiving end of our arrogance. And Iraq just made things that much worse. Now, along with being perceived as forcing our culture on them by economic and political means, we're also now seen as being guilty of using violence itself to force those things on them. It couldn't be a better recruiting tool for the extremists.

Each individual is entitled and has the right to their personal belief - regardless of how I belief or not - but they do not have the right to force thier beliefs on others by violence or fear.

What about economic force, like the World Bank, or just planting a McDonald's on every corner? It's too convenient to narrowly define "forcing" as just being violence.

[quote=Redleg]Yes the United States has been guilty of this in the past as a Nation State, but that does not mean that the United States should not protest nor attempt to remove the cancer that is Islamic Fundmental extremist behavior from influencing the world. Is there a better way then using violence, should this have been addressed more carefully by the elected officials?

I know you have reservations about Iraq, for which I applaud you. But, in itself, invading Iraq was just pouring gasoline on the fire. How can we claim to stand on the moral high-ground now? It'll take more than simply condemning violence now to climb back up on the high ground.

The answer to that question is yes - but reality does not always remember that there might be peaceful solutions to the problem.

The arguement that it creates more problems in the short run is sound - but when one looks at history - to the extremist views of facism and the corruption of communism into the advocation of violence - how can one not advocate the standing up for freedom of all individuals.

Because we try to do it with a straight face while at the same time supporting people like Reza Pahlavi, or Freeport-McMoRan's exploitation in Indonesia, or violence in Nigeria to protect oil companies which employ terror squads, or training and funding Charles Taylor who will shortly be on trial in the Hague, or training and funding the very Islamists in Afghanistan we're now fighting and many more. Our history is full of such things, like propping up the Banana "Republics" like Nicaragua with several decades of U.S. Marine presence, to supporting the Shah and people like Charles Taylor. The extremists can simply point at the history and current things like Freeport-McMoRan or the invasion of Iraq and we can mutter all the platitudes we like and it will have zero effect on stopping extremism. Our convoluted reasons for doing those things aren't going to rise above the obvious results. We can't keep giving them ammunition. But we do. We keep on doing it. Extremists hear things said by idiots like Pat Robertson, and then our elected officials pander to him when they need his electoral support and campaign funding. Things like that matter.

This is correct - and I will point out one sentence from above One should never turn a blind eye to a wrong because your house is not completely clean. You may feel free to disagree with that conclusion based upon the fact that it makes the action seem hypocritical, but what is hypocrisy when applied to the world stage and confronting violence?

It's fuel for the fire. It's a recruiting tool for the extremists.

Discussion is above - feel free to disagree with the premise of my arguement. But I don't see it as an anology of which is cleaner - but which is dirty and which is about to collaspe.

I don't disagree with your argument. We agree on many things.

I would agree that its going too far if the people are not allowed to form the government system of thier choice. A democratic theoracy might just work in the middle-east (given the examble of Iran) if the theoracy is willing to allow people freedom of expression. The flavor of democracy will be different - but its not necessarily wrong regradless of the form it takes.

On this we mostly agree. But we can't continue to talk about democracy and freedom while supporting the opposite, in the form economic or political coercion. We can talk all we like about ideals, but as long as we continue to ignore thse ideal when it's convenient or expedient in a realpolitik sense, then we can't win any hearts and minds. We keep putting up red flags for the extremists to point at and claim simplistic things.

Pannonian

07-03-2006, 01:43

I would agree that its going too far if the people are not allowed to form the government system of thier choice. A democratic theoracy might just work in the middle-east (given the examble of Iran) if the theoracy is willing to allow people freedom of expression. The flavor of democracy will be different - but its not necessarily wrong regradless of the form it takes.
There's increasing suspicion that the recent Israeli action was long-planned, that the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier was merely the excuse the Kadima government needed to remove the Hamas government.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/06/30/MNGJIJN77N1.DTL

Friday, June 30, 2006
Goal of Israel's military action is questioned
Is it to free captive soldier, teach Hamas a lesson or topple Hamas government?

Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper, also questions whether the scale and style of the action matches the stated objectives.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/733036.html

Sat., July 01, 2006
But the greater the government's creativity in inventing tactics, the more it seems to reflect a loss of direction rather than an overall conception based on reason and common sense. On the face of it, Israel wishes to exert increasing pressure both on Hamas' political leadership and on the Palestinian public, in order to induce it to pressure its leadership to release the soldier. At the same time, the government claims that Syria - or at least Khaled Meshal, who is living in Syria - holds the key. If so, what is the point of pressuring the local Palestinian leadership, which did not know of the planned attack and which, when it found out, demanded that the kidnappers take good care of their victim and return him?

This attempt at an old-fashioned removal of a democratic regime unfavourable to one's own was a bit too much even for Bush, who had to remind Olmert that his threat of assassinating the Hamas PM Haniyeh isn't acceptable. True to Sharon's style, Olmert ignored US advice and went ahead with the strike anyway, but compromised by doing so outside office hours.

The keystone to solving the problem of Islamic fundamentalists is Israel and Palestine. Extremist groups of all colours are able to hang their standards on the Palestinian problem and claim Muslim or Arab solidarity. The political wing of Hamas had agreed to recognise Israel and settle for a 2 state solution, but instead of downplaying the kidnapping and strengthening the moderates and marginalising the extremists, the ridiculously outsized Gaza offensive has forced Haniyeh's faction towards the militants and left peace with Israel more distant than before. Absolute idiocy, and it makes me wonder if Israel doesn't really want peace but wants the world to keep out of it while they crush the Palestinians for good. If they want to take that route, the only way of winning the war against Islamic fundamentalism will be to exterminate all Muslims, as there will be no compromise left.

Redleg

07-03-2006, 02:50

They don't? Religious fundamentalists in this country had "under God" added to the pledge of allegiance in the mid-1950's. All immigrants to this country are required to say the pledge of allegiance in order to attain citizenship (they are also required to take an oath stating that they are not communists, although most people don't know that). Is that not forcing people to believe a certain thing? They have two choices, if they wish to participate in this land of freedom and democracy, one is to take a pledge with which they may not agree, as perhaps atheists or animists or some other non-montheist religion, or they can pack up and go home. Seems rather forceful to me. The last sentence in the above post seems to clearly equate extremism not just with violence but with "force" in a less physical sense. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase it?

