you are terrified of a tiny bunch of beardie weirdies living in a cave and armed with plastic knives? Is that what you are saying here? Compared to world war two for example, would you say Al-Qaeda was more dangerous, or far far more dangerous?
Honestly I wouldn't worry about it Ender. When it comes to religious hatred and fantacism your country is world class. You could give Osama bin Laden lessons.
Actually..... you did give him lessons didn't you? Probably not such a smart move in hindsight. Better luck next time.
my policies are practically perfect in every way so by disagreeing with me you obviously must not care about terrorism or are trying to help the enemy.
Left is angry because Bush administration is worsening the problem of Terrorism instead of helping it.
1. Making countries that hate us like Iran and Saudi Arabia and Venzuela wealthier with Oil money and invading Iraq(mking Iran stronger).
We should have sttod firm against Saudi--because it is their people that caused 911.
2. Instead of winning hearts and minds of muslims so that they dont embrace the radical ideology--we are antagonizing them--giving radicals a recruiting meme
3. I couldnt understand why we did not chase Osama to Pakistan when you even invaded Iraq which did not have anything to do with 911.
4. The cure--is spreading Democracy, tolerance, freedom, Human Rights, Rule of Law to other countries--but first we have to be a genuine example to emulate. Instead, Bush is emulating their authoritarian/dictatorial tactics.
5. Dont tell me we cant fight terrorism with what we have. Failures previously was not because we did not have the policies but that people did not enforce them. For example--the August 6 PDB which Bush brush aside.
6. Any policies needed should be debated in Congress, to preserve that respect for the Constitution. If Constitution is not respected then we are becoming like them--it is just unamerican and unpatriotic because it diminishes what it is to be an American and what it is to have a Democracy.
What makes you think Osama would be as unlawful as a US president? What is that based on?
Obviously since he is a stateless actor there's no specific constitution or law which applies for Al-Qaeda, however Osama does seem to care about the broad principles that the Koran lays down for war and apparently has sought legal permission from third party religious figures to proceed with his war (fatwah). He's also been criticised by his peers over 9-11 for not giving the Crusaders sufficient warning and an opportunity to end the war. That is why he's been giving that offer recently. At the least then he has given an impression of subjecting himself to a lawful authority.
Bush like all US presidents doesn't appear to have the slightest regard for law when it comes to foreign policy. In fact most so-called liberals let alone Republicans agree with him that so-called "international law" (ie US law through treaty) for example the UN charter or Geneva conventions can be ignored completely. That's completely normal for a US president. (Bush also seems to think that domestic laws do not apply to him, which is more unusual for a US president.) Glenn Grenwald who has criticised Bush a lot for his views on being above domestic law, appears to agree with Bush and is inconsistent in that he has no issue with Bush breaking so-called "international law".
This attitude of lawlessness by the US is completely normal.
Therefore on the basis of the evidence I would say that America could learn from Al-Qaeda when it comes to being law abiding.
If Constitution is not respected then we are becoming like them
The danger is more that they sink down to your level. Let's hope that doesn't happen.
This position amazes me. In order to hold it you must ignore every historical parallel where nations have descended into totalitarianism.
What is the siren song of the authoritarian? How does liberty die? You've bought all of it, Ender -- and you're singing the song at the top of your lungs. You would trade your liberty for safety, and in doing so you allow them to win.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
even remotely related to restricting our liberties. Sorry but the leftist alarmism has not swayed me nor has it made me feel that any of my liberties are threatened. What historical parallels are you even talking about? I wish people would stop foaming at the mouth and make such ridiculous statements.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
James Bovard, the great libertarian champion of our freedom and civil liberties, recently shared with readers his mail from Bush supporters (Lewrockwell.com, October 12). For starters here are some of the salutations: “communist bastard,†“asshole,†“a piece of trash, scum of the earth.â€
It goes downhill from there.
Bush’s supporters demand lock-step consensus that Bush is right. They regard truthful reports that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction and was not involved in the September 11 attack on the US—truths now firmly established by the Bush administration’s own reports—as treasonous America-bashing.
As well, Bovard is interpreted as throwing cold water on the feel-good, macho, Muslim butt-kicking that Bush’s invasion of Iraq has come to symbolize for his supporters. “People like you and Michael Moore,†one irate reader wrote, “is [sic] what brings down our country.â€
I have received similar responses from conservatives, as, no doubt, have a number of other writers who object to a domestic police state at war with the world.
In language reeking with hatred, Heritage Foundation TownHall readers impolitely informed me that opposing the invasion of Iraq is identical to opposing America, that Bush is the greatest American leader in history and everyone who disagrees with him should be shot before they cause America to lose another war.
TownHall’s readers were sufficiently frightening to convince the Heritage Foundation to stop posting my columns. [Contact Heritage]
Bush’s conservative supporters want no debate. They want no facts, no analysis. They want to denounce and to demonize the enemies that the Hannitys, Limbaughs, and Savages of talk radio assure them are everywhere at work destroying their great and noble country.
I remember when conservatives favored restraint in foreign policy and wished to limit government power in order to protect civil liberties.
Today’s young conservatives are Jacobins determined to use government power to impose their will at home and abroad.
The problem, dear Ender, is that you're turning the conservative establishment into "leftists." And the problem with Bush's war on terror is directly parallel: it's turning moderate Muslims into "Islamo-fascists."
An international poll done just after the invasion of Iraq released in June, 2003 revealed the following, shockingly high level of trust in bin Laden, something that would never have been seen just after 9/11:
I'm sure that the current Israeli invasion of Lebanon will have a similar effect in raising bin Laden's standing--something that only bin Laden's enemies have the power to do.
Now, that poll was conducted by the Pew Center. So you can go ahead and reject it out of hand, like you do everything that doesn't fit your pre-determined worldview.
Or you can stop and think for a minute--think if maybe, just maybe, you're making the problems as you see them much, much worse.
Maybe, there's something to the idea of actually listening to people who disagree with you, rather than dismissing them with simplistic labels, and refusing to accept unpleasant facts.
p.s. In case you missed this--back in early 2002, the 22-nation Arab League actually agreed to a process that would have lead to the recognition of Israel's right to exist, and actual diplomatic recognition as well. Colin Powell was very positive . But Colin Powell didn't run US foreign policy. Instead of taking advantage of this rare post-9/11 opening to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, Bush continued his focus on invading Iraq, and lost a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
This lost opportunity has been totally flushed down the memory hole, but it's quite possibly the greatest failure of the Bush Administration. And that's saying an awful, awful lot.
Jasmine nailed it precisely. If Bush actually trusted and believed in America's real strengths, we'd have won this "war on terrorism" long ago.
We're coming up on FIVE YEARS after 9/11. Five years after Pearl Harbor, the American public had just thanked the Democrats for winning World War II by turning them out of office in the House, yearning for a "return to normalcy."
Your basic premise, that the only way to fight the rise of "Radical Islam" is through the use of force is one of the reasons we are in this struggle you speak of. You need only look to Vietnam to see what happens when your only actions are the use of force.
The barbaric enemy you speak of is ignorance, which you seem to be a huge proponent of. Your argument that the left doesn't care about safeguarding our nation is just more verbal BS, without foundation. It is the belief of small-minded, petty little hypocritical tyrants, arguing that they are somehow better at seeing reality than the rest of us.
You point out that we are better at assimilation than Europe, then go on to ignore what that means. It means when you give people opportunities, when you give them a reason for being, they are less likely to be converted to radical movements. US History shows that until FDR started many of the New Deal Programs, many US citizens were embracing radical movements, both Communist and Fascist, as they felt this was the only way to effect change.
If we really wanted to scale back Radical Islam, we would do it by effectively helping to raise the opportunities of the people in the MidEast. But we've never done that. The Crisis of Western Civilization isn't that Radical Islam will destroy us, it is that we will destroy ourselves in a militaristic orgy as we pursue this so-called "threat."
This is just more of the same drivel that people like Rick Santorum (who makes shit up) try to pull just to get re-elected. I can't imagine that this is considered an intelligent, well-thought-out argument by anyone, even if you are on the conservative side.
that is unproductive and ugly. Surely you can think of a way to express yourself that is more conducive to debate. Don't force us to add to a long string of bannings please. Also, you might consider building a storehouse of links or references with evidence that confirms at least some of what you believe. That would at least be something substantive that the rest of us could engage you on.
You don't see quite a bit, do you? The NSA is collecting all the phone numbers we call. Do you believe that that information is being collected just for the hell of it?
Or Library Reading lists. I'm sure the young man who was visited by Homeland Security for checking out Mao's Little Red Book feels so much safer knowing the Gov't is following his reading.
Or Extraordinary Rendition: Of course, since we did this, they must be terrorists.
By your definition, Ender, everyone is guilty until proven innocent. So let's toss Tom Delay and the rest of the Republican Party in jail until we find out what they really did!
He is a true believer of using takfir, by that I mean in his mind, anyone who does not believe what he believes, exactly, does not have any rights nor does he owe any obligations to treat them as human and they should be killed. All this in their view is how they serve their view of Islam.
They kill you in a minute.
Now you may be playing devils advocate, I don't know, but be aware of whom you are speaking of. A sweet & cuddly kitten, Osama ain't.
posting. I would like you to develop some thoughts on how the GOP has built a strawman "liberal" that they use to attack all Democrats all the while developing into something that betrays their own principles. If you are interested and have time, I would frontpage a good diary on that topic from you.
The views of some of the branches of Islam, particularly the Saudi promoted Wahhabist view is. I say that because it promotes a view that lacks any tolerance or other views at all. They have the benefit of funding. Saudi/Osama pushing of something that does threaten the world.
Now, other religions do the same thing. Christianity has it's adherents that have the same views, just with themselves at the center.
These are all very small subsets of greater religions that for most practical purposes, don't contradict one another, promote the same values and can exist in harmony side by side.
Now, is the best way to fight that threat to ignore the fundamental ideas that make America great? You know, due process, open court proceedings, being able to challange your accusers, no secret evidence, following the rule of law. No. That takes away from everything that America is supposed to stand for. That is what some of us are fighting against. That's the great threat from within.
But that doesn't mean we aren't also trying to fight the external threat. We are, as much as many on the right would try to deny it, but we would do it within the framework of what we have, not by extrajudicial or an all powerful Unitary Executive Super President.
misfought the "War on Terror." First, the way we have gone about it has strengthened the hand of Islamofascists in the Muslim World. Bush, or at least those running his foreign policy machine, has chosen to follow the ideas of Bernard Lewis based on how Kemal Ataturk secularized Turkey. (link ) Most of the of the Muslim World wants Democracy but does not want to be secularized. By unnecessarily raising the specter of secularization, the Bush team has likely strengthened the hand of Islamofascists. (link ) I have more on the War on Terror but will have to share it later when I have time to sit down and compile the info into a readable form.
Yeah anyone who doesn't support America is a killer who's motivation is killing because they are a killer and they kill people. Sophisitcated analysis there. Anything to back it up? I don't recall bin Laden ever saying his goal was to wipe out all non-muslims.
You would trade your liberty for safety, and in doing so you allow them to win.
Osama is pursuing freedom for his own people --- freedom from the subjugation imposed by your government incidentally. Your naive patriotic nonsense is actually backwards. Victory means conquering other people by the American government's definition. Victory for Osama means liberation from American influences.
Your comment indicates a naive beleif in US patriotic propaganda. The facts however show that it is your tanks in their streets not vice versa.
Asking questions you know the answer to. Is it a delaying tactic? You're not simply disagreeing but actually pretending to not have any idea what the other guy is even refering to. These ideas are common and you are familiar with them. Why the pretense?
Why do you use this silly word "islamofascist"? Americans really need to quit using this baby languange whereby anyone who disagrees with them has to be called all sorts of silly names and have ridiculous motivations attributed to them ("they hate out freedoms", "they want to kill everyone"). When are you going to join the real world?
At a time when America seems on the brink of genuine fascism you should avoid degrading the word "fascist". You might need it for real shortly.
of Bush administration actually pursuing the policy of secularized democracy in either Afghanistan or Iraq? I haven't seen any evidence of that regardless of the neocon thinking. Both have incorporated Islamic law as the guiding force and the basis for their constitution and laws.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I've almost never heard that summit and the resulting resolution mentioned--even by Bush Administration critics well outside of Beltway circles. Actually, I can't ever remember hearing it cited more than a month or two after it happened.
Who are "his people" in this context? He was supported by the Taliban, whom we perhaps should have subjugated but actually helped against the Soviets. He wasn't much of a friend to the Iraqis, despite what some on the right would prefer to believe.
What are you talking about?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
You should know better than to use such disinformation terms. Just as Glenn Greenwald warns against the loose use of "fascism" in describing creeping authoritarianism in America, it's equally, if not even more misleading to apply such a specific Western political label to another culture.
It's utterly typical of how demonization substitutes for analytical thought on the right.
It would just be seen by the people as their US sponsored dictators and kings pandering to America as usual. As the polls you included show the non-state actors are increasingly seen as the real representatives of the people. It might even just make people more angry.
And this is to go along with your assumption that recognising Israel is a good thing, which I don't think it would be.
I think to be fair it would be a victory for US diplomacy but not much else, and since for many people the US is the enemy it would quite likely have a negative effect on the chances of a peaceful resolution.
Note that there are really two types of personalities the followers and the leaders. In my estimation Bush is a follower (and thus is afraid of contradictory information) while Cheney, Rumsfeld and several others are the leaders (sure that their vision is right).
The problem with debates like this one started by ender is that there is no way for the two views of the world to be reconciled. Those who worldview is based upon the "law of the jungle" are willing to adopt variations of the end justifies to means to maintain "safety".
Those whose view is that the ideal is empathy and that people are basically good see discussion and compromise as the most useful tools.
The first viewpoint fails when the danger is overestimated and the degree to which civil liberties are constrained becomes excessive.