Is the pledge of allegiance a requirement for everyone to state? Has the laws changed to futher demonstrate that certain requirements are no longer required of the citizens of the United States? Is an immigrant forced to come to the United States? Doesn't a nation have the ability to select who and who doesn't come into the nation as an immigrant? Should not a nation have requirements for one to enter into the nation?

These questions are important because of the points you are addressing. Is the United States the same country as it was in the mid-1950's? Are American citizens required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance under threat of death?

I don't think you can apply a condition of violence as being the only coercive force involved. Many Islamic fundamentalists see the "West" as forcing non-Islamic values upon them. Their reaction is to push back. Sadly, that gives the extremists a starting point in recruiting.

violence is the fundmental concept of coercive force, and that is why I use it in this arguement.

Since you seem to be fond of history, I would remind you of an infamous incident in Iran under the West-supported Shah. He made a law requiring students to dress in western fashion at state-supported schools. This came on top of other laws restricting traditional Islamic dress. This resulted in a peaceful protest by students and women and children, wearing Islamic dress. They were ordered to disperse, in spite of just being a peaceful protest march. They were gunned down by the machinegun-wielding SAVAK members. Hundreds of students and children and women were killed. It was one of the last straws before the revolution which kicked out the Shah and installed an "extremist" Islamic government. Sadly, the U.S. continues to support the Shah's son, Reza Cyrus Pahlavi, in his political aspiration, even though much of his supporter groups consist of ex-SAVAK secret police members.

It rather plays into my main point.

Ignoring the part we in the West have played in causing Islamic fundamentalist extremism is folly.

Agreed - and the converse is also true - blaming the west for causing Islamic fundamentalist extremism is also folly.

We can, but not if we condemn it out of one side of our mouths while promoting our own form of tyranny with another. The rest of the world doesn't necessarily see our brand of capitalist-powered "democracy" as a good thing. But we ignore tend to ignore that.

Indeed, and this is where reality creates problems with theory. Some nations are deemed to be neccessary to the security of the United States. This often creates situations that are so full of hypocrisy that it is difficult to see what is right and what is wrong. People also have a tendency to ingore that particlur fact also. In a perfect world the United States would of remained a benevolt isolated state. However the world is far from perfect.

The world didn't confront Hitler when he started. FDR had to practically drag an isolationist and, in some cases, pro-Hitler capitalist aristocracy. Don't forget that people like Henry Ford praised Hitler, or that Harriman and our current president's grandfather made fortunes dealing with Hitler in the 1930's (and, in fact, several of the companies associated with Prescott Bush and Harrriman had their assets siezed under the "Trading with the Enemy Act" of 1942)

That does not answer the question posed. That explains the history of why the United States did not confront the tryanny of Hilter.

I agree on this whole-heartedly. As long as it isn't simply a platitude and it'll be back to business as usual of ignoring our own limitations, culpability and aggression while condemning others.

The public will does not often maintain focus on the greater good for very long. The last time focus was maintained long enough to follow through was WW2 and the rebuilding of Western Europe. This is one of the fundmental flaws of the American Society. I wish it wasn't but the American Society does not maintain its focus for very long.

What about economic coercion and threats? What about things like Freeport-McMoRan essentially owning the entire government of Indonesia as that country's largest taxpayer? It is the source of much of the Islamic extremism in Indonesia (the most populous Muslim-majority nation in the world). I don't think you can just limit the argument to violence. Because violence isn't the source of the anger of Islamic extremists. It's their tactic in response, yes. But we can't ignore the foundations of the conflict and win. As an example, I'd point out the Marshall Plan after WWII. If we'd ignored the fundamental reasons for the rise of Hitler, then we wouldn't have engaged in a plan which effectively alleviated those conditions. The Marshall Plan helped to keep us from falling right back into the punish the Germans mindset which led us from WWI to WWII.

Is the source of Indonesia Islamic extremism Freeport-McMoRn or is it a corrupt government?

Is the corrupt government of Indonesia using violence to suppress peaceful demonstrations against the government? Does the government of Indonesia allow Feedom of Speech? How does Freport-McMoRan prevent the government from insuring the welfare of the people?

These questions are important because of the general nature of your post, and your use of the Marshall Plan.

You are correct about the point around one must discover what fuels the anger of the people and attempt to bring about the peaceful resolution to those problems. For when one does nothing about the issues that fuels the anger that malovent men use to intice the weak minded people to use violence to create change, often this results in the people being worse off.

Gandi and India is a prime examble of how non-violence can be used to create a fundmental change. Martin Luther King is another examble of how non-violence can be used to create a fundmental change. Even when the non-violent are targets of violence. Many lessons can be learned from those two gentlemen, both by the fundmental extremists and governments.

Again, I think ignoring our own culpability in the foundations of that extremism is a mistake. We can't on one hand insist that we aren't really forcing our culture and our economics and our politics down other people's throats (which is their perception, right or wrong) is for their own good and then make distinctions that violence is wrong. They see our economic and cultural influence as coercion, as violence done against them. It's the argument that bin Laden uses. is far from being correct, but it has just enough truth to it that it seems plausible to those on the receiving end of our arrogance. And Iraq just made things that much worse. Now, along with being perceived as forcing our culture on them by economic and political means, we're also now seen as being guilty of using violence itself to force those things on them. It couldn't be a better recruiting tool for the extremists.

I want to point out one main point in bold before continuing. This is the preception that is often indeed used to support his justification of violence. Does this mean that he is correct? Does it justify his use of violence and advocation of violence? Putting it a little closer to home, with another anology, would I be justified in advocating the death and destruction of all illegals that come into this country because they threaten my economic well being? Do those illegals have culpablity in my advocating violence against them? This is the problem with this line of reasoning that I have. It places the blame on the victim.

The point about Iraq is indeed correct IMO, there is now an active preception by examble of using violence to force change. One can explain the justification of invading Iraq - but one can not remove the preception that violence is being used to create change. This preception has become reality in Iraq.

What about economic force, like the World Bank, or just planting a McDonald's on every corner? It's too convenient to narrowly define "forcing" as just being violence.

See above about illegal immigrantion, it ties into this same point. There is economic and political influences always being applied throughout the world. Does the presence of these influences justify the use of violence and the advocation of violence against others to preserve your desired way of life?

I know you have reservations about Iraq, for which I applaud you. But, in itself, invading Iraq was just pouring gasoline on the fire. How can we claim to stand on the moral high-ground now? It'll take more than simply condemning violence now to climb back up on the high ground.