The second viewpoint fails when the opponent is misjudged and thought to be capable of rational dialog, but turns out to be a sociopath.
Ender belongs to the first type and is not going to change his viewpoint. So those arguing with him are doing it only to please themselves, nothing substantive will come out of these debates. (If a person on the other side had started the discussion the conclusions would also be the same.)
There could be meaningful discussions of the actual policies being carried out. That is, do they achieve their objectives and are those in charge able to modify their plans when existing ones seem not to be working well? There could also be a discussion of how to get people to modify current plans if they fail to acknowledge the need for such modification.
That is, we could be have discussions of tactics and political action.
You know perfectly well the differences between Al Qaeda and other sympathizing terror groups are not as easy to defeat. Democrats would not have done better and the old tactics simply do not work.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
(BTW, Ender, I've noticed how you've once more ignored my fact-filled response to pick the low-hanging rhetorical fruit.)
What Bush has done is the worst of both--too secular for the religious, too religious for the secular. But the main thrust is (1) anti-nationalist and (2) anti-social democracy. And, of course, the history of the last 200 years is that nation-based social democracy is the best recipe for peaceful, prosperous development.
fascistic does not mean that Muslim extremists are not Islamofascists. They are very authoritarian. My use of the word is from the academic vocabulary and has absolutely nothing to do with US patriotism. There has been lengthy debate over the term in wikipedia files. Here is the main discussion. Here and here are discussions of whether to keep that article, both of which decided to keep it. Here is a discussion of fascism and religion.
As others have noted, you seen unaware of the actual views of those you defend. The implementation of sharia law by Islamic fundamentalists has been very authoritarian and, in my opinion, deserving of the label "fascistic."
Seriously are you so into the patriotic baby talk that you don't know even vaguely what the political position of Osama bin Laden is? You have no idea at all what really motivates him?
Or is this an Ender-style asking a question you already know the answer to dodge? I find it very hard to beleive you really don't know the answer to your own question here.
between who Osama views as his people, and who those people view as Osama's people. It's hard to run a caliphate when much of the Muslim world would prefer you dead. So yes, I'm serious: who are "his people" in that they would self-identify in such a fashion? And how did we subjugate them?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
The social science study of political attitudes is something I've studied for years, and certainly merits more attention.
However, they are necessarily limited to phenomena that are fairly widespread, and that tend to be have modest gradients--meaning that there's no sharp dividing lines between people. In contrast, some of that research points to situations that can be much more troubling, when there are high concentrations of people with different sorts of authoritarian attitudes--such as high concentrations of rightwing authoritarians in GOP caucuses in state legislatures. (There is good reason, but no direct evidence, to suppose that this characterizes Congress today.)
Beyond that, there are the rarer phenomena of outright personality disorders, such as Narcissitic Personality Disorder , which seems like a fairly accurate description of Bush. There are correlations here--the cognitive impairments suffered by authoritarians are just the sorts of thing that would lead them to place their trust in people who outright mentally ill, provided it's the right form of mental illness.
Islamists who are oppressive and dictatorial are by definition Islamofascists. I know you probably have some specific reason for wanting to avoid that word. I realize that they are not exactly fascists in the same sense as Germany during WW2:
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
But why should we avoid the term just because they are not exactly like the Germans? They want to impose a religiously-based caliphate that would rule over the Middle East, which implies a central control that sounds more and more like traditional fascism.
I'm sure the young man who was visited by Homeland Security for checking out Mao's Little Red Book feels so much safer knowing the Gov't is following his reading.
but those plans had to be scrapped. Cheney was driving this policy and Chalabi was his version of Ataturk. More later on this as I have to hit the road for a few hours.
Democrats would be better. That radical Iranian president would not have won under Gore. Hamas would not have won under Gore. Gore would have stood up against the Saudis and would have chased Osama inside Pakistan or not let him go in Tora Bora. And Oil would still be at $30/barrel.
Because America would still have its moral authority.
There will always be extremist group. The solution is to make them irrelevant as well as eradicate them and not make them grow and give them a recruiting tool which Bush has done.
------------
How about standing up to the Saudis who is funding charity groups that launder money and give it to radical groups?
Standing up to Saudis for teaching their children hate for anything Western.
Standing up to Saudis for putting up radical schools called madrassas around the world thus making the muslim world more intolerant and radical.
Do you seriously think US will monitor charity of fundraising from Saudi Arabia and where it actually goes.
The Saudi leadership is Bush friend but do they have control of their radical elements?
The conservative mindset is not that "anything goes" or "might makes right". Their moral theory is less consistent than this. Force is only seen as right when performed by their side. No conservative reacted to 9-11 by saying that might was right so 9-11 was a good thing. They didn't praise the courage and ingenuity of the attackers and then rally a counter attack. They claimed 9-11 was immoral while calling their own violence moral.
The moral view of the conservative is simple: our side is always in the right.
They don't believe the ends justify the means either. That formula is for people who think the "means" are negative. Conservatives don't think eg bombing civilian Iraqis is negative. They love it. Iraqis are the enemy so bombing them is a good thing. They'd prefer to do more of it even if it was completely unnecessary.
Hence the talk about nuking Saudi Arabia or "lets just make a glass parking lot out of the whole lot of them" and so on.
The first viewpoint fails when the danger is overestimated and the degree to which civil liberties are constrained becomes excessive.
Says who?
Not them. In my view the tribalist moral theory is immoral from the start, so I don't think you're right either.
---------------------------------------
The second viewpoint fails when the opponent is misjudged and thought to be capable of rational dialog, but turns out to be a sociopath.
Is anyone here in this group then?
Most people here don't seem to have a clue what motvates bin Laden. That would appear to be a bare minimum requirement to be considered this type of person. I therefore conclude that this group may be pretty small or empty.
"Islamofascism" doesn't come from academia as the sources you yourself cite note.
Regarding the term itself, Wikipedia says:
Islamofascism is a neologism and political epithet used to compare the ideological or operational characteristics of certain modern Islamist movements with European fascist movements of the early 20th century, neofascist movements, or totalitarianism. Organizations that have been labeled Islamofascist include Al-Qaeda, the current Iranian government,[1] the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and Hezbollah. None label themselves fascist, however, and critics of the term argue that associating the religion of Islam with fascism is both offensive and historically inaccurate.
Regarding it's application:
Some writers have used "Islamofascism" to refer strictly to Islamic movements whose doctrines reflect the influence of propaganda promoted by the Nazis, especially the anti-Semitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This includes Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood[2] and other movements inspired by the writings of Sayyid Qutb, an Egyptian Islamist who acknowledged that he was influenced by French fascist philosopher Alexis Carrel.[3] Others have applied it to all highly politicized strains of Islam, including Shi'a radicalism as practised in Iran.
While several modern political and militant organizations describe themselves as "Islamist", none refer to themselves as "fascist." Some view the term as an historically inaccurate metaphor.[4][5] The term is generally not used to describe historic fascist organizations that had Muslim members. A few scholars have cautiously used the term fascism to discuss certain forms of militant Islamic fundamentalism. (See: Neofascism and religion.)
The more widely used term for politicized strains of Islam that seek to place governments in Muslim countries under the guidance of Sharia law is Islamist.
Islamists do not advocate corporatism, an important component of "classic" fascist governments in Italy and Germany. However, the Islamist idea of Ummah has been compared to the German fascist idea of Volksgemeinschaft.
And origins:
The origins of the term are unclear, but appear to date back to an article, "Construing Islam as a language", by Malise Ruthven that appeared on September 8, 1990 in The Independent, where he wrote:
Nevertheless there is what might be called a political problem affecting the Muslim world. In contrast to the heirs of some other non-Western traditions, including Hinduism, Shintoism and Buddhism, Islamic societies seem to have found it particularly hard to institutionalise divergences politically: authoritarian government, not to say Islamo-fascism, is the rule rather than the exception from Morocco to Pakistan.
The Guardian attributes the term to an article by Muslim scholar Khalid Duran in the Washington Times, where he used it to describe the push by some Islamist clerics to "impose religious orthodoxy on the state and the citizenry".[6]
British journalist Christopher Hitchens used the term "Islamic fascism" or "theocratic fascism" to describe the fatwa declared on February 14, 1989 by Ayatollah Khomeini against Salman Rushdie over The Satanic Verses, an event that was pivotal in shaping the attitude toward Islamism of Hitchens and several other prominent journalists on the left.[7] Hitchens also used the term "fascism with an Islamic face" in The Nation[8] after the 9/11 attacks, when the phrase spread to the blogosphere, shortened to "Islamofascism." On October 6, 2005 President George W Bush used it in a speech to the National Endowment for Democracy.[9]
Radio talk show host Michael Savage has used the term "Islamofascism" frequently on his program. The context suggests the invocation of Islam to justify fascist-like activities.
In his 2004 book Power, Terror, Peace and War, Walter Russell Mead invoked a different but related term, which he calls "Arabian Fascism", to describe both secular and Islamic "enemies" of America in the Middle East.
You should read Edward Said's classic work Orientalism in order to get some perspective on how Western discourse about the Asian other has systematically distorted "them" and deluded "us."
The term is a loaded gun. It does not illuminate, it only incites.
Conservatives don't think eg bombing civilian Iraqis is negative. They love it. Iraqis are the enemy so bombing them is a good thing. They'd prefer to do more of it even if it was completely unnecessary.
That's a teensy bit of an overgeneralization, no? If I replaced conservatives with Arabs and Iraqis with Americans/Israelis you'd be rightly upset. Can we please try to avoid slandering huge groups of people? Thanks.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I mean, come on. This is the sort of thing I'd normally expect of Ender. Nithing could be clearer than the use of the term to justify the demonological underpinnings of the "war on terror."
This definition:
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
may be good enough for 12-year old kids calling their parents fascists for not letting them stay out past 10 on a school night, but it doesn't pass the laugh test in your attempt to make this a legitimate term.
He did start out this particular comment talking about "the conservative mindset." He was clearly talking about conservatives as a group, in terms of general group characteristics.
He frequently makes much more extreme, untenable, and unqualified statements. Why not pick on him then?
"American culture of self-determination and the American dream of achieving success"
American? Can you name a nation where this is NOT the dream of its citizens?
Criticism in times of war is vital to our survival. If our leaders are doing it the wrong way and nobody criticizes them, we are doomed. Obviously.
What the left is criticising, it should be noted, is not the fight against Islamism, but the way in which Bush & Co. are waging -- and escalating -- this war. We could be fighting a much more effective war, but y'all insist on using bombs and tanks and stuff, which will of course never secure our nation.
But what really puts Western Civilization on the brink is the Right's constant mischaracterizaion of the Left's (not to mention the Islamic world's) stance, done solely for political gain at the expense of unity. As long as y'all state lies like, "leftists are not serious about fighting terrorism", or, "Muslims want to destroy the West" (as if they had a single thing to gain from such an event), you will continue dividing people and providing fertile ground for bloodletting. Only when the Right recognizes that a reconciliatory posture will run laps around an antagonistic one, then peace may loom on the horizon. Until then, you war-mongers will keep doing what you know best.
Just remember: 99% of the Muslims of the world do not want to destroy "Western Civilization". They are not barbarians; they have been civilized since Westerners were living in caves. They want peace as bad as Western civilians do, but their leaders, like ours, have too much to gain politically to push for peace; war pays too many dividends, as George W. Bush will readily attest. But there is no East or West anymore; Christians, Jews, and Muslims of the world know this, that we cannot pretend to live in different worlds anymore. Too bad our leaders (and their lickspittles, wherever they cower) will never accept this, as they have too much to gain from decisiveness. However, as we are a democratic nation, it doesn't really matter WHAT those leaders think; the American public has turned against your war and your methods, and soon the leadership will be changing for the better. Unfortunately, the Right has undermined democracy for so long in the Middle East that the same cannot be said for those nations in which you have propped up authoritarians and dictators, but democracy is an inevitability in all cultures, eventually, so for the time being I simply will hang on to hope that people there will stand their ground and not let THEIR dividers do what ours keep trying to do (unsuccessfully, I might add).
The first viewpoint fails when the danger is overestimated and the degree to which civil liberties are constrained becomes excessive.
Says who?
Not them. In my view the tribalist moral theory is immoral from the start, so I don't think you're right either.
---------------------------------------
The second viewpoint fails when the opponent is misjudged and thought to be capable of rational dialog, but turns out to be a sociopath.
Is anyone here in this group then?
I try to stay away from discussing individuals. My reference to Ender was a rare exception.
So, some historical examples.
The internment of Japanese-Americans was an example of excessive curtailment of civil liberties because of an over-estimation of a (non-existent) threat.
Neville Chamberlain's dealings with Hitler was an example of misjudging a sociopath as capable of rational dialog.
I don't know what is in Bin Laden's mind, but his statements at the time of the attacks had to do with the US's relations with Saudi Arabia. In other words he was a nationalist trying to change conditions in his home country. In this he partially succeeded. The US no longer has bases in Saudi Arabia. He has been less successful in changing the political structure within the country. He struck the US to make a point. If the US stopped propping up the Saudi family he would not have any interest in us. His attacks were a means to an end and the fact that the present administration can't (or won't) see this either with Bin Laden or with similar forces at play in Iraq is the real problem.
(1) The Summit was held in early 2002, when the impact of 9/11 was still fresh. The poll I posted came from June 2003, when the impact of the invasion of Iraq was still fresh.
Rational minds will note the difference.
(2) The Arab street has a very complex relationship with the Arab leaders. You have ludicrousely simplified it, as you do almost everything.
(3)
I think to be fair it would be a victory for US diplomacy but not much else
That's your assumption of course. But the Bush Admin probably had exactly the opposite assumption, which is why they didn't even think about it for a millisecond, I'd bet.
Like I said, just a few of the things wrong with it.
that was my point. Conservatives as a group, in terms of general group characteristics, do NOT "love" bombing civilian Iraqis and would NOT "prefer to do more of it even if it was completely unnecessary."
If he would like to qualify his statement, for example "some fringe conservatives" or "far-right conservatives" or "commenters at FR and LGF" then that's different. This way, it seems to me to be the same thing as saying liberals hate American, liberals are treasonous, liberals want the terrorists to win, etc.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Al Qaeda has given no indication of any interest in conquering or even attacking the West, except to strike back against Western involvement in proping up regimes within the Islamic world.
This hardly makes them boyscouts (although they do share that anti-gay thing), but it is strikingly different from real fascism, what with the invading of every place they could get their hands on.
If we don't understand them, we have a damn hard time trying to defeat them. And if we don't understand their societies... this is basic Sun Tzu, folks. We're screwed.
the Islamic world at its core(not necessarily individual muslims, but most of their respected and fundamentalist leaders) believes that there has to be a conflict between our value systems and that they are commanded by God to win. They believe that they will eventually triumph over the infidels.
Apparently those countries that you cite hate us more if we determine to fight one of them for our own reasons. That is only natural. If Iraq actually attacked us and we then struck it back and occupied it, we would've still been hated for taking on one of the arab countries. It was inevitable. We are the infidels and no matter what we do, the people there will hate us.
While Israel is much more hated for being jewish the same facts apply. Israel legitimately defended itself against horrendous aggression and legitimately occupied territories to protect itself (as it is about to do now with creating a buffer zone in Lebanon). Legitimacy of its actions will make not one iota of difference in the muslim world blinded by the flames of hatered, fanned by the responsibility free Islamic leaders and imams.
Since I believe US will always be hated until Islam is reformed I believe in the strategy of overwhelming force and instilling fear in the groups we are fighting. I also no more trust any "peace proposals" from two-faced states like Saudi Arabia than anything currently coming out of Iran as they are furiously working on the nuclear weapons. Which is why diplomacy (at this stage) is rather useless. Diplomacy from the position of strength is the only viable option and we are not in that position.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Can you have rational, connected blog conversations? Where the he** did you get that hate us for our freedoms bs? Button pushing, not conversational imo.
If you are unfamiliar with the terms takfir here's a Wikipedia description:
History
One of the earliest examples of takfir was practiced by the first Caliph, Abu Bakr. In response to the refusal of certain Arab tribes to pay the alms-tax (zakat), he declared that "By God, I will fight anyone who differentiates between the prayer and the zakat." In the wars between the Umayyad Caliphate and the Kharijites, the latter's practice of takfir became the justification for their indiscriminate attacks on civilian Muslims; the more moderate Sunni view of takfir developed partly in response to this conflict.
In more recent times, takfir has sometimes been used against small sects, such as the Ahmadiyya or Ismailis, which describe themselves as Muslim, and sometimes even against larger groups such as the Shia. This has sometimes been used to legitimize physical attacks on such groups[1]. In the case of groups such as the GIA (as mentioned above), it has been used to legitimize attacks on any Muslim not actively fighting their governments.
I think Gore would have invaded Iraq too. Certainly he never had a problem that I know of with the 8 years of brutal humanitarian supplies embargo that went on during the Clinton years, or the criminal bombardment of Yugoslavia. As I understand it Gore spoke of attacking Iraq during the presedential campaign in 2000. The policies of hostility for Iraq were continued and developed under Clinton. Did Gore really disagree?
In foreign policy matters it's hard to see light between the policies of the two parties.
"Bush, or at least those running his foreign policy machine"
Bush is the only one making these foreign policy decisions, whether he thinks so or not. He may think he can delegate intelligence and wisdom, but he cannot. No matter who he pays to give him advise, his judgement is the only one that matters because his is the finger on the button.
There is a common misperception on both Right and Left that despite GW's lack of mental fortitude, there are people behind the scenes that are really running the show, for better or for worse. This neglects the fact that at the end of the day, "those people" aren't the ones signing off on military orders -- Bush, and Bush alone, is. He is the leader of the free world and no army of advisors can negate the fact that advisors can't launch nukes, only a President can.
One problem with calling Muslim extremists "authoritarian" is that, um, they don't have any authority. The Taliban DID, but no longer; from one end to the next, today the world of Islam is run by good old-fashioned right-wing dictators. These cretins certainly make hay of the tendency for religious people to follow authority, but I would be highly suprised to find out any of them were actual followers of Islam -- just as it would absolutely shock me to find out Bush were really a Christian.
No, whether rag-tag or wealthy, terrorists, who are the bane of any nation they care to inhabit, can hardly be called authoritarian, just as American neo-Nazis can. Yes, they DREAM of being authoritarian, but it is only a drea. Furthermore, despite the attraction Islamic militants have among small portions of the Muslim masses for being pro-Muslim, I have no doubt that even their supporters would not wish to live in a calphate, any more than Christians here would want to live in a Christian state, were it ever to become an option (what would it be, Catholic? Baptist? Mormon? They would come running back to secularism before you could say "schizm"). They, like our fundamentalists, as simply taking harbor in what they see as the only safe port in a storm; when the storm is over, as it will be soon, said port will become quickly irrelevant.
Osama is refering to muslims, specifically Sunnis I guess. According to the polls displayed in the post downthread they also are the people who suppport him and see him as a reliable leader figure.
And how did we subjugate them?
C'mon. You know this.
You support the Zionists in Israel and their occupation of Palestine. You occupy the holy lands of Saudi Arabia and support the apostate King there. You have invaded and occupied Iraq. You support the apostate Kings and dictators in Jordan, Pakistan, Egypt and in the smaller Gulf States. You have invaded Afghanistan to remove the muslim Taliban and replace them with a secular puppet. And then a separate list would be for the same shit but towards mostly Shiite countries.
Islam isn't the enemy, and Islamic fundamentalism isn't even the enemy. The enemy is conservatism. THAT is the cause of 9/11, it is the cause if the endless occupation of Iraq, it is the cause of Hezbollah's kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers, and it is the cause of Israel's targeting (slaughtering) of innocent civilians.
A less inciteful way of putting it is that we are locked into a war between modernism and traditionalism. I know what side I'm on.
While were diagnosing behavior, one could find in liberals many symptoms assotiated with:
Paranoid personality disorder
1) Belief that others are lying, cheating, exploiting or trying to harm you
2) Perception of hidden, malicious meaning in benign comments
Along with:
Schizoid personality disorder
1) Lack of regard for others' opinions
2) Fixation on your own thoughts and feelings
Just saying
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
And it goes without saying that making your enemies fear you will NEVER make you safe; quite the opposite is true, in fact. Any questions, see Israel, Palestine.
Of course the fundamentalist muslim view is very similar to yours -- you are both rightwing extremists (don't know if you're religious too). But you're basically projecting:
there has to be a conflict between our value systems and that they are commanded by God to win. They believe that they will eventually triumph over the infidels
That's what Republicans beleive.
As far as I can see it's not what they beleive. They think the west is sexually degenerate and has low moral values for the same reasons a Republican would agree -- all that crud about sex on TV and stuff. But the war is not because of values. It's because you are occupying their land.
If Iraq actually attacked us and we then struck it back and occupied it, we would've still been hated for taking on one of the arab countries. It was inevitable. We are the infidels and no matter what we do
Well yes if you occupy them. But after Iraq invaded Kuwait the US response didn't draw the same opposition. Because you left except for Saudi Arabian bases.
Israel legitimately defended itself against horrendous aggression and legitimately occupied territories to protect itself (as it is about to do now with creating a buffer zone in Lebanon). Legitimacy of its actions will make not one iota of difference
As you know Israel is in violation of international law that you despise. (And America is too of course). You are the criminals here. You're hated because people hate criminals.
You're the bad guys.
I believe in the strategy of overwhelming force and instilling fear in the groups we are fighting
That worked out so well for Israel didn't it?
By the way Ender you never did reply to my question asking whether you feel a country ought to abide by it's treaty obligations or not. The answer is you don't think the US or Israel should be bound to keep there promises but other countries should is it not?
... a threat to our liberties and system of checks and balances then you're not paying attention. And perhaps one day I'll show you what foaming at the mouth looks like, Ender -- but that wasn't it. My statement is only ridiculous to someone who is dangerously closed minded and blinded by ideology -- like yourself.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
I don't pretend to know what truly motivates Osama - though I'm sure you feel quite competent to explain that to me. Neither am I interested in defending American foreign policy -- and I am making no claim that Osama and his ilk don't have legitimate reasons to hate the US.
The goal of any act of terrorism is to plant fear. Is that an unreasonable statment? I see this fear beginning to, in my view, erode American democracy. Is that an unreasonable statment? If that is true, is that not a victory of sorts for Osama? Perhaps not his ultimate goal -- but I'm sure he's quite pleased.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
It's a silly word. If you want to call them fascist then back it up. If you want to call them rightwing religious authoritarian then nobody's going to disagree. (There is a difference. There is no corporate backing for Osama. No industrialised state.)
But don't say, "islamofascist": that's just baby talk.
As far as I can see Osama and the president of Iran and the Republicans and Zionists are natural allies and have a lot in common with each other. Osama has allied with US violence in the past in more than one theatre.
Nevertheless even a stopped watch is right twice a day and as it happens Osama is right to oppose the US imperialism and justifies doing so largely for the right reasons.
is a proven sockpuppet first amendment lawyer, it's utterly typical of "nuanced" frauds to warp the minds of the left.
Islamofacism or Islamofacists, voters know who or what we are talking about, yet you post this tripe yearning to defend their feelings?
This goes DIRECTLY to Ender's post, the American people are WATCHING the left defend the very people they claim to want to destroy every chance they get Paul. We on the right used to cheer every time this was done, now I personally am to the point where it is damn scary.
Osama took a bullet for the cause fighting the Soviets and Bush was a war time deserter from his champagne national guard unit.
These cretins certainly make hay of the tendency for religious people to follow authority, but I would be highly suprised to find out any of them were actual followers of Islam -- just as it would absolutely shock me to find out Bush were really a Christian.
that certain moral values are degenerate and want to fight against them, the fight is limited to the electoral process and I am yet to meet a republican interested in strapping on a suicide belt or ramming an airplane into buildings full of liberals.
As for the only problem being our occupation, that is a bogus excuse. My personal theory? The impotency of the Islamic countries and their inability to match up to the West. Not in terms of freedom or any other liberal Western values, but in terms pure power both military and economic, stature and respect. Those puny middle eastern countries ruled by atrocious dictators and mired in bottom of the world levels poverty, illiteracy, and economic output are similar to ill and stupid dogs who realize that the only way to keep their pathetic populations in check is to foment hate of the West. They are smarter than those rabid dogs of Al Qaeda because they've mostly stopped attacking Israel and they have not dared to attack the top dog US.
See, the Islamic countries are still living in the Dark Ages, their civilization stagnant and perpetually stuck in the 7th century AD. Their women are treated like property, there are no individual rights to speak of, and their morality comes from the most unreformed religious text on the face of this Earth. (answer to your question is - I am agnostic)
The point I am making is that anything that Osama or his fellow travellers use as pretexts for attacks on the West are excuses of rabid dogs who (out of blind and murderous envy) cannot stand the fact that all their Englightened fundamentalist faith brought them is continuous humiliation at the feet of the infidels like US and Israel. They will fight us until they are crushed and personally I am all for obliging them.
We are the bad guys you say? As you can see from the above, that couldn't be further from what I believe and nothing you can say will even remotely budge my convictions.
You say that instilling fear has not worked for Israel but that is not true. Arab countries have stopped attacking Israel after being defeated in a very humiliating fashion. Israel's overwhelming force worked time and time again. Their enemies absolutely hate them and yet they can do nothing about it because they are terrified of Israel's response as they know it will not hesitate to devolve them into a glass lot.
By the way Ender you never did reply to my question asking whether you feel a country ought to abide by it's treaty obligations or not. The answer is you don't think the US or Israel should be bound to keep there promises but other countries should is it not?
I believe each treaty should be evaluated on a case by case basis. The treaties we enter should be kept until they are objectively broken by the other side, as I believe we mostly enter only into those treaties that are morally good. If Israel enters into a negotiated truce and the other side breaks it then Israel is obligated to respond in kind.
Every country should be bound to keep their promises unless their counterparts break them first.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
They're the good guys in this war. Why would you want to back a regime (the US) that goes around occupying other peoples' countries and installing or supporting dictators?
They've probably got more of a moral cause than your founding fathers ever did.
...(IMO) is not creating fear for fear it self. They saw in America unwillingness to adequately respond to being attacked. With a string of attacks on U.S citizens and military going back 20 years or more with little or no response emboldened these terrorist culminating in the complete debacle of Somalia. The U.S. lack of adequate response effectively told them the time was right to achieve there goals. Those goals being:
1) Removal of infidels from Muslim lands
2) Removal or elimination of Israel
3) Topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East
4) Unite all Muslims and establish an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs
5) To wage holy war on the U.S., American citizens, and Jews. Muslims who do not heed this call are declared apostates (people who have forsaken their faith).
In lieu of destroying America, forcing us back home and back to isolationists seems to also be on their agenda.
Remember these people believe the Koran gives (infidels) three choices:
1) Conversion
2) 2nd class status and taxed accordingly
3) Death
They cannot be allowed to dominate the region with their twisted ideology!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Personally I do not believe defense of Al Qaeda, or Naziism, or KKK, or any other such group should be permitted on this blog. This kind of rhetoric is imo far outside the boundaries of what should be permitted.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
You beleive the UN charter and Geneva conventions etc should be ignored (by the US and Israel) even though it has not been broken by all the 190-odd other countries that the US and Israel made those treaties with. These treaties are objectively the most "morally good" treaties out there and they are made with the largest number of other countries many of them US allies. By the criteria you presented they would be the very last treaties any US president would think of violating. Same for Israel.