The moral high ground is rather shaky at best. Was Saddam a tryant that killed his own people? Was he not a despot that refused to comply with United Nations Resolutions? There is never a great moral high ground when dealing with actions between nations. There is often reasons beyond the moral when conflicts extist between nation states.

Here is where you have also identified the major problem with the current adminstrations plan of action for the Middle-East that I can agree with. The moral high ground was established with Afganstan. It was lost with Iraq in the eyes of many.

Because we try to do it with a straight face while at the same time supporting people like Reza Pahlavi, or Freeport-McMoRan's exploitation in Indonesia, or violence in Nigeria to protect oil companies which employ terror squads, or training and funding Charles Taylor who will shortly be on trial in the Hague, or training and funding the very Islamists in Afghanistan we're now fighting and many more. Our history is full of such things, like propping up the Banana "Republics" like Nicaragua with several decades of U.S. Marine presence, to supporting the Shah and people like Charles Taylor. The extremists can simply point at the history and current things like Freeport-McMoRan or the invasion of Iraq and we can mutter all the platitudes we like and it will have zero effect on stopping extremism. Our convoluted reasons for doing those things aren't going to rise above the obvious results. We can't keep giving them ammunition. But we do. We keep on doing it. Extremists hear things said by idiots like Pat Robertson, and then our elected officials pander to him when they need his electoral support and campaign funding. Things like that matter.

Of course things like that matter. The only way to overcome the past is to learn from it and make the necessary changes. Are the American People willing to make the necessary adjustments and changes to ease our dependence on oil?

This will create some necessary changes in the politics of the Middle-East. Can the nations in the Middle-East handle the changes that our withdraw from their markets will create? (it should be rather easy for them given the dependency of Europe, China and India on their oil.)

It's fuel for the fire. It's a recruiting tool for the extremists.

Agreed, but should that prevent one from attempting to repair your neighbors house even with your's being dirty?

On this we mostly agree. But we can't continue to talk about democracy and freedom while supporting the opposite, in the form economic or political coercion. We can talk all we like about ideals, but as long as we continue to ignore thse ideal when it's convenient or expedient in a realpolitik sense, then we can't win any hearts and minds. We keep putting up red flags for the extremists to point at and claim simplistic things.

One must fight the battles that come. Its not always clean being in the center of the world stage. Idealism doesn't always survive contact with reality.

Using the excuse of economic and political coercion to justify the use of violence would not be excepted in most cases involving individuals. Going back to the anolgy of the illegal immigrant - is it reasonable and justifiable for me to advocate the destruction by violence of all illegals because they threaten my economic well being and my political idealism?

Aenlic

07-03-2006, 05:19

Is the pledge of allegiance a requirement for everyone to state? Has the laws changed to futher demonstrate that certain requirements are no longer required of the citizens of the United States? Is an immigrant forced to come to the United States? Doesn't a nation have the ability to select who and who doesn't come into the nation as an immigrant? Should not a nation have requirements for one to enter into the nation?

These questions are important because of the points you are addressing. Is the United States the same country as it was in the mid-1950's? Are American citizens required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance under threat of death?

Is the definition of coercion now only the "threat of death" as you put it? Isn't that really just hyperbole? We claim to be the land of freedom and democracy. We want to (putting the best face on it) "promote" that freedom and democracy elsewhere. And yet, we coerce those who wish to come here and participate in this democracy to take oaths which contain things which seem antithetical to that concept. We are are fond of pointing out how many people want to immigrate to our great nation. And yet, at the same time we're also saying "unless you're not a monotheist" in which case you aren't welcome, or unless you're a communist in which case you aren't welcome. Puts a rather different spin on the whole idea. Sure they don't have to come here. That's their choice; but it puts a rather hypocritical stamp on the idea that we welcome other people to a land of freedom and democracy when we've already placed restrictions on that freedom at the outset. That's my point. :smile:

violence is the fundmental concept of coercive force, and that is why I use it in this arguement.

What? Maybe I'm just not understanding your point here. I think maybe you should explain that statement before I argue for or against it. "Violence is the fundamental concept of coercive force" doesn't make sense to me. Just as an example, if I have a female employee and I tell her she has the choice of engaging in sex with me or being fired, then I have not engaged in violence or threatened violence. I have, however, quite blatantly threatened an action (the non-violent firing) to achieve an outcome which is involuntary on the part of the recipient of the threat. In spite of the threat not being violent, this is still the definition of coercion. Violence and coercion are not the same thing. Coercion can include violence; but coercion is not always violent. Coercion can be achieved through intimidation and threats which are non-violent but still powerful. Such as the threat of firing. Are you using a definition other than the standard one for coercion, perhaps?

Agreed - and the converse is also true - blaming the west for causing Islamic fundamentalist extremism is also folly.

Where did I do so? I have gone to great lengths to be very specific in my choice of word to keep from doing exactly that. At no point have I argued that the West is either innocent of or entirely guilty of causing extremist Islamic fundamentalism. The reality is in between. But we have to openly and often acknowledge our culpability. Bring it out in the open. We have to stop pretending it doesn't exist, or accusing those who bring it up of supporting terrorism (which happens all too often in Congressional or political rhetoric).

Indeed, and this is where reality creates problems with theory. Some nations are deemed to be neccessary to the security of the United States. This often creates situations that are so full of hypocrisy that it is difficult to see what is right and what is wrong. People also have a tendency to ingore that particlur fact also. In a perfect world the United States would of remained a benevolt isolated state. However the world is far from perfect.

Why can't we be a benevolent engaged state which doesn't support extremists of any persuasion? If we continue to say things like "that's just the way things are" or "we had to do so to protect our interests" then we are going to continue to be seen as part of the problem at the very least or the entire problem by those who believe the extremist rhetoric. We play right into their hands by our own history and continuing actions.

That does not answer the question posed. That explains the history of why the United States did not confront the tryanny of Hilter.

Then you need to reword the question, perhaps?

You read a lot of history - image if you will if the world would of confronted the despotism of Hilter when it first started?

I tried to answer this, but I have some difficulty with the wording. Maybe I misunderstood your point. Re-reading it a couple of times now, perhaps you meant instead what would have happened if the world had confronted Hitler earlier? My mistake. I misread it.

The public will does not often maintain focus on the greater good for very long. The last time focus was maintained long enough to follow through was WW2 and the rebuilding of Western Europe. This is one of the fundmental flaws of the American Society. I wish it wasn't but the American Society does not maintain its focus for very long.