How do you explain then the flippant violation of these treaties by the US and Israel except by my theory that you beleive in one rule for the US and another for everyone else?
has long ago violated any good will possible for the continuation of those treaties. US can make mistakes. It's not always right. UN was a interesting idea at the beginning but it has long failed. I believe it's long past due time to withdraw from that corrupt organization of worthless nation states.
Our allies? We can deal with our allies very fairly without going through UN.
Your view of what is "morally good" is extraordinarily far from what I consider "morally good" so why use that. You are not objective.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
You're the ones with the violent racist and criminal political philosophy. Al-Qaeda is rightwing religious and authoritarian --- like you guys. I do not have the same philosophy as Al-Qaeda. I am merely pointing out they are not the bad guys in this fight.
is when you denigrate a race of people and not a bunch of pathetic countries or religious nutcases. Get your terms straight. Criminal is what support for Al Qaeda amounts to in my country so you might want to look in the mirror.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
was based in and was all about DavidByronlandia where Al-Qaeda weren't bad and probably in fact better than the United States and where you were the administrator trying to keep our "violent racist and criminal political philosophy" from disrupting *all* the other users who agreed with you... then in that case we should be banned.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Well maybe prejudice against Islam then. Much the same.
The impotency of the Islamic countries and their inability to match up to the West. Not in terms of freedom or any other liberal Western values, but in terms pure power both military and economic, stature and respect. Those puny middle eastern countries ruled by atrocious dictators and mired in bottom of the world levels poverty, illiteracy, and economic output are similar to ill and stupid dogs who realize that the only way to keep their pathetic populations in check is to foment hate of the West.
You have a negative stereotypical view which ignores the facts. Pakistan is one of a handful of countries with nuclear weapons and Saudi Arabia has a very large military force. Many of the Gulf States are wealthy and have lower levels of poverty than the US. Obviously no countries are "dogs".
As for criminal the positions you advocate clearly violate the UN charter.
You didn't choose to deny your views were violent!
I spoke in terms of countries and specifically muslim countries. I was not speaking about all muslims and I am sure many muslims in US have immigrated here to seek a better life than their native countries could ever dream of providing. It is an objective fact that muslim countries are undeveloped and are in generally poor states compared to Western countries.
Pakistan is somewhat of an exception and has a somewhat more capable ruling elite that has managed to steal and build nuclear technology. Even with that said, 95% of their population is living in the dark ages perpetuated by their government. Arab states have been consistently defeated by an enemy with 1/50th of their population. Their economies would have long collapsed were it not for the pure luck of oil's presence in the region and their theft of the Western technology to appropriate that wealth.
As for countries being dogs, you missed the fact that I compared all countries to dogs including US, where muslim countries were ill dogs, and Al Qaeda (non-state) was a rabid dog.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I guess in my view if you make a promise then you keep it but not so for you. Indeed our views are extraordinarily far apart.
The UN charter is a treaty with the other (190-odd) contracting nations not with the UN so your excuse fails. What you are saying is that the US has no obligation to keep any of its promises not even the most solemn of them it can offer. Is that correct? You say the US is utterly faithless?
And presumably the same for Israel.
Now this being the case why is it that you pretend to be outraged that Lebannon according to you broke a deal with Israel? Surely in your view any country can break any deal as it sees fit.
Btw does this philosophy on promises extend to individuals too? If you give a promise does it mean nothing?
I've only been on this site for a few days, so I don't really know the players, but it seems there are several "camps".
There are those who defend the US's position in general, but sometimes don't, especially when things aren't going well. They are hard to argue with since they are sure of the correctness of their views. The most extreme in this camp have been known to distort, ignore or otherwise tamper with reality.
There are the strawmen who want the US to "lose" or want the other side to "win" or are otherwise disloyal. They don't exist, but do make for a good rhetorical pinata.
There are those who are exasperated by the first group. They tend to get insulting when they can't make any headway via rational argument. They have also been known to misread reality on occasion as well.
Then there are those (I include myself) who are worried about the direction this country (and much of the western world) is heading in and are trying to understand why public opinions have turned so radical. When a person like Bill Kristol comes out in favor of bombing Iran then it is at the 12th hour as far as reasoned discussion is concerned.
One side screaming at the other doesn't do anything. It doesn't even change people's minds. The need to do this can only be because of some combination of fear and frustration.
I've been thinking about the underlying social problems for several years now and you can read my thoughts on my web site, if you are interested link .
My general concern is that the world is overpopulated and is running out of key resources. This is the what is causing the friction, it's like a pack of hungry dogs fighting over a few scraps of food. The problem is that ideas on how to change things are in short supply and the few offered are met with resistance by those profiting from the status quo.
He addressed it yesterday at Unclaimed Territory but since I doubt you'd actually link to it I'll give you the Cliff Notes:
"A new accusation is that I've been engaging in so-called "sock puppetry" by leaving comments in response to posts that attack me under other names., i.e., that I use multiple names to comment and the same comment was left at several blogs by the same IP address under different names.
Not frequently, I leave comments at blogs which criticize or respond to something I have written. I always, in every single instance, use my own name when doing so. I have never left a single comment at any other blog using any name other than my own, at least not since I began blogging. IP addresses signify the Internet account one uses, not any one individual. Those in the same household have the same IP address. In response to the personal attacks that have been oozing forth these last couple of weeks, others have left comments responding to them and correcting the factual inaccuracies, as have I. In each case when I did, I have used my own name."
I have to admit, I'm getting pretty peaved at some of the right leaning posters who "warn" us that we're gonna get ours come November. Wow, I'm so scared. Note to such awsome intellects - look at polls not put out by Phaux News.
"and I am yet to meet a republican interested in strapping on a suicide belt or ramming an airplane into buildings full of liberals."
Of course the people who murder doctors who perform abortions are perfectly normal individuals. And we certainly wouldn't categorize people who call for the lynching of Supreme Court Justices as extremists.
Do you even read what you've written before you post?
As for the Islamic countries living in the Dark Ages: Go read some GODDAMN History! Islam invented the zero for Christ's Sake! While we so-called enlightened westerners were dying of the Black Plague and killing each other over crusts of bread, Islam created a flourishing civilization. Because it went bust, only shows what happens to most civilizations that think too much of themselves.
As for your religious opinions: Have you read what some Evangelicals want to do with us? There are people in this country who believe the earth is 6000 years old, because the Bible says so. They also believe that they will be whisked up to Heaven during the Rapture (your president believes that, btw). Again, Fundamentalism in its extreme does not know any particular religious affiliation. Your arguments are just too stupid for words.
I'm glad you've cleared up that this is truly a war against two civilizations, but I'd love to know how the Right manages to put such disparate people as al-Zarqawi and Ahmadinejad on the same side in this cultural war, given that they'd eliminate each other (the former was bent on establishing a Sunni-only Iraq, the latter is ruler of the world's largest Shia nation).
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
But in terms of content, he's pretty much a mirror image. It's just that you support the home team with blind allegience, and he supports the out-of-towners.
Neither one of you cares very much for evidence that gets in your way, and you both avoid the tough arguments, going for the soft underbelly of the more naive--and making them up if they don't actually exist.
It was bad enough when I wasn't finishing book projects. Now I'm not finishing blog projects. Sooner than you think I won't be finishing my sentences, and then you'll
thoughtful approach to debate and your participation here. I disagree with your final concern as being the biggest problem we currently face (although you didn't specifically state that), however I do agree with your following statement "The problem is that ideas on how to change things are in short supply and the few offered are met with resistance by those profiting from the status quo." in regard to the oil industry.
Thanks for the link to your site.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defence mechanism in which one attributes ("projects") to others, one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them. The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud.
According to the theories of Sigmund Freud, it is a psychological defense mechanism whereby one "projects" one's own undesirable thoughts, motivations, desires, feelings—basically parts of oneself—onto someone else (usually another person, but psychological projection onto animals, inanimate objects - even religious constructs - also occurs). The principle of projection is well-established in psychology.
This sort of flame comment by you just undermines your entire body of work. Why should anyone beleive that everything you say about conservatives isn't as trite as your remarks about me?
For example how exactly am I supposed to be showing "blind alleigenace"? To whom? Are you under the impression there's a million people out there just like me who had the same "ideology"? I'm blindly folowing who exactly? Give me a name of some leading political figure who beleives what I say. What's the name of the movement that says just what I say?
What an assinine comment you just threw out there.
I'm the last person you could ever throw that particular accusation at. As with every other comment you make towards me this was 100% flame. Please quit responding to me if you can't get your mind out of the gutter.
I am not going to respond to you until you finish your blog projects...
But tell me this... If you believe (based on rational evidence and your own convictions) that one side is morally right and is acting in good faith, what is wrong with allegiance to that said side? How can it be blind in my case if I agree with the goals and the values of my country's leadership?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Well at least "my" rightwing nutcases don't want to blow up the whole world to bring Jesus back, like "yours" do. :)
All I am saying is that within the context of the so-called war on terrorism the US is the aggressor. That is not an endorsement of every idea the other side has.
could be personal enemies or that Sunnis are the natural enemies of Shia does not necessarily put any of them outside of the same cultural side.
The fact of the matter is that though me and you are decidedly different, we are still both at our core products of the Western civilization and hold values of individual liberty, secular and representative government, scientific advance, and human rights in very high esteem. So no matter how opposed we might be to each of our respective movement's leaders and personal philosophies we are still on the same side of the general West vs Islamic Fundamentalism cultural divide.
At least I'd hope so :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
What is most troubling these days, imo, is not the various programs that our government has instituted to defend our country, it's not the tactics that we've employed, it's not the torture of the poor "suspected terrorists", and it's not the high numbers of the civilian dead, but it is the Left's persistent unwillingness to see the War on Terror as a critical struggle, the outcome of which will determine the fate of the Western Civilization.
How do you know enough about the "various programs that our government has instituted to defend our country" to determine that there's no need to worry? Other than having unquestioning blind belief that the administration is 'doing what's best for us' I don't see how you can come to that conclusion.
How do you know that these programs have actually been "instituted to defend our country?" Again, unless you implicitly trust the administration to do only what's in your interests, how can you know?
The only way we can know these things is if our government functions as it was intended to function, with separation of powers and oversight. It's not functioning in that way right now. We DON'T know - but we've got enough information to conclude at this point that there are at the very least highly serious and legitimate questions concerning the legality of the administration's actions.
These legal issues should be decided by the courts -- unless the administration manages to get away with blocking any investigation into their actions. I don't think they will get away with that, if our democracy functions as it should. I'm sure you hope they will.
As to this:
the Left's persistent unwillingness to see the War on Terror as a critical struggle, the outcome of which will determine the fate of the Western Civilization.
You're deliberately mischaracterizing the left's position and intent here. And, I think, deliberately overstating your case in a pretty hamfisted emotional appeal. I think pretty much everyone thinks this struggle is important. Where we differ has to do with the prosecution of this 'war on terror' -- how it should be done, not whether it should be done.
The bottom line seems to be this -- you trust that the administration is acting in your best interests.
I don't.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Beleive it or not my newspaper had a story suggesting the human race was in peril because of falling birth rates. It claimed most countries now have birth rates below replacement levels. It suggested that max population would hit about 9 billion and then decline. Great news huh?
Also the report on the work of the UN the other year reported massive reductions (eg 80%) in the rate of wars, genocides and other conflicts. And of course the death rate from poverty and hunger has reduced by nearly half both within the last couple of decades.
There are the strawmen who want the US to "lose" or want the other side to "win" or are otherwise disloyal. They don't exist, but do make for a good rhetorical pinata.
I do exist but I'm not "disloyal" since I'm not American. Funny how you automatically call a disagreement over foreign policy being "disloyal".
A liberal democracy is a democratic system in which a framework of social and political rights protects the individual against illiberal majoritarian persecution.
A social democracy is a democratic system in which that framework of rights is expanded to specifically include economic rights as well, protecting individuals against systemic failures of the economic system over which they otherwise have no effective control.
The prototypical social democracies are those identified as such by Gøsta Esping-Anderson in The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, based on a variety of empirical criteria. These include the Scandanavian countries, as well as the Netherlands. Their policies are determined by a broad egalitarian commitment that results in very low poverty rates, typically 1-4%, and very low rates of social inequality. In a broader sense, all welfare states represent some degree of social democratic practice, though often in the service of other goals as well.
For a guy who thinks (without any evidence) that liberals are far outside the mainstream, you sure know how to pick your positions.
The GSS no longer asks this question, but from 1975 to 1994, it asked, " Do you think our government should continue to belong to the United Nations, or should we pull out of it now?"
Those answering "Pull Out" ranged from a high of 20.8 in 1976 to a low of 9.6 in 1991.
But it's more than being in a marginal minority position.
Your language, "I believe it's long past due time to withdraw from that corrupt organization of worthless nation states," indicates a level of contempt for others that is hard to reconcile with a state of basic mental health. People with healthy self-regard almost invariably show more respect for others, even those they disagree with.
Unless, of course, you're going for the David Byron rhetoric excess exemption.
Like I said. You two guys. Peas. Pod. The whole enchelada.
though of course in my view these "economic rights" are there more to protect individuals against their personal systemic failures than those of the economic system itself.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Since I believe US will always be hated until Islam is reformed I believe in the strategy of overwhelming force and instilling fear in the groups we are fighting.
They show such unflattering images!
All will be well, truth and harmony shall reign, once we
Break All The Mirrors!
(Or, in the alternative, "The beatings will continue until morale improves.")
The basic problem, dear Ender, is so fundamental, I can't explain it to you. If you could understand, you would never have to ask.
But a couple of more accessible problems are:
(1) "Good faith" is no excuse for killing the innocent. Don't believe me? Just try it in a court of law.