I agree in part. It certainly doesn't help that we've now been in Afghanistan longer than we were at war with Japan, and yet the violence is more pronounced there than at any time since we overthrew the Taliban. In just a few more months we will have been on the ground in Iraq longer than we were at war with Japan (Dec 7th, 1941 to Aug 15th, 1945).

Is the source of Indonesia Islamic extremism Freeport-McMoRn or is it a corrupt government?

They, the Indonesian military which is a large part of the controlling force in the government and Freeport-McMoRan, are virtually the same thing right now. They aren't the only source; but the oppression in Irian Jaya by the military, funded almost entirely by Freeport, is one of the major causes.

Is the corrupt government of Indonesia using violence to suppress peaceful demonstrations against the government?

Yes.

Does the government of Indonesia allow Feedom of Speech?

No. Not in the way we do.

How does Freport-McMoRan prevent the government from insuring the welfare of the people?

The following is from a 1995 U.S. State Department report on Human Rights in Indonesia:

"Tensions with indigenous people in Irian Jaya, including in the vicinity of the Freeport McMoRan mining concession area near Timika, led to a crackdown by government security forces, resulting in the deaths of civilians and other violent human rights abuses. These abuses were documented by the National Human Rights Commission, the Catholic Church, and NGO's."

Everyone once in a while, the civilians who control part (and only part) of the Indonesian government try to regain control from the military. There is a recent example from a few months ago when the attorney general of Indonesia said he would investigate stories of Freeport paying off the military, after a New York Times story which detailed Freeport paying almost $20 million to various police and military officials in Papua (the location of most of Freeport's mining ops) between 1998 and 2004. (AP Story in Jan. 2006 (http://www.wjla.com/headlines/0106/293019.html))

I suspect that this attorney general will do one of several things: find that his life is more important than the investigation or disappear from government office or turn up dead.

These questions are important because of the general nature of your post, and your use of the Marshall Plan.

What? I have no idea what you mean by this. Seriously, I have no idea how to respond to the above. Please clarify. I mentioned the Marshall Plan as an example of dealing with underlying causes and how they can be ameliorated, like we intentionally did with the Marshall Plan. It was a simple example. It wasn't my point, close to my point, or anything to do with my point. It was just an example of a specific case which illustrated my point. I mentioned Freeport as an example of underlying causes. That's about it as far as connections go. What do you mean by "the general nature" of my post? If it is to imply that I am in some way agreeing with, excusing or supporting the position taken by the extremists then you are very, very wrong. I hope that isn't the case. I suspect it's just an error in communication on our part.

You are correct about the point around one must discover what fuels the anger of the people and attempt to bring about the peaceful resolution to those problems. For when one does nothing about the issues that fuels the anger that malovent men use to intice the weak minded people to use violence to create change, often this results in the people being worse off.

OK.

Gandi and India is a prime examble of how non-violence can be used to create a fundmental change. Martin Luther King is another examble of how non-violence can be used to create a fundmental change. Even when the non-violent are targets of violence. Many lessons can be learned from those two gentlemen, both by the fundmental extremists and governments.

Indeed. I'm very familiar with the work of both. I understand the concept Ahimsa, the extension of Ahimsa with concepts of Satya and Tapasya by Ghandi to form Satyagraha or non-violent civil disobedience a la Thoreau (whom Ghandi often quoted).

They see our economic and cultural influence as coercion, as violence done against them. It's the argument that bin Laden uses.

The sentence within a paragraph which you made bold and then discussed below:

I want to point out one main point in bold before continuing. This is the preception that is often indeed used to support his justification of violence. Does this mean that he is correct? Does it justify his use of violence and advocation of violence? Putting it a little closer to home, with another anology, would I be justified in advocating the death and destruction of all illegals that come into this country because they threaten my economic well being? Do those illegals have culpablity in my advocating violence against them? This is the problem with this line of reasoning that I have. It places the blame on the victim.

I have to take great exception to this now. You argued a single statement in a paragraph, almost making it seem that I was excusing or justifying bin Laden! I hope that wasn't your intent. That's rather incorrect. I must assume that you missed the words which followed that statement:

They see our economic and cultural influence as coercion, as violence done against them. It's the argument that bin Laden uses. It is far from being correct...

Please don't argue something I didn't clearly didn't mean. It may have just been an error of omission or a simple mistake on your part; but it has no place in a reasoned debate. I hope that wasn't your intent. So, I'll let it slide.

I agree in full with the section following and see no need to quote it. Ack! I'm turning into a bandwidth nanny! :wink:

Of course things like that matter. The only way to overcome the past is to learn from it and make the necessary changes. Are the American People willing to make the necessary adjustments and changes to ease our dependence on oil?

I hope so, Redleg. I truly do. I think it's outrageous that we are one of the leading producers of oil in the world; and yet, because of our profligate consumption, we also have to be the world's leading importer of oil to meet the demand. If we were to reduce our consumption just to that of Japan, the next largest consumer (although China may have overtaken them by now), just Japan's consumption, then we would be the 4th or 5th largest exporter of oil in the world! We would have a positive trade balance with all nations, especially China, and so much more. I doubt; however, that we will reduce our dependence unless something miraculous happens in the scientific world such as cheap, accessible fusion power for instance, or the pain at the pump becomes so great (say $8/gallon) that people are willing to give up solo driving their luxury SUV's and begin to seriously push the government for solutions. Under the circumstances, freeways all over the country with a majority of the cars being single occupant SUV's is just insane. Sadly, the government will only care once people begin to care and we are no where near that point yet. As long as the average Joe is satisfied, Congress will maintain the status quo as usual.

This will create some necessary changes in the politics of the Middle-East. Can the nations in the Middle-East handle the changes that our withdraw from their markets will create? (it should be rather easy for them given the dependency of Europe, China and India on their oil.)

A very good question! China will certainly pick up the slack; but even their economic pace isn't sustainable. And the supply of fossil fuels will run out sometime; although we can argue all day about when that will happen. If you can find two scientists who agree 100% on when that will happen, we shuld check for alien pods under their beds.

Agreed, but should that prevent one from attempting to repair your neighbors house even with your's being dirty?

Not at all. We should insist that others behave well too. But if we expect people to listen to us on the issue then we need to be sure that it is clear to everyone that we are attempting to make our own as clean as possible. Even the appearance of hypocrisy can be used against us by the unreasonable who become extremists.

One must fight the battles that come. Its not always clean being in the center of the world stage. Idealism doesn't always survive contact with reality.

Using the excuse of economic and political coercion to justify the use of violence would not be excepted in most cases involving individuals. Going back to the anolgy of the illegal immigrant - is it reasonable and justifiable for me to advocate the destruction by violence of all illegals because they threaten my economic well being and my political idealism?

It would be unreasonable in the extreme. Bin Laden uses it as an excuse. I'm not saying that the excuse is valid. I'm saying that we have to consider that perception when dealing with the idea of ending terrorism. We can't just say that violence is bad, terrorism is bad, etc. That won't work. We have to deal with the underlying causes and the perception which the causes create.

There is a perception that the West is trying to force Islam into a particular path. Yes, it is wrong to use that as a justification for acts of violence. But that doesn't mean that we should ignore the perception itself, does it? Condemn the violence, yes. But we still have to deal with the underlying causes that are used to justify (wrongly) that violence. We've done a very poor job of that.

We don't have history on our side in this case either. From the way we took native children away from their parents to raise them in orphanages where we then tried to force them to become good little European-Puritan 19th Century Christian Americans, to McKinley's Benevolent Assimilation Proclamation, to the way Australia dealt with the aboriginal tribes in much the same way as we dealt with our own, to much more. They all have justifications and realpolitik reasons. The extremists have lots of fodder to point to and say they are evidence that the West will try to destroy Islam as well. We've already demonstrated rather disastrously that we had the capacity to do so in other cases. We can't just say, "Well, we won't do that anymore!" That's shutting the barn door after the horses are already out.

The only way to combat that perception, in the face of historical evidence supporting that perception, is for us to swing the pendulum the other way, to balance it out. We have to go much further than just what is expedient. We have to battle the bad perceptions by creating good perceptions. Iraq and Guantanamo were so very much exactly the wrong things to do in that sense. Rendering to other countries for interrogation doesn't help either. Can we justify it? Sure we can. Our justifications against bin Laden's justifications? We lose the propaganda war. We need to stop justifying wrong actions and those which can be perceived as such. We need to start acting from the moral high ground, not just claiming it before we're there.

Redleg

07-03-2006, 15:32

Is the definition of coercion now only the "threat of death" as you put it? Isn't that really just hyperbole? We claim to be the land of freedom and democracy. We want to (putting the best face on it) "promote" that freedom and democracy elsewhere. And yet, we coerce those who wish to come here and participate in this democracy to take oaths which contain things which seem antithetical to that concept. We are are fond of pointing out how many people want to immigrate to our great nation. And yet, at the same time we're also saying "unless you're not a monotheist" in which case you aren't welcome, or unless you're a communist in which case you aren't welcome. Puts a rather different spin on the whole idea. Sure they don't have to come here. That's their choice; but it puts a rather hypocritical stamp on the idea that we welcome other people to a land of freedom and democracy when we've already placed restrictions on that freedom at the outset. That's my point. :smile:

Violence can and often is seen as a threat of death.

Where is the forcing to be a monotheist? What is the current law in regards to immigrantion and taking a oath of citizenship.

http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/services/natz/index.htm

I don't see in the current laws the claims that you are making here in your arguement. But I could be blinded by my own paridigm concerning citizenship and immigrantion/naturalization.

What? Maybe I'm just not understanding your point here. I think maybe you should explain that statement before I argue for or against it. "Violence is the fundamental concept of coercive force" doesn't make sense to me. Just as an example, if I have a female employee and I tell her she has the choice of engaging in sex with me or being fired, then I have not engaged in violence or threatened violence. I have, however, quite blatantly threatened an action (the non-violent firing) to achieve an outcome which is involuntary on the part of the recipient of the threat. In spite of the threat not being violent, this is still the definition of coercion. Violence and coercion are not the same thing. Coercion can include violence; but coercion is not always violent. Coercion can be achieved through intimidation and threats which are non-violent but still powerful. Such as the threat of firing. Are you using a definition other than the standard one for coercion, perhaps?

There is a key word involved in the definition that I used in responding to your previous post - fundmental. The threat of engaging in sex or being fired is indeed a violent coercion in my book. Rape is violent regardless of how it is worded or done.

Where did I do so? I have gone to great lengths to be very specific in my choice of word to keep from doing exactly that. At no point have I argued that the West is either innocent of or entirely guilty of causing extremist Islamic fundamentalism. The reality is in between. But we have to openly and often acknowledge our culpability. Bring it out in the open. We have to stop pretending it doesn't exist, or accusing those who bring it up of supporting terrorism (which happens all too often in Congressional or political rhetoric).

Check the statement again - its not placing a statement that you made such a claim. It is simplily a discussion point, one that you expanded upon. I am providing a concurrent arguement that show that its not only one sided, the culibility for violence is greater on the extremists themselves - they are the ones using violence as the primary means to bring about change.

Why can't we be a benevolent engaged state which doesn't support extremists of any persuasion? If we continue to say things like "that's just the way things are" or "we had to do so to protect our interests" then we are going to continue to be seen as part of the problem at the very least or the entire problem by those who believe the extremist rhetoric. We play right into their hands by our own history and continuing actions.

Good question. Again the answer is to put it simply is that the world is not perfect and neither is the United States. The interest of the nation will always conflict with the interest of another nation.

I tried to answer this, but I have some difficulty with the wording. Maybe I misunderstood your point. Re-reading it a couple of times now, perhaps you meant instead what would have happened if the world had confronted Hitler earlier? My mistake. I misread it.

OK, that is the question that I was asking.

I agree in part. It certainly doesn't help that we've now been in Afghanistan longer than we were at war with Japan, and yet the violence is more pronounced there than at any time since we overthrew the Taliban. In just a few more months we will have been on the ground in Iraq longer than we were at war with Japan (Dec 7th, 1941 to Aug 15th, 1945).

I believe that the answers lies within the focus of the American People and our government. Where is our public will?

It also lies within the focus and will of the world community.

They, the Indonesian military which is a large part of the controlling force in the government and Freeport-McMoRan, are virtually the same thing right now. They aren't the only source; but the oppression in Irian Jaya by the military, funded almost entirely by Freeport, is one of the major causes.

Is this a symptom of greed by individuals? And, Is it more a matter of corruption within the government?