(2) You don't believe that one side is morally right "based on rational evidence and your own convictions." We've seen it repeatedly demonstrated how capriciously selective you are about what you count as rational evidence.
What was that charming phrase? Like a drunk, who depends on a lamppost, not for illumination, but for support? That's you to a "t." I'll grant you this much--you occassionally ask questions, and seem interested in learning little bits of information. But once they show any signs of challenging your pre-detrmined worldview, well, it's channel-surfing time.
In fact, the comparison I made was unfair to David Byron. He readily admits that bin Laden & co do some nasty things, and that he doesn't support every thing they do.
Your response has underscored that crucial difference.
Yeah, it actually was a bit unfair to you. But how else to underscore it than via the response I got from Ender?
Still, there's more than a bit of truth to it. You're both pretty selective in what you focus on. And you're both capable of better, as you both demonstrate on too-rare occassions.
Under the theory of a "natural rate of unemployment" there can't be zero percent unemployment, and if there could be, it would produce explosive inflation. So how can you blame everyone who's unemployed for not having a job?
It's precisely this sort of inability to think in terms of systematic cause and effect that limits your thinking on virtually any topic that comes up, and causes you to attribute multi-factor problems to the intentional bad acts of individuals you happen not to like.
This is symptomatic of incomplete cognitive development--which is very common among rightwing writers, politicians, pundits, etc. It's quite independent of native intelligence, however. People can get unstuck from the stage they're in. But they have to want to change. You don't seem to want to. At least not yet.
Why should David be considered outside the bounds here?
I know he's been obnoxious and disruptive elsewhere, but here he's provided an illuminating counterpoint to Ender. His manner is a bit more obnoxious, but his reasoning is strikingly similar, with the exception that he's aware he's defending folks who have flaws--something Ender's not quite grown up enough for just yet.
And Ender's a front-pager, for cryin' out loud!
Do I think David should be a front-pager, too? No. But neither should he be banned. It's only fair that Ender should have to confront someone who's style is so similar to his own, but from a very different direction.
Things could change in the future. But banning him because he says things that Ender doesn't like? What's the point of this site, then?
Again: please quit responding to my comments or refering to me since for whatever reason you just lose all self-control whenever you do so. You hate me. We get it. Ok? Just quit now.
I do think you're very socially unconscious, which makes it innappropriate for you to participate in certain forums. At least so far, I don't think Swords Crossed in such a place. In fact, I think it might be perfect for you.
In my view, it's altogether possible that if you find your niche, and lose some of your social awkwardness, you could become a really valuable member of the online community.
Right now, not so much. But we all have to start somewhere.
I've been booted from a few blogs. I've mentioned Redstate here on a couple of threads. Others for other reasons.
I've learned. I mean, at redstate, it wouldn't have mattered. They aren't going to put up with my opinions after a while. And after a while, they didn't. It's their blog. It's their choice & their right. I'm not offended.
The others, well let's just say I was less than tactfull on occasion. I also am not bothered as they weren't important.
But you have potential to be a good blogger. You just have to learn the tolerance limits within each blog & go with that.
Use links. Other people say what you say. If you link to them saying it, it won't be nearly as exasperating on others.
.... nobody gets banned for expressing an opinion. David seems to be a very smart guy, and even though I don't agree with many of his conclusions, he's presenting reasoned (if radical) opinions for the most part. As long as he is willing to participate without being abusive I don't see a problem, personally.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
you have such an aversion to the term. I use it to mean fundamentalist Muslims who insist on enforcing their version of Islam upon others. There is a lot of evidence that Bin Laden and his followers want a strict form of sharia law enforced. Look at the synonyms for fascism here and you get a sense that the word has a broader meaning. Within Islam, these men are extremists and it is in our favor to minimalize them in favor of moderate Muslims. So I think sticking them and their ilk with a unfavorable label is productive.
this war on terrorism........ a tactic after all, a tactic where human beings effectively deflect a stronger more powerful force, by turning themselves into the weapons.
Isn't terrorism, in the al Queda sense using an idea that Westerners can not comprehend, using oneself as a weapon to defeat an enemy that is of superior strength.
So in essence, to defeat "the enemy", we are trying to cripple their military force, which is in fact humans, not traditional machinery, jets, bombs, etc. of war. De-radicalizing arabs would seem to be a wiser tact, ie winning hearts and minds, yet are we not now doing the Exact opposite, radicalizing the arabs even more. Uniting against an enemy that seems an occupier not a liberator, a force of demolishment.
Therefore in Ender's world view the ONLY solution would be to literally KILL all of the military infrastruture, or wipe out the whole of the Arab population. For if one lives they will fight for the land and their culture, whether we see that as right or wrong. So Ender's conclusion would be an all out Hiroshima style attack on the Iran........ yes? And then like Japan, the US would have a new ally in the Middle East. Isn't that the neocon strategy. They are itching and burning to have some nuclear action..... and teach those terrorists a lesson.
If we really wanted to win the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq, we could have easily. Instead chaos reins. And it seems less clear that the US objective is about helping the people, and more about helping themselves to the regions rich and bontiful resources. So the battle isn't over "evil" it is over who has control of the land and it's resources. And in fighting a larger and stronger enemy, the people defending their homeland use non traditional warfare tactics out of necessity. And it has been largely effective.
Dropping a bomb from an airplane the casualities are impersonal.
Strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing others up, the casualities become shockingly human and very personal, and the graphic nature of warfare is fathomable.
I think in the end, it is important to separate the people, from their leaders. I doubt that anyone in Iraq, Iran or Lebanon welcomes the total destruction of their country. Many of the youth especially are less radical, and now may stand in stronger solidarity with the hardliners in leadership, because they become More Not Less radicalized with each passing day.
Who knows what he would have done? I don't think the present day Gore would have done it, and maybe not the 2003 Gore either, but Gore has changed a lot it seems to me. You have to admit that the difference between the Dems and Rethugs on foreign policy in general is tiny.
.... to think that this 'war on terror' can be waged and won by solely by US military forces. Yet that seems to be exactly the delusion that the Neocons are operating under. A real 'solution' to this problem requires a significant cultural shift, and how (or whether) that can be forced externally - I have no idea.
The plan was, of course, that a free, democratic, pro-western Iraq would start a chain reaction (domino theory -- where have we heard that before?) in the Middle East. I don't think a free, democratic, pro-western Iraq is in the cards at this point. I hope I'm wrong about that.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Everyone likes to think they could put up with people with different views but it isn't true on the whole. They booted you for your politics and you don't have any problem recognising that -- though they would. Since I'm probably further to the left of liberals than you are to the left of RedState why I assume I was banned for anything other than my politcs?
Ender and others have already openly called for me to be banned for my political views.
though of course in my view these "economic rights" are there more to protect individuals against their personal systemic failures than those of the economic system itself.
does not mean that I am talking about everyone.
Either you behave like a respectful adult or go away.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
The number one reason is that it's a rightwing propaganda term. Every time you use it, you reinforce the neo-con world view. If you enjoy helping that crowd hurry us toward the destruction of America as we know it, then by all means, just keep using that word.
There is a more general principle here, too. You don't just use heavily-loaded terms any old which way, and justify it by the fact that other people do it, so it must be okay. ("Well, Johnny does it!"--the height of 7-year old wisdom.) This is what you're doing when you cite dictionaries to "prove" that your use of fascism is okay with "a broader meaning," and hence your use of "islamofascism" must be okay too.
Well, by that same logic, one of the synonyms given in the first entry on the page you linked to was "bureaucracy," which would make that Vatican a "Christofascist" organization.
Now, do you think someone might have a problem with that???
Neocons tend to think of this as war between two civilizations, between Islam and the West, following the likes of Bernard Lewis. I don't see this as a clash of civilizations. Here's a sample of Lewis .
I'm sure you are aware that people with vastly different views can use the same vocabulary in some instances. I happen to think that fundamentalist Muslims are fascistic. I would also use the term "Christofascists" to apply to people like those who ran the Spanish Inquisition. Perhaps you and I disagree about what the goals of fundamentalist muslims are? The establishment of a Caliphate to enforce their version of sharia law is a central goal and, in my estimation, their goals to purify Islam are not totally dissimilar from the goals of the inquisition.
At any rate, I understand the intellectual part of your objection to the term, but I don't understand why there seems to be so much emotion in the objection. Do you really believe that to use just one word that the neoconservatives use is to reinforce their whole belief structure? That seems an overstatement to me.
I thought that the idea that you can use the GOP's language and not reinforce their positions by doing so was so naive that no one outside of DC would openly defend it.
Well, you learn something new every day.
Or, maybe you're just looking for a job with Bob Shrum?
especially when it is on such a minor detail as the use of one word, does not advance your cause at all. I am willing to not use the word to avoid needless argument, but I suggest that you stop calling those who disagree with you childish or stupid. It just isn't productive.
I've been debating folks since I was in grade school, if not earlier. I learned about classical syllogisms before I could write. So I do tend to notice the patterns of people's arguments, as well as their content.
The Greeks (you remember the Greeks, don't you? Co-founders of this Western Civilization thingie that you alone can save and folks like me are plotting to destroy?) thought that this sort of analysis--separating form and content--was important for gaining insight, avoiding error, and clarifying the quest for truth.
Over the last few decades, enormous advances have been made in understanding human cognition. (This is not psychoanalysis, though a few psychoanalytic terms may come in handy from time to time.) Some of those advances have direct relevance to understanding structures of argumentation.
It's only natural that folks who share the Greeks' outlook on truth-seeking would want to enhance their awareness by studying these developments, and making themselve more aware of them in everyday life. And that's what I do--in very measured doses.
If I were to do it full out, I would never have engaged in any sort of dialogue with you at all. I would simply stand back and comment on the failed nature of your arguments.
But you almost invariably fail to respond to my core arguments. You even front-paged a diary of mine "Conservative Blogger Out Of Touch With Reality" about your faulty reasoning, and promised "When I have some time, I will respond as well." That was last Sunday. You still have yet to respond.
In the interim, you've been too busy taking cheap shots at others to bother defending yourself. A good choice, really. Why defend the indefensible, when you can just hope that people will ignore it, and it will go away?
Add that to your promised counter to my post showing that liberals are not out of touch with mainstream opinion, which is going onto five weeks overdue by now, and we can see a very clear pattern here:
You got nothin'.
That's it. You can huff and puff and rant and rave, but when someone comes back at you with a well-documented response to your absurdist demonization of those you disagree with, you have no response whatsoever.
You're a bright guy. Check back over your responses to Ender and see how many of them have arguments such as another example of why Paul is incapable of comprehending simple logic as opposed to, or in addition to, perfectly acceptable arguments like Paul, I think your logic is flawed because X.
The fact that you just got in a spat with Mike (!) should perhaps make you question whether this is really all just in our heads.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I'm sorry, Brendan, but I'm a member of the reality-based community. If one side ignores the overwhelming preponderance of the data, but then, based on assumptions grounded in fantasy, conducts itself somewhat scrupulously, I am not impressed. If repeated entreaties for them to pay attention to reality fall on deaf ears, I will start needling them, especially if they respond to needling.
I may not get any substantive arguments out of them, but I will show that they have plenty of time to posture as reasoned debaters, but zero time for looking at the facts. With respect to Ender, this has now been established beyond a shadow of a doubt.
As for Mike, it doesn't matter who it is. If someone insists on using bigoted language I will challenge them. And if someone who thinks they are a progressive uses reactionary language, I will definitely challenge them.
Why in the world do you think this makes me look bad? What's your operating assumption here? I'd really like to see you lay it out and explain yourself.
bin Laden are mostly not nice people. Incidentally, Martin used the term here . Notice there isn't much complaint about his use of the word, though his use does seem more tongue in cheek and he doesn't really discuss the term per se.
I think those who follow bin Laden are mostly not nice people.
No argument there. But that doesn't automatically mean they are fascists.
More importantly, the term "islamofascist" is used precisely to blur the lines between al Qaeda, those who may occassionally give it some specific support, those who may sympathize (at least when the latest neo-con atrocity makes him look good by comparison from their POV) and those who have similar Islamic theocratic tendencies, but who may have deep doctrinal and/or political differences with him.
If we seriously want to defeat the threat of terrorism we face, then we have to everything possible to understand, and take advantage of those differencese, not blur them and make them irrelevent.
And, yes, when people use the term derisively, folks like me tend not to complain. Heck, I use the term derisively. It's one of the ways to attack Orwellian language, through ridicule and derision.
made an argument worth discussing, that use of the term blurs the line between Bin Laden and his followers and those who are sympathetic to his cause but aren't hardliners themselves. I agree that neo-conservatives do this blurring. But my intention is not to lump all them under the label but to paint the hardliners as extremists who do not represent Islam as a whole. I use the word differently than the neocons. But as I said, I am willing not to use the term to avoid needless argument.
Comments :
So basically
you are terrified of a tiny bunch of beardie weirdies living in a cave and armed with plastic knives? Is that what you are saying here? Compared to world war two for example, would you say Al-Qaeda was more dangerous, or far far more dangerous?
Honestly I wouldn't worry about it Ender. When it comes to religious hatred and fantacism your country is world class. You could give Osama bin Laden lessons.
Actually..... you did give him lessons didn't you? Probably not such a smart move in hindsight. Better luck next time.
asdf
Stop hyperventilating and tell us how you think terrorists might bring down Western civilization?
qui tacet consentire
Little perspective
Leading causes of death for the US, 2001.
Diseases of heart 700,142 (29.0%)
Malignant neoplasms 553,768 (22.9%)
Cerebrovascular diseases 163,538 (6.8%)
Chronic lower respiratory diseases 123,013 (5.1%)
Accidents (unintentional injuries) 101,537 (4.2%)
Diabetes mellitus 71,372 (3.0%)
Influenza and pneumonia 62,034 (2.6%)
Alzheimer's disease 53,852 (2.2%)
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis 39,480 (1.6%)
Septicemia 32,238 (1.3%)
Intentional self-harm (suicide) 30,622 (1.3%)
Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis 27,035 (1.1%)
Assault (homicide) 20,308 (0.8%)
Essential (primary) hypertension and hypertensive renal disease 19,250 (0.8%)
Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids 17,301 (0.7%)
Terrorism is down there somewhere just north of animal attacks
probably. Got to watch out for those bears!
So in other words
my policies are practically perfect in every way so by disagreeing with me you obviously must not care about terrorism or are trying to help the enemy.
Same old substanceless brow beating.
Perspective
Left is angry because Bush administration is worsening the problem of Terrorism instead of helping it.
1. Making countries that hate us like Iran and Saudi Arabia and Venzuela wealthier with Oil money and invading Iraq(mking Iran stronger).
We should have sttod firm against Saudi--because it is their people that caused 911.
2. Instead of winning hearts and minds of muslims so that they dont embrace the radical ideology--we are antagonizing them--giving radicals a recruiting meme
3. I couldnt understand why we did not chase Osama to Pakistan when you even invaded Iraq which did not have anything to do with 911.
4. The cure--is spreading Democracy, tolerance, freedom, Human Rights, Rule of Law to other countries--but first we have to be a genuine example to emulate. Instead, Bush is emulating their authoritarian/dictatorial tactics.
5. Dont tell me we cant fight terrorism with what we have. Failures previously was not because we did not have the policies but that people did not enforce them. For example--the August 6 PDB which Bush brush aside.
6. Any policies needed should be debated in Congress, to preserve that respect for the Constitution. If Constitution is not respected then we are becoming like them--it is just unamerican and unpatriotic because it diminishes what it is to be an American and what it is to have a Democracy.
Don't sass my man Osama
What makes you think Osama would be as unlawful as a US president? What is that based on?
Obviously since he is a stateless actor there's no specific constitution or law which applies for Al-Qaeda, however Osama does seem to care about the broad principles that the Koran lays down for war and apparently has sought legal permission from third party religious figures to proceed with his war (fatwah). He's also been criticised by his peers over 9-11 for not giving the Crusaders sufficient warning and an opportunity to end the war. That is why he's been giving that offer recently. At the least then he has given an impression of subjecting himself to a lawful authority.
Bush like all US presidents doesn't appear to have the slightest regard for law when it comes to foreign policy. In fact most so-called liberals let alone Republicans agree with him that so-called "international law" (ie US law through treaty) for example the UN charter or Geneva conventions can be ignored completely. That's completely normal for a US president. (Bush also seems to think that domestic laws do not apply to him, which is more unusual for a US president.) Glenn Grenwald who has criticised Bush a lot for his views on being above domestic law, appears to agree with Bush and is inconsistent in that he has no issue with Bush breaking so-called "international law".
This attitude of lawlessness by the US is completely normal.
Therefore on the basis of the evidence I would say that America could learn from Al-Qaeda when it comes to being law abiding.
If Constitution is not respected then we are becoming like them
The danger is more that they sink down to your level. Let's hope that doesn't happen.
Is Liberty a founding principle?
This position amazes me. In order to hold it you must ignore every historical parallel where nations have descended into totalitarianism.
What is the siren song of the authoritarian? How does liberty die? You've bought all of it, Ender -- and you're singing the song at the top of your lungs. You would trade your liberty for safety, and in doing so you allow them to win.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
I don't see anything
even remotely related to restricting our liberties. Sorry but the leftist alarmism has not swayed me nor has it made me feel that any of my liberties are threatened. What historical parallels are you even talking about? I wish people would stop foaming at the mouth and make such ridiculous statements.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Digging Your Own Grave
Ender:
So John Dean (Conservatives Without Conscience
) is a leftist now?
And Kevin Phillips (American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21stCentury
), too?
Or how about Paul Craig Roberts
:
The problem, dear Ender, is that you're turning the conservative establishment into "leftists." And the problem with Bush's war on terror is directly parallel: it's turning moderate Muslims into "Islamo-fascists."
An international poll done just after the invasion of Iraq released in June, 2003 revealed the following, shockingly high level of trust in bin Laden, something that would never have been seen just after 9/11:
I'm sure that the current Israeli invasion of Lebanon will have a similar effect in raising bin Laden's standing--something that only bin Laden's enemies have the power to do.
Now, that poll was conducted by the Pew Center. So you can go ahead and reject it out of hand, like you do everything that doesn't fit your pre-determined worldview.
Or you can stop and think for a minute--think if maybe, just maybe, you're making the problems as you see them much, much worse.
Maybe, there's something to the idea of actually listening to people who disagree with you, rather than dismissing them with simplistic labels, and refusing to accept unpleasant facts.
p.s. In case you missed this--back in early 2002, the 22-nation Arab League actually agreed to a process that would have lead to the recognition of Israel's right to exist, and actual diplomatic recognition as well. Colin Powell was very positive
. But Colin Powell didn't run US foreign policy. Instead of taking advantage of this rare post-9/11 opening to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, Bush continued his focus on invading Iraq, and lost a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
This lost opportunity has been totally flushed down the memory hole, but it's quite possibly the greatest failure of the Bush Administration. And that's saying an awful, awful lot.
By Keeping the GOP in Power, Of Course!
You've got to come up with harder questions.
A Brief Moment of Lucidity From David Byron
See, Ender?
If David Byron can do it, so can you!
Precsiely!
Jasmine nailed it precisely. If Bush actually trusted and believed in America's real strengths, we'd have won this "war on terrorism" long ago.
We're coming up on FIVE YEARS after 9/11. Five years after Pearl Harbor, the American public had just thanked the Democrats for winning World War II by turning them out of office in the House, yearning for a "return to normalcy."
Claptrap!
Your basic premise, that the only way to fight the rise of "Radical Islam" is through the use of force is one of the reasons we are in this struggle you speak of. You need only look to Vietnam to see what happens when your only actions are the use of force.
The barbaric enemy you speak of is ignorance, which you seem to be a huge proponent of. Your argument that the left doesn't care about safeguarding our nation is just more verbal BS, without foundation. It is the belief of small-minded, petty little hypocritical tyrants, arguing that they are somehow better at seeing reality than the rest of us.
You point out that we are better at assimilation than Europe, then go on to ignore what that means. It means when you give people opportunities, when you give them a reason for being, they are less likely to be converted to radical movements. US History shows that until FDR started many of the New Deal Programs, many US citizens were embracing radical movements, both Communist and Fascist, as they felt this was the only way to effect change.
If we really wanted to scale back Radical Islam, we would do it by effectively helping to raise the opportunities of the people in the MidEast. But we've never done that. The Crisis of Western Civilization isn't that Radical Islam will destroy us, it is that we will destroy ourselves in a militaristic orgy as we pursue this so-called "threat."
This is just more of the same drivel that people like Rick Santorum (who makes shit up) try to pull just to get re-elected. I can't imagine that this is considered an intelligent, well-thought-out argument by anyone, even if you are on the conservative side.
David,
that is unproductive and ugly. Surely you can think of a way to express yourself that is more conducive to debate. Don't force us to add to a long string of bannings please. Also, you might consider building a storehouse of links or references with evidence that confirms at least some of what you believe. That would at least be something substantive that the rest of us could engage you on.
NSA collecting phone information...
You don't see quite a bit, do you? The NSA is collecting all the phone numbers we call. Do you believe that that information is being collected just for the hell of it?
Or Library Reading lists. I'm sure the young man who was visited by Homeland Security for checking out Mao's Little Red Book feels so much safer knowing the Gov't is following his reading.
Or Extraordinary Rendition: Of course, since we did this, they must be terrorists.
By your definition, Ender, everyone is guilty until proven innocent. So let's toss Tom Delay and the rest of the Republican Party in jail until we find out what they really did!
David, have read Osama's views?
He is a true believer of using takfir, by that I mean in his mind, anyone who does not believe what he believes, exactly, does not have any rights nor does he owe any obligations to treat them as human and they should be killed. All this in their view is how they serve their view of Islam.
They kill you in a minute.
Now you may be playing devils advocate, I don't know, but be aware of whom you are speaking of. A sweet & cuddly kitten, Osama ain't.
Paul, glad to see you are still
posting. I would like you to develop some thoughts on how the GOP has built a strawman "liberal" that they use to attack all Democrats all the while developing into something that betrays their own principles. If you are interested and have time, I would frontpage a good diary on that topic from you.
I disagree. I don't think
that lost opportunity has been totally flushed down the memory hole. Almost but not quite.
Islam in and of itself isn't our enemy.
The views of some of the branches of Islam, particularly the Saudi promoted Wahhabist view is. I say that because it promotes a view that lacks any tolerance or other views at all. They have the benefit of funding. Saudi/Osama pushing of something that does threaten the world.
Now, other religions do the same thing. Christianity has it's adherents that have the same views, just with themselves at the center.
These are all very small subsets of greater religions that for most practical purposes, don't contradict one another, promote the same values and can exist in harmony side by side.
Now, is the best way to fight that threat to ignore the fundamental ideas that make America great? You know, due process, open court proceedings, being able to challange your accusers, no secret evidence, following the rule of law. No. That takes away from everything that America is supposed to stand for. That is what some of us are fighting against. That's the great threat from within.
But that doesn't mean we aren't also trying to fight the external threat. We are, as much as many on the right would try to deny it, but we would do it within the framework of what we have, not by extrajudicial or an all powerful Unitary Executive Super President.
I think Bush has totally
misfought the "War on Terror." First, the way we have gone about it has strengthened the hand of Islamofascists in the Muslim World. Bush, or at least those running his foreign policy machine, has chosen to follow the ideas of Bernard Lewis based on how Kemal Ataturk secularized Turkey. (link
) Most of the of the Muslim World wants Democracy but does not want to be secularized. By unnecessarily raising the specter of secularization, the Bush team has likely strengthened the hand of Islamofascists. (link 
) I have more on the War on Terror but will have to share it later when I have time to sit down and compile the info into a readable form.
From the "they hate us for our freedoms" school
Yeah anyone who doesn't support America is a killer who's motivation is killing because they are a killer and they kill people. Sophisitcated analysis there. Anything to back it up? I don't recall bin Laden ever saying his goal was to wipe out all non-muslims.
More sassing my man Osama
You would trade your liberty for safety, and in doing so you allow them to win.
Osama is pursuing freedom for his own people --- freedom from the subjugation imposed by your government incidentally. Your naive patriotic nonsense is actually backwards. Victory means conquering other people by the American government's definition. Victory for Osama means liberation from American influences.
Your comment indicates a naive beleif in US patriotic propaganda. The facts however show that it is your tanks in their streets not vice versa.
There you go again
Asking questions you know the answer to. Is it a delaying tactic? You're not simply disagreeing but actually pretending to not have any idea what the other guy is even refering to. These ideas are common and you are familiar with them. Why the pretense?
More patriotic rubbish
Why do you use this silly word "islamofascist"? Americans really need to quit using this baby languange whereby anyone who disagrees with them has to be called all sorts of silly names and have ridiculous motivations attributed to them ("they hate out freedoms", "they want to kill everyone"). When are you going to join the real world?
At a time when America seems on the brink of genuine fascism you should avoid degrading the word "fascist". You might need it for real shortly.
but where is the evidence
of Bush administration actually pursuing the policy of secularized democracy in either Afghanistan or Iraq? I haven't seen any evidence of that regardless of the neocon thinking. Both have incorporated Islamic law as the guiding force and the basis for their constitution and laws.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
How Many People Remember The Offer To Recognize Israel?
I've almost never heard that summit and the resulting resolution mentioned--even by Bush Administration critics well outside of Beltway circles. Actually, I can't ever remember hearing it cited more than a month or two after it happened.
Huh?
Who are "his people" in this context? He was supported by the Taliban, whom we perhaps should have subjugated but actually helped against the Soviets. He wasn't much of a friend to the Iraqis, despite what some on the right would prefer to believe.
What are you talking about?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
There Is No Such Thing As "Islamofascism"
You should know better than to use such disinformation terms. Just as Glenn Greenwald warns against the loose use of "fascism" in describing creeping authoritarianism in America, it's equally, if not even more misleading to apply such a specific Western political label to another culture.
It's utterly typical of how demonization substitutes for analytical thought on the right.
What's the point?
It would just be seen by the people as their US sponsored dictators and kings pandering to America as usual. As the polls you included show the non-state actors are increasingly seen as the real representatives of the people. It might even just make people more angry.
And this is to go along with your assumption that recognising Israel is a good thing, which I don't think it would be.
I think to be fair it would be a victory for US diplomacy but not much else, and since for many people the US is the enemy it would quite likely have a negative effect on the chances of a peaceful resolution.
they start small
but so did AIDS. If unchecked their potential is unlimited.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
study
There has been a lot of discussion about the "authoritarian" type of personality (most recently in John Dean's new book).
One of the characteristics of this type of person is the need to have an uncomplicated world view.
Here's a link to a good summary study of the various theories about this subject:
Study
Note that there are really two types of personalities the followers and the leaders. In my estimation Bush is a follower (and thus is afraid of contradictory information) while Cheney, Rumsfeld and several others are the leaders (sure that their vision is right).
The problem with debates like this one started by ender is that there is no way for the two views of the world to be reconciled. Those who worldview is based upon the "law of the jungle" are willing to adopt variations of the end justifies to means to maintain "safety".
Those whose view is that the ideal is empathy and that people are basically good see discussion and compromise as the most useful tools.
The first viewpoint fails when the danger is overestimated and the degree to which civil liberties are constrained becomes excessive.
The second viewpoint fails when the opponent is misjudged and thought to be capable of rational dialog, but turns out to be a sociopath.
Ender belongs to the first type and is not going to change his viewpoint. So those arguing with him are doing it only to please themselves, nothing substantive will come out of these debates. (If a person on the other side had started the discussion the conclusions would also be the same.)