The following is from a 1995 U.S. State Department report on Human Rights in Indonesia:

"Tensions with indigenous people in Irian Jaya, including in the vicinity of the Freeport McMoRan mining concession area near Timika, led to a crackdown by government security forces, resulting in the deaths of civilians and other violent human rights abuses. These abuses were documented by the National Human Rights Commission, the Catholic Church, and NGO's."

Everyone once in a while, the civilians who control part (and only part) of the Indonesian government try to regain control from the military. There is a recent example from a few months ago when the attorney general of Indonesia said he would investigate stories of Freeport paying off the military, after a New York Times story which detailed Freeport paying almost $20 million to various police and military officials in Papua (the location of most of Freeport's mining ops) between 1998 and 2004. (AP Story in Jan. 2006 (http://www.wjla.com/headlines/0106/293019.html))

I suspect that this attorney general will do one of several things: find that his life is more important than the investigation or disappear from government office or turn up dead.

Again I ask, is it the Freeport McMoRan corporation that is preventing the government from insuring the welfare of the people?

Or, Is it a corrupt government that negates the welfare of the people for the interests of the corporation?

What? I have no idea what you mean by this. Seriously, I have no idea how to respond to the above. Please clarify. I mentioned the Marshall Plan as an example of dealing with underlying causes and how they can be ameliorated, like we intentionally did with the Marshall Plan. It was a simple example. It wasn't my point, close to my point, or anything to do with my point. It was just an example of a specific case which illustrated my point. I mentioned Freeport as an example of underlying causes. That's about it as far as connections go. What do you mean by "the general nature" of my post? If it is to imply that I am in some way agreeing with, excusing or supporting the position taken by the extremists then you are very, very wrong. I hope that isn't the case. I suspect it's just an error in communication on our part.

The questions are to force both of use to look into the underlying causes of the problem. THe comment of "general nature of your post" is that I believe that you are generalizing the issue by pointing out only one part of the problem. Taking the comment to mean I believe you are taking the side of extremists is a defensive reaction to the error of communication on both our parts. I did not state such a thing nor did I mean to imply such a thing in my statement.

The Marshall Plan took into consideration the underlying problems that enabled the conditions that set off WW2, which is a very valid point.

Now to prevent fundmental extremists one must get to the underlying causes. You mention Freeport as an examble of the underlying cause, but is it the underlying cause in itself or is the corruption of the government and the military that enables Freeport?

To put it simply, I see government corruption as the underlying cause of the problem. Its more complex in reality then that - but when one begins to sort through the multiple causes of the problem what is the main theme?

Indeed. I'm very familiar with the work of both. I understand the concept Ahimsa, the extension of Ahimsa with concepts of Satya and Tapasya by Ghandi to form Satyagraha or non-violent civil disobedience a la Thoreau (whom Ghandi often quoted).

My point exactly - lots of things to learn from those two gentlemen. To bad not many world leaders understand or apply those lessons.

I have to take great exception to this now. You argued a single statement in a paragraph, almost making it seem that I was excusing or justifying bin Laden! I hope that wasn't your intent. That's rather incorrect. I must assume that you missed the words which followed that statement:

Please don't argue something I didn't clearly didn't mean. It may have just been an error of omission or a simple mistake on your part; but it has no place in a reasoned debate. I hope that wasn't your intent. So, I'll let it slide.

The intend of the anology was not an arguement toward you nor your arguement, but a point that I felt was important to make on the overall subject of the discussion.

What I am saying in short is that one can indeed expand upon a concept presented by another in a reasonable discussion.

Please don't read into a statement for something that was not expressly stated. If I wanted to state I believe you are attempting to justify or excuse their actions - I would of expressily stated such.

I hope so, Redleg. I truly do. I think it's outrageous that we are one of the leading producers of oil in the world; and yet, because of our profligate consumption, we also have to be the world's leading importer of oil to meet the demand. If we were to reduce our consumption just to that of Japan, the next largest consumer (although China may have overtaken them by now), just Japan's consumption, then we would be the 4th or 5th largest exporter of oil in the world! We would have a positive trade balance with all nations, especially China, and so much more. I doubt; however, that we will reduce our dependence unless something miraculous happens in the scientific world such as cheap, accessible fusion power for instance, or the pain at the pump becomes so great (say $8/gallon) that people are willing to give up solo driving their luxury SUV's and begin to seriously push the government for solutions. Under the circumstances, freeways all over the country with a majority of the cars being single occupant SUV's is just insane. Sadly, the government will only care once people begin to care and we are no where near that point yet. As long as the average Joe is satisfied, Congress will maintain the status quo as usual.

There is some hope with the recent push to "green" fuel. I have been noticing a large number of ads for just this recently. Maybe there is hope yet.

A very good question! China will certainly pick up the slack; but even their economic pace isn't sustainable. And the supply of fossil fuels will run out sometime; although we can argue all day about when that will happen. If you can find two scientists who agree 100% on when that will happen, we shuld check for alien pods under their beds.

That or invest heavily in green fuel.

Not at all. We should insist that others behave well too. But if we expect people to listen to us on the issue then we need to be sure that it is clear to everyone that we are attempting to make our own as clean as possible. Even the appearance of hypocrisy can be used against us by the unreasonable who become extremists.

Agreed. However I will ask another simple question. Will the unreasonable who are extremists ever be satified by any course other then the one they want?

It would be unreasonable in the extreme. Bin Laden uses it as an excuse. I'm not saying that the excuse is valid. I'm saying that we have to consider that perception when dealing with the idea of ending terrorism. We can't just say that violence is bad, terrorism is bad, etc. That won't work. We have to deal with the underlying causes and the perception which the causes create.

There is a perception that the West is trying to force Islam into a particular path. Yes, it is wrong to use that as a justification for acts of violence. But that doesn't mean that we should ignore the perception itself, does it? Condemn the violence, yes. But we still have to deal with the underlying causes that are used to justify (wrongly) that violence. We've done a very poor job of that.

We don't have history on our side in this case either. From the way we took native children away from their parents to raise them in orphanages where we then tried to force them to become good little European-Puritan 19th Century Christian Americans, to McKinley's Benevolent Assimilation Proclamation, to the way Australia dealt with the aboriginal tribes in much the same way as we dealt with our own, to much more. They all have justifications and realpolitik reasons. The extremists have lots of fodder to point to and say they are evidence that the West will try to destroy Islam as well. We've already demonstrated rather disastrously that we had the capacity to do so in other cases. We can't just say, "Well, we won't do that anymore!" That's shutting the barn door after the horses are already out.