There could be meaningful discussions of the actual policies being carried out. That is, do they achieve their objectives and are those in charge able to modify their plans when existing ones seem not to be working well? There could also be a discussion of how to get people to modify current plans if they fail to acknowledge the need for such modification.
That is, we could be have discussions of tactics and political action.
--- Policies not Politics
it's a different world Paul
You know perfectly well the differences between Al Qaeda and other sympathizing terror groups are not as easy to defeat. Democrats would not have done better and the old tactics simply do not work.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Worst of Both Worlds
(BTW, Ender, I've noticed how you've once more ignored my fact-filled response to pick the low-hanging rhetorical fruit.)
What Bush has done is the worst of both--too secular for the religious, too religious for the secular. But the main thrust is (1) anti-nationalist and (2) anti-social democracy. And, of course, the history of the last 200 years is that nation-based social democracy is the best recipe for peaceful, prosperous development.
Just because Bush is
fascistic does not mean that Muslim extremists are not Islamofascists. They are very authoritarian. My use of the word is from the academic vocabulary and has absolutely nothing to do with US patriotism. There has been lengthy debate over the term in wikipedia files. Here
is the main discussion. Here 
and here 
are discussions of whether to keep that article, both of which decided to keep it. Here 
is a discussion of fascism and religion.
As others have noted, you seen unaware of the actual views of those you defend. The implementation of sharia law by Islamic fundamentalists has been very authoritarian and, in my opinion, deserving of the label "fascistic."
Are you seriously this ignorant?
Seriously are you so into the patriotic baby talk that you don't know even vaguely what the political position of Osama bin Laden is? You have no idea at all what really motivates him?
Or is this an Ender-style asking a question you already know the answer to dodge? I find it very hard to beleive you really don't know the answer to your own question here.
So you're saying
we shouldn't have sex with terrorists?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
There's a big difference
between who Osama views as his people, and who those people view as Osama's people. It's hard to run a caliphate when much of the Muslim world would prefer you dead. So yes, I'm serious: who are "his people" in that they would self-identify in such a fashion? And how did we subjugate them?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Beyond Broad Empirical Studies
The social science study of political attitudes is something I've studied for years, and certainly merits more attention.
However, they are necessarily limited to phenomena that are fairly widespread, and that tend to be have modest gradients--meaning that there's no sharp dividing lines between people. In contrast, some of that research points to situations that can be much more troubling, when there are high concentrations of people with different sorts of authoritarian attitudes--such as high concentrations of rightwing authoritarians in GOP caucuses in state legislatures. (There is good reason, but no direct evidence, to suppose that this characterizes Congress today.)
Beyond that, there are the rarer phenomena of outright personality disorders, such as Narcissitic Personality Disorder
, which seems like a fairly accurate description of Bush. There are correlations here--the cognitive impairments suffered by authoritarians are just the sorts of thing that would lead them to place their trust in people who outright mentally ill, provided it's the right form of mental illness.
legitimate term I think
One meaning of fascism is (link
):
Islamists who are oppressive and dictatorial are by definition Islamofascists. I know you probably have some specific reason for wanting to avoid that word. I realize that they are not exactly fascists in the same sense as Germany during WW2:
But why should we avoid the term just because they are not exactly like the Germans? They want to impose a religiously-based caliphate that would rule over the Middle East, which implies a central control that sounds more and more like traditional fascism.
Careful with examples
I'm sure the young man who was visited by Homeland Security for checking out Mao's Little Red Book feels so much safer knowing the Gov't is following his reading.
I believe this one was shown to be a hoax.
Now, making files on non-violent protesters, having secret service remove and arrest anyone exercising free speach too close to the president...
They were pushing Chalabi
but those plans had to be scrapped. Cheney was driving this policy and Chalabi was his version of Ataturk. More later on this as I have to hit the road for a few hours.
Democrats would be better
Democrats would be better. That radical Iranian president would not have won under Gore. Hamas would not have won under Gore. Gore would have stood up against the Saudis and would have chased Osama inside Pakistan or not let him go in Tora Bora. And Oil would still be at $30/barrel.
Because America would still have its moral authority.
There will always be extremist group. The solution is to make them irrelevant as well as eradicate them and not make them grow and give them a recruiting tool which Bush has done.
------------
How about standing up to the Saudis who is funding charity groups that launder money and give it to radical groups?
Standing up to Saudis for teaching their children hate for anything Western.
Standing up to Saudis for putting up radical schools called madrassas around the world thus making the muslim world more intolerant and radical.
Do you seriously think US will monitor charity of fundraising from Saudi Arabia and where it actually goes.
The Saudi leadership is Bush friend but do they have control of their radical elements?
Not 'law of jungle'
The conservative mindset is not that "anything goes" or "might makes right". Their moral theory is less consistent than this. Force is only seen as right when performed by their side. No conservative reacted to 9-11 by saying that might was right so 9-11 was a good thing. They didn't praise the courage and ingenuity of the attackers and then rally a counter attack. They claimed 9-11 was immoral while calling their own violence moral.
The moral view of the conservative is simple: our side is always in the right.
They don't believe the ends justify the means either. That formula is for people who think the "means" are negative. Conservatives don't think eg bombing civilian Iraqis is negative. They love it. Iraqis are the enemy so bombing them is a good thing. They'd prefer to do more of it even if it was completely unnecessary.
Hence the talk about nuking Saudi Arabia or "lets just make a glass parking lot out of the whole lot of them" and so on.
The first viewpoint fails when the danger is overestimated and the degree to which civil liberties are constrained becomes excessive.
Says who?
Not them. In my view the tribalist moral theory is immoral from the start, so I don't think you're right either.
---------------------------------------
The second viewpoint fails when the opponent is misjudged and thought to be capable of rational dialog, but turns out to be a sociopath.
Is anyone here in this group then?
Most people here don't seem to have a clue what motvates bin Laden. That would appear to be a bare minimum requirement to be considered this type of person. I therefore conclude that this group may be pretty small or empty.
You've Been Had!
"Islamofascism" doesn't come from academia as the sources you yourself cite note.
Regarding the term itself, Wikipedia says:
Regarding it's application:
And origins:
You should read Edward Said's classic work Orientalism in order to get some perspective on how Western discourse about the Asian other has systematically distorted "them" and deluded "us."
The term is a loaded gun. It does not illuminate, it only incites.
I'd like to buy a qualifier for $200 please
Conservatives don't think eg bombing civilian Iraqis is negative. They love it. Iraqis are the enemy so bombing them is a good thing. They'd prefer to do more of it even if it was completely unnecessary.
That's a teensy bit of an overgeneralization, no? If I replaced conservatives with Arabs and Iraqis with Americans/Israelis you'd be rightly upset. Can we please try to avoid slandering huge groups of people? Thanks.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Why Not Call Them Soup Nazis???
I mean, come on. This is the sort of thing I'd normally expect of Ender. Nithing could be clearer than the use of the term to justify the demonological underpinnings of the "war on terror."
This definition:
may be good enough for 12-year old kids calling their parents fascists for not letting them stay out past 10 on a school night, but it doesn't pass the laugh test in your attempt to make this a legitimate term.
Give it up.
I Hate To Defend David Byron, But...
He did start out this particular comment talking about "the conservative mindset." He was clearly talking about conservatives as a group, in terms of general group characteristics.
He frequently makes much more extreme, untenable, and unqualified statements. Why not pick on him then?
American?
"American culture of self-determination and the American dream of achieving success"
American? Can you name a nation where this is NOT the dream of its citizens?
Criticism in times of war is vital to our survival. If our leaders are doing it the wrong way and nobody criticizes them, we are doomed. Obviously.
What the left is criticising, it should be noted, is not the fight against Islamism, but the way in which Bush & Co. are waging -- and escalating -- this war. We could be fighting a much more effective war, but y'all insist on using bombs and tanks and stuff, which will of course never secure our nation.
But what really puts Western Civilization on the brink is the Right's constant mischaracterizaion of the Left's (not to mention the Islamic world's) stance, done solely for political gain at the expense of unity. As long as y'all state lies like, "leftists are not serious about fighting terrorism", or, "Muslims want to destroy the West" (as if they had a single thing to gain from such an event), you will continue dividing people and providing fertile ground for bloodletting. Only when the Right recognizes that a reconciliatory posture will run laps around an antagonistic one, then peace may loom on the horizon. Until then, you war-mongers will keep doing what you know best.
Just remember: 99% of the Muslims of the world do not want to destroy "Western Civilization". They are not barbarians; they have been civilized since Westerners were living in caves. They want peace as bad as Western civilians do, but their leaders, like ours, have too much to gain politically to push for peace; war pays too many dividends, as George W. Bush will readily attest. But there is no East or West anymore; Christians, Jews, and Muslims of the world know this, that we cannot pretend to live in different worlds anymore. Too bad our leaders (and their lickspittles, wherever they cower) will never accept this, as they have too much to gain from decisiveness. However, as we are a democratic nation, it doesn't really matter WHAT those leaders think; the American public has turned against your war and your methods, and soon the leadership will be changing for the better. Unfortunately, the Right has undermined democracy for so long in the Middle East that the same cannot be said for those nations in which you have propped up authoritarians and dictators, but democracy is an inevitability in all cultures, eventually, so for the time being I simply will hang on to hope that people there will stand their ground and not let THEIR dividers do what ours keep trying to do (unsuccessfully, I might add).
idee fixe
I try to stay away from discussing individuals. My reference to Ender was a rare exception.
So, some historical examples.
The internment of Japanese-Americans was an example of excessive curtailment of civil liberties because of an over-estimation of a (non-existent) threat.
Neville Chamberlain's dealings with Hitler was an example of misjudging a sociopath as capable of rational dialog.
I don't know what is in Bin Laden's mind, but his statements at the time of the attacks had to do with the US's relations with Saudi Arabia. In other words he was a nationalist trying to change conditions in his home country. In this he partially succeeded. The US no longer has bases in Saudi Arabia. He has been less successful in changing the political structure within the country. He struck the US to make a point. If the US stopped propping up the Saudi family he would not have any interest in us. His attacks were a means to an end and the fact that the present administration can't (or won't) see this either with Bin Laden or with similar forces at play in Iraq is the real problem.
--- Policies not Politics
So Wrong In So Many Ways
Just a few:
(1) The Summit was held in early 2002, when the impact of 9/11 was still fresh. The poll I posted came from June 2003, when the impact of the invasion of Iraq was still fresh.
Rational minds will note the difference.
(2) The Arab street has a very complex relationship with the Arab leaders. You have ludicrousely simplified it, as you do almost everything.
(3)
That's your assumption of course. But the Bush Admin probably had exactly the opposite assumption, which is why they didn't even think about it for a millisecond, I'd bet.
Like I said, just a few of the things wrong with it.
Well
Paul:
I'm well aware of many of your writings which is why I've been trying to push you to finish the series on your blog.
That way I wouldn't have to wade through a 37 page paper filled with citations and cross-references to get to the nub of the arguments.
Perhaps all the attention from Dean's book will inspire you to resume the effort...
--- Policies not Politics
I thought
that was my point. Conservatives as a group, in terms of general group characteristics, do NOT "love" bombing civilian Iraqis and would NOT "prefer to do more of it even if it was completely unnecessary."
If he would like to qualify his statement, for example "some fringe conservatives" or "far-right conservatives" or "commenters at FR and LGF" then that's different. This way, it seems to me to be the same thing as saying liberals hate American, liberals are treasonous, liberals want the terrorists to win, etc.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
More Generally
Al Qaeda has given no indication of any interest in conquering or even attacking the West, except to strike back against Western involvement in proping up regimes within the Islamic world.
This hardly makes them boyscouts (although they do share that anti-gay thing), but it is strikingly different from real fascism, what with the invading of every place they could get their hands on.
If we don't understand them, we have a damn hard time trying to defeat them. And if we don't understand their societies... this is basic Sun Tzu, folks. We're screwed.
It's Times Like These I Wish That Ratings Were Implemented Here
I'd like to just give Jason an "11" like I'd do at My Left Wing.
the problem is that
the Islamic world at its core(not necessarily individual muslims, but most of their respected and fundamentalist leaders) believes that there has to be a conflict between our value systems and that they are commanded by God to win. They believe that they will eventually triumph over the infidels.
Apparently those countries that you cite hate us more if we determine to fight one of them for our own reasons. That is only natural. If Iraq actually attacked us and we then struck it back and occupied it, we would've still been hated for taking on one of the arab countries. It was inevitable. We are the infidels and no matter what we do, the people there will hate us.
While Israel is much more hated for being jewish the same facts apply. Israel legitimately defended itself against horrendous aggression and legitimately occupied territories to protect itself (as it is about to do now with creating a buffer zone in Lebanon). Legitimacy of its actions will make not one iota of difference in the muslim world blinded by the flames of hatered, fanned by the responsibility free Islamic leaders and imams.
Since I believe US will always be hated until Islam is reformed I believe in the strategy of overwhelming force and instilling fear in the groups we are fighting. I also no more trust any "peace proposals" from two-faced states like Saudi Arabia than anything currently coming out of Iran as they are furiously working on the nuclear weapons. Which is why diplomacy (at this stage) is rather useless. Diplomacy from the position of strength is the only viable option and we are not in that position.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
You're good at pushing buttons.
Can you have rational, connected blog conversations? Where the he** did you get that hate us for our freedoms bs? Button pushing, not conversational imo.
If you are unfamiliar with the terms takfir here's a Wikipedia description:
History
One of the earliest examples of takfir was practiced by the first Caliph, Abu Bakr. In response to the refusal of certain Arab tribes to pay the alms-tax (zakat), he declared that "By God, I will fight anyone who differentiates between the prayer and the zakat." In the wars between the Umayyad Caliphate and the Kharijites, the latter's practice of takfir became the justification for their indiscriminate attacks on civilian Muslims; the more moderate Sunni view of takfir developed partly in response to this conflict.
In more recent times, takfir has sometimes been used against small sects, such as the Ahmadiyya or Ismailis, which describe themselves as Muslim, and sometimes even against larger groups such as the Shia. This has sometimes been used to legitimize physical attacks on such groups[1]. In the case of groups such as the GIA (as mentioned above), it has been used to legitimize attacks on any Muslim not actively fighting their governments.
Now, how about actually talking to us....
Planets would align under Gore, communication with domestic pets
I think Gore would have invaded Iraq too. Certainly he never had a problem that I know of with the 8 years of brutal humanitarian supplies embargo that went on during the Clinton years, or the criminal bombardment of Yugoslavia. As I understand it Gore spoke of attacking Iraq during the presedential campaign in 2000. The policies of hostility for Iraq were continued and developed under Clinton. Did Gore really disagree?
In foreign policy matters it's hard to see light between the policies of the two parties.
The men behind the curtains
"Bush, or at least those running his foreign policy machine"
Bush is the only one making these foreign policy decisions, whether he thinks so or not. He may think he can delegate intelligence and wisdom, but he cannot. No matter who he pays to give him advise, his judgement is the only one that matters because his is the finger on the button.
There is a common misperception on both Right and Left that despite GW's lack of mental fortitude, there are people behind the scenes that are really running the show, for better or for worse. This neglects the fact that at the end of the day, "those people" aren't the ones signing off on military orders -- Bush, and Bush alone, is. He is the leader of the free world and no army of advisors can negate the fact that advisors can't launch nukes, only a President can.
And this, of course, is absolutely terrifying.
Authoritarians
One problem with calling Muslim extremists "authoritarian" is that, um, they don't have any authority. The Taliban DID, but no longer; from one end to the next, today the world of Islam is run by good old-fashioned right-wing dictators. These cretins certainly make hay of the tendency for religious people to follow authority, but I would be highly suprised to find out any of them were actual followers of Islam -- just as it would absolutely shock me to find out Bush were really a Christian.
No, whether rag-tag or wealthy, terrorists, who are the bane of any nation they care to inhabit, can hardly be called authoritarian, just as American neo-Nazis can. Yes, they DREAM of being authoritarian, but it is only a drea. Furthermore, despite the attraction Islamic militants have among small portions of the Muslim masses for being pro-Muslim, I have no doubt that even their supporters would not wish to live in a calphate, any more than Christians here would want to live in a Christian state, were it ever to become an option (what would it be, Catholic? Baptist? Mormon? They would come running back to secularism before you could say "schizm"). They, like our fundamentalists, as simply taking harbor in what they see as the only safe port in a storm; when the storm is over, as it will be soon, said port will become quickly irrelevant.
RIght
I would agree that "fascist" is not an appropriate term. However, I would not hesitate to call them "right-wing".
Draw conclusions as you will.
Is there a difference?
Osama is refering to muslims, specifically Sunnis I guess. According to the polls displayed in the post downthread they also are the people who suppport him and see him as a reliable leader figure.
And how did we subjugate them?
C'mon. You know this.
You support the Zionists in Israel and their occupation of Palestine. You occupy the holy lands of Saudi Arabia and support the apostate King there. You have invaded and occupied Iraq. You support the apostate Kings and dictators in Jordan, Pakistan, Egypt and in the smaller Gulf States. You have invaded Afghanistan to remove the muslim Taliban and replace them with a secular puppet. And then a separate list would be for the same shit but towards mostly Shiite countries.
Unproductive comment n/t
Enemies
Islam isn't the enemy, and Islamic fundamentalism isn't even the enemy. The enemy is conservatism. THAT is the cause of 9/11, it is the cause if the endless occupation of Iraq, it is the cause of Hezbollah's kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers, and it is the cause of Israel's targeting (slaughtering) of innocent civilians.
A less inciteful way of putting it is that we are locked into a war between modernism and traditionalism. I know what side I'm on.
Force?
"I believe in the strategy of overwhelming force"
Too bad we don't have this. Any questions, please refer to Vietnam and Iraq.
On the Other hand
While were diagnosing behavior, one could find in liberals many symptoms assotiated with:
Paranoid personality disorder
1) Belief that others are lying, cheating, exploiting or trying to harm you
2) Perception of hidden, malicious meaning in benign comments
Along with:
Schizoid personality disorder
1) Lack of regard for others' opinions
2) Fixation on your own thoughts and feelings
Just saying
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Fear?
And it goes without saying that making your enemies fear you will NEVER make you safe; quite the opposite is true, in fact. Any questions, see Israel, Palestine.
Aren't you describing your own team here?
Of course the fundamentalist muslim view is very similar to yours -- you are both rightwing extremists (don't know if you're religious too). But you're basically projecting:
there has to be a conflict between our value systems and that they are commanded by God to win. They believe that they will eventually triumph over the infidels
That's what Republicans beleive.
As far as I can see it's not what they beleive. They think the west is sexually degenerate and has low moral values for the same reasons a Republican would agree -- all that crud about sex on TV and stuff. But the war is not because of values. It's because you are occupying their land.
If Iraq actually attacked us and we then struck it back and occupied it, we would've still been hated for taking on one of the arab countries. It was inevitable. We are the infidels and no matter what we do
Well yes if you occupy them. But after Iraq invaded Kuwait the US response didn't draw the same opposition. Because you left except for Saudi Arabian bases.
Israel legitimately defended itself against horrendous aggression and legitimately occupied territories to protect itself (as it is about to do now with creating a buffer zone in Lebanon). Legitimacy of its actions will make not one iota of difference
As you know Israel is in violation of international law that you despise. (And America is too of course). You are the criminals here. You're hated because people hate criminals.
You're the bad guys.
I believe in the strategy of overwhelming force and instilling fear in the groups we are fighting
That worked out so well for Israel didn't it?
By the way Ender you never did reply to my question asking whether you feel a country ought to abide by it's treaty obligations or not. The answer is you don't think the US or Israel should be bound to keep there promises but other countries should is it not?
If you don't see....
... a threat to our liberties and system of checks and balances then you're not paying attention. And perhaps one day I'll show you what foaming at the mouth looks like, Ender -- but that wasn't it. My statement is only ridiculous to someone who is dangerously closed minded and blinded by ideology -- like yourself.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
what constitutes
a social democracy. I am not familiar with the full implications of this term.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Naive patriotic nonsense? Thanks.
I don't pretend to know what truly motivates Osama - though I'm sure you feel quite competent to explain that to me. Neither am I interested in defending American foreign policy -- and I am making no claim that Osama and his ilk don't have legitimate reasons to hate the US.
The goal of any act of terrorism is to plant fear. Is that an unreasonable statment? I see this fear beginning to, in my view, erode American democracy. Is that an unreasonable statment? If that is true, is that not a victory of sorts for Osama? Perhaps not his ultimate goal -- but I'm sure he's quite pleased.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Silly
It's a silly word. If you want to call them fascist then back it up. If you want to call them rightwing religious authoritarian then nobody's going to disagree. (There is a difference. There is no corporate backing for Osama. No industrialised state.)
But don't say, "islamofascist": that's just baby talk.
As far as I can see Osama and the president of Iran and the Republicans and Zionists are natural allies and have a lot in common with each other. Osama has allied with US violence in the past in more than one theatre.
Nevertheless even a stopped watch is right twice a day and as it happens Osama is right to oppose the US imperialism and justifies doing so largely for the right reasons.
Glenn Greenwald
is a proven sockpuppet first amendment lawyer, it's utterly typical of "nuanced" frauds to warp the minds of the left.
Islamofacism or Islamofacists, voters know who or what we are talking about, yet you post this tripe yearning to defend their feelings?
This goes DIRECTLY to Ender's post, the American people are WATCHING the left defend the very people they claim to want to destroy every chance they get Paul. We on the right used to cheer every time this was done, now I personally am to the point where it is damn scary.
The difference is
Osama took a bullet for the cause fighting the Soviets and Bush was a war time deserter from his champagne national guard unit.
These cretins certainly make hay of the tendency for religious people to follow authority, but I would be highly suprised to find out any of them were actual followers of Islam -- just as it would absolutely shock me to find out Bush were really a Christian.
while republicans believe
that certain moral values are degenerate and want to fight against them, the fight is limited to the electoral process and I am yet to meet a republican interested in strapping on a suicide belt or ramming an airplane into buildings full of liberals.
As for the only problem being our occupation, that is a bogus excuse. My personal theory? The impotency of the Islamic countries and their inability to match up to the West. Not in terms of freedom or any other liberal Western values, but in terms pure power both military and economic, stature and respect. Those puny middle eastern countries ruled by atrocious dictators and mired in bottom of the world levels poverty, illiteracy, and economic output are similar to ill and stupid dogs who realize that the only way to keep their pathetic populations in check is to foment hate of the West. They are smarter than those rabid dogs of Al Qaeda because they've mostly stopped attacking Israel and they have not dared to attack the top dog US.
See, the Islamic countries are still living in the Dark Ages, their civilization stagnant and perpetually stuck in the 7th century AD. Their women are treated like property, there are no individual rights to speak of, and their morality comes from the most unreformed religious text on the face of this Earth. (answer to your question is - I am agnostic)
The point I am making is that anything that Osama or his fellow travellers use as pretexts for attacks on the West are excuses of rabid dogs who (out of blind and murderous envy) cannot stand the fact that all their Englightened fundamentalist faith brought them is continuous humiliation at the feet of the infidels like US and Israel. They will fight us until they are crushed and personally I am all for obliging them.
We are the bad guys you say? As you can see from the above, that couldn't be further from what I believe and nothing you can say will even remotely budge my convictions.
You say that instilling fear has not worked for Israel but that is not true. Arab countries have stopped attacking Israel after being defeated in a very humiliating fashion. Israel's overwhelming force worked time and time again. Their enemies absolutely hate them and yet they can do nothing about it because they are terrified of Israel's response as they know it will not hesitate to devolve them into a glass lot.
I believe each treaty should be evaluated on a case by case basis. The treaties we enter should be kept until they are objectively broken by the other side, as I believe we mostly enter only into those treaties that are morally good. If Israel enters into a negotiated truce and the other side breaks it then Israel is obligated to respond in kind.
Every country should be bound to keep their promises unless their counterparts break them first.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Why would you want to defeat them?
They're the good guys in this war. Why would you want to back a regime (the US) that goes around occupying other peoples' countries and installing or supporting dictators?
They've probably got more of a moral cause than your founding fathers ever did.
What these terrorists are doing...
...(IMO) is not creating fear for fear it self. They saw in America unwillingness to adequately respond to being attacked. With a string of attacks on U.S citizens and military going back 20 years or more with little or no response emboldened these terrorist culminating in the complete debacle of Somalia. The U.S. lack of adequate response effectively told them the time was right to achieve there goals. Those goals being:
1) Removal of infidels from Muslim lands
2) Removal or elimination of Israel
3) Topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East
4) Unite all Muslims and establish an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs
5) To wage holy war on the U.S., American citizens, and Jews. Muslims who do not heed this call are declared apostates (people who have forsaken their faith).
In lieu of destroying America, forcing us back home and back to isolationists seems to also be on their agenda.
Remember these people believe the Koran gives (infidels) three choices:
1) Conversion
2) 2nd class status and taxed accordingly
3) Death
They cannot be allowed to dominate the region with their twisted ideology!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I am growing very tired of this rhetoric
Personally I do not believe defense of Al Qaeda, or Naziism, or KKK, or any other such group should be permitted on this blog. This kind of rhetoric is imo far outside the boundaries of what should be permitted.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
What about the UN charter?
You beleive the UN charter and Geneva conventions etc should be ignored (by the US and Israel) even though it has not been broken by all the 190-odd other countries that the US and Israel made those treaties with. These treaties are objectively the most "morally good" treaties out there and they are made with the largest number of other countries many of them US allies. By the criteria you presented they would be the very last treaties any US president would think of violating. Same for Israel.
How do you explain then the flippant violation of these treaties by the US and Israel except by my theory that you beleive in one rule for the US and another for everyone else?
Violent racist criminal
Rest of your comment seems like violent racist criminal nonsense. If you recall this was how I characterised conservatism in another thread.
I would tend to agree <nt>
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I believe that UN
has long ago violated any good will possible for the continuation of those treaties. US can make mistakes. It's not always right. UN was a interesting idea at the beginning but it has long failed. I believe it's long past due time to withdraw from that corrupt organization of worthless nation states.
Our allies? We can deal with our allies very fairly without going through UN.
Your view of what is "morally good" is extraordinarily far from what I consider "morally good" so why use that. You are not objective.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Shouldn't you guys be banned then?
You're the ones with the violent racist and criminal political philosophy. Al-Qaeda is rightwing religious and authoritarian --- like you guys. I do not have the same philosophy as Al-Qaeda. I am merely pointing out they are not the bad guys in this fight.
racism
is when you denigrate a race of people and not a bunch of pathetic countries or religious nutcases. Get your terms straight. Criminal is what support for Al Qaeda amounts to in my country so you might want to look in the mirror.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
if this blog
was based in and was all about DavidByronlandia where Al-Qaeda weren't bad and probably in fact better than the United States and where you were the administrator trying to keep our "violent racist and criminal political philosophy" from disrupting *all* the other users who agreed with you... then in that case we should be banned.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Is this not racism?
Well maybe prejudice against Islam then. Much the same.
The impotency of the Islamic countries and their inability to match up to the West. Not in terms of freedom or any other liberal Western values, but in terms pure power both military and economic, stature and respect. Those puny middle eastern countries ruled by atrocious dictators and mired in bottom of the world levels poverty, illiteracy, and economic output are similar to ill and stupid dogs who realize that the only way to keep their pathetic populations in check is to foment