The only way to combat that perception, in the face of historical evidence supporting that perception, is for us to swing the pendulum the other way, to balance it out. We have to go much further than just what is expedient. We have to battle the bad perceptions by creating good perceptions. Iraq and Guantanamo were so very much exactly the wrong things to do in that sense. Rendering to other countries for interrogation doesn't help either. Can we justify it? Sure we can. Our justifications against bin Laden's justifications? We lose the propaganda war. We need to stop justifying wrong actions and those which can be perceived as such. We need to start acting from the moral high ground, not just claiming it before we're there.

This what I intended of the earlier use of the anology, and I am glad I ended the previous post with the anology again. To clarify it was never directed at you nor your arguement - but the situations in which it is used by people who decide violence is necessary because they can not handle outside influences on their lives. While I will agree with the major point of the previous paragraphs - I don't believe we will come to a conclusion here in an internet discussion where neither of us have impact upon the governments of the world. But I will end with a rather simple statement.

Will the leaders of the many nations continue with the current paridigms or will they begin to advocate the necessary adjustments that change will require?

Aenlic

07-04-2006, 01:45

http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/services/natz/index.htm

I don't see in the current laws the claims that you are making here in your arguement. But I could be blinded by my own paridigm concerning citizenship and immigrantion/naturalization.

It's buried deep. The oath which all prospective U.S. citizens must say in front of an immigration judge ends with "so help me God." Unlike in most courts, where the "so help me God" portion of the swearing in can be amended to remove it and still be valid (at the witnesses' request), there is no such provision in the citizenship oath.

On the naturalization application - form N-400 are the questions about political affiliations.

In Part 10, sec. B (8) You'll find the section where the prospective citizen is required to list all organizations, associations, fund foundations, clubs, societies or similar groups to which the applicant has belonged.

At 10, B (9) starts the big questions:

9. Have you ever been a member of or in any way associated (either directly or indirectly) with:

a. The Communist Party?
b. Any other totalitarian party?
c. A terrorist organization?

10. Have you ever advocated (either directly or indirectly) the overthrow of any government by force or violence?

11. Have you ever persecuted (either directly or indirectly) any person because of race, religion, national origin, membership in a particular social group or political opinion?

12. Between March 23, 1933 and May 8, 1945, did you work for or associate in any way (either directly or indirectly) with:
a. The Nazi government of Germany?
b. Any government in any area (1) occupied by, (2) allied with, or (3) established with the help of the Nazi government of Germany?
c. Any German, Nazi, or S.S. military unit, paramilitary unit, self-defense unit, vigilante unit, citizen unit, police unit, government agency or office, extermination camp, concentration camp, prisoner of war camp, prison, labor camp or transit camp?

(Just as an aside, it is interesting to note that a special U.S. combined military-diplomatic unit was set up after WWII, to expunge records so that ex-Nazi scientists like Werner von Braun could answer these questions untruthfully and no records would come back to haunt them. Lying on these forms is grounds for having naturalization revoked, as it states on the form several times. More than a few German scientists after the war would have failed this section of the form, if they answered truthfully. Note: I'm not making a moral judgement here, just stating a fact.)

Some other interesting questions on the N-400 form, under the "Moral Character" section:

22. Have you ever:
a. Been a habitual drunkard?
b. Been a prostitute, or procured anyone for prostitution?

(By this standard, more than a few Congress members would be ineligible if they had to answer the questions to gain citizenship. Heh)

There is a key word involved in the definition that I used in responding to your previous post - fundmental. The threat of engaging in sex or being fired is indeed a violent coercion in my book. Rape is violent regardless of how it is worded or done.

Conceded. I was on the verge of getting into a long discussion about whether or not violence necessarily means bloodshed; since I tend to view things similarly. It seems we agree in most respects on this part and the disagreement tends to be just an artifact of definition.

Check the statement again - its not placing a statement that you made such a claim. It is simplily a discussion point, one that you expanded upon. I am providing a concurrent arguement that show that its not only one sided, the culibility for violence is greater on the extremists themselves - they are the ones using violence as the primary means to bring about change.

That is why I needed clarification. Accepted. Too often anyone who dares to raise concerns about the underlying reasons for people succumbing to terrorist propaganda are then branded as somehow supporting terrorism.

Again I ask, is it the Freeport McMoRan corporation that is preventing the government from insuring the welfare of the people?

Or, Is it a corrupt government that negates the welfare of the people for the interests of the corporation?

It seems clear to me that it is Freeport. Not all of the government is corrupt. Freeport freely uses those parts of the government which are corrupt and which have the power to carry out Freeport's will - the police and the military. In this sense, Freeport, by virtue of its wealth, has become a shadow government which has actual control of the military and police, while the real civilian government remains largely powerless.

The questions are to force both of use to look into the underlying causes of the problem. THe comment of "general nature of your post" is that I believe that you are generalizing the issue by pointing out only one part of the problem. Taking the comment to mean I believe you are taking the side of extremists is a defensive reaction to the error of communication on both our parts. I did not state such a thing nor did I mean to imply such a thing in my statement.

Very well. We are perhaps both emphasizing one side or the other too much, while we both agree that it is not all one-sided. So, we can meet in the middle. A synthesis of the dialectic, if you will.

Now to prevent fundmental extremists one must get to the underlying causes. You mention Freeport as an examble of the underlying cause, but is it the underlying cause in itself or is the corruption of the government and the military that enables Freeport?

To put it simply, I see government corruption as the underlying cause of the problem. Its more complex in reality then that - but when one begins to sort through the multiple causes of the problem what is the main theme?

Corporate corruption based on wealth with no ethical responsibility to guide it, as is the natural state of corporations. would be my answer. Corporations exists to create wealth. They have no other purpose. Ethical, moral, political, ecological, historical or any other considerations aside from the various concepts in the generation of wealth are so far down the list that they can barely even be considered on the list. Here is where our sentiments diverge most broadly. On other things we aren't so far apart.

The intend of the anology was not an arguement toward you nor your arguement, but a point that I felt was important to make on the overall subject of the discussion.

What I am saying in short is that one can indeed expand upon a concept presented by another in a reasonable discussion.

Please don't read into a statement for something that was not expressly stated. If I wanted to state I believe you are attempting to justify or excuse their actions - I would of expressily stated such.

OK, I'll accept this. It seemed to me to be such. I'll accept your response as given.

There is some hope with the recent push to "green" fuel. I have been noticing a large number of ads for just this recently. Maybe there is hope yet.

That or invest heavily in green fuel.

It might be the answer. I have a very specific worry in that regard when it comes to climate change however. Right now, we have vast "green" resources; but if we aren't very careful, our dawdling along the way puts those resources at great risk. A few degrees average centigrade increase in temperatures in our wonderful growing zone could precipitate another dust bowl which would make the previous one look like a brisk breeze in a sandbox. Added to that is the risk of a tipping point above that temperature which could result in a shutdown of the Gulf Stream (it has happened before), resulting in the reverse of global warming for the Northern Hemisphere, and a mini-Ice Age which would wreak havoc again, with our growing belt and that of Europe. We've lived within a relatively stable climate environment for as long as we've known how to read and write and plow fields. That's a very narrow expectation on which to base our future.

Agreed. However I will ask another simple question. Will the unreasonable who are extremists ever be satified by any course other then the one they want?

No. This is why it is so vitally important that we win the propaganda war at the level of the recruitment. And that war can't be won with rhetorical or political or even military means. It has to be won at a much more basic level - at the level of education, and pocket book and stomach. That's where I worry we're missing the boat and groups like al Qaeda have an advantage we might not be able to overcome. With the radical teachings in many madressas in our "ally" Pakistan, for example.

This what I intended of the earlier use of the anology, and I am glad I ended the previous post with the anology again. To clarify it was never directed at you nor your arguement - but the situations in which it is used by people who decide violence is necessary because they can not handle outside influences on their lives. While I will agree with the major point of the previous paragraphs - I don't believe we will come to a conclusion here in an internet discussion where neither of us have impact upon the governments of the world. But I will end with a rather simple statement.

Will the leaders of the many nations continue with the current paridigms or will they begin to advocate the necessary adjustments that change will require?

We can hope, Redleg. I am not particularly optimistic considering the bombastic rhetoric of which so many are fond, around the world and all the way to the terrorists. As a whole, humans still tend to react viscerally rather than intellectually to threats. We have a couple million years of savannah-walking primate instincts to overcome. It can't be easy. But I think we must, at least, try. OK, so maybe I'm an optimist and a pessimist at the same time! :grin:

(If we keep getting along like this Papewaio is going to have a stroke! :wink:)

Redleg

07-04-2006, 02:14

It's buried deep. The oath which all prospective U.S. citizens must say in front of an immigration judge ends with "so help me God." Unlike in most courts, where the "so help me God" portion of the swearing in can be amended to remove it and still be valid (at the witnesses' request), there is no such provision in the citizenship oath.

Then the naturalization service definitily needs to update the oath. It might be time to write my Senator once again - but I would expect him to send me the standard response to such a querry as having the INS change a simple citizenship oath.

Conceded. I was on the verge of getting into a long discussion about whether or not violence necessarily means bloodshed; since I tend to view things similarly. It seems we agree in most respects on this part and the disagreement tends to be just an artifact of definition.

:2thumbsup:

That is why I needed clarification. Accepted. Too often anyone who dares to raise concerns about the underlying reasons for people succumbing to terrorist propaganda are then branded as somehow supporting terrorism.

:2thumbsup:

It seems clear to me that it is Freeport. Not all of the government is corrupt. Freeport freely uses those parts of the government which are corrupt and which have the power to carry out Freeport's will - the police and the military. In this sense, Freeport, by virtue of its wealth, has become a shadow government which has actual control of the military and police, while the real civilian government remains largely powerless.

This is where in essence I will both agree and disagree. My belief is that its the corruption in the government that enables corporations such as Freeport to become in essence shadow governments. How to break this corruption cycle is problemic (SP). It places the non-corrupt officals in danger of being either turned into corrupted officials - or worse. To much power has been gained by Freeport - but the initial beginning has to have been from a corrupt and weak government.

Very well. We are perhaps both emphasizing one side or the other too much, while we both agree that it is not all one-sided. So, we can meet in the middle. A synthesis of the dialectic, if you will.

I can agree with this.

Corporate corruption based on wealth with no ethical responsibility to guide it, as is the natural state of corporations. would be my answer. Corporations exists to create wealth. They have no other purpose. Ethical, moral, political, ecological, historical or any other considerations aside from the various concepts in the generation of wealth are so far down the list that they can barely even be considered on the list. Here is where our sentiments diverge most broadly. On other things we aren't so far apart.

We will have to agree to disagree, since I place more onus on the corruption of the government then the wealth gathering of the corporation. The government has the obligation to insure the welfare of the people. But I will state that the over emphais on corporate wealth and growth is indeed a contributing factor to the problem.

OK, I'll accept this. It seemed to me to be such. I'll accept your response as given.

:2thumbsup:

It might be the answer. I have a very specific worry in that regard when it comes to climate change however. Right now, we have vast "green" resources; but if we aren't very careful, our dawdling along the way puts those resources at great risk. A few degrees average centigrade increase in temperatures in our wonderful growing zone could precipitate another dust bowl which would make the previous one look like a brisk breeze in a sandbox. Added to that is the risk of a tipping point above that temperature which could result in a shutdown of the Gulf Stream (it has happened before), resulting in the reverse of global warming for the Northern Hemisphere, and a mini-Ice Age which would wreak havoc again, with our growing belt and that of Europe. We've lived within a relatively stable climate environment for as long as we've known how to read and write and plow fields. That's a very narrow expectation on which to base our future.

Agreed. And I think we both agree that a change in the dependency of a fuel source must occur, to enable a paridigm shift in the American Government to actually happen. What the exact change should be is a whole different subject.

No. This is why it is so vitally important that we win the propaganda war at the level of the recruitment. And that war can't be won with rhetorical or political or even military means. It has to be won at a much more basic level - at the level of education, and pocket book and stomach. That's where I worry we're missing the boat and groups like al Qaeda have an advantage we might not be able to overcome. With the radical teachings in many madressas in our "ally" Pakistan, for example.

This was the answer that I would also conclude with. The method in reaching that solutions might be different - but the intent would be the same.

We can hope, Redleg. I am not particularly optimistic considering the bombastic rhetoric of which so many are fond, around the world and all the way to the terrorists. As a whole, humans still tend to react viscerally rather than intellectually to threats. We have a couple million years of savannah-walking primate instincts to overcome. It can't be easy. But I think we must, at least, try. OK, so maybe I'm an optimist and a pessimist at the same time! :grin:

I agree with your conclusion here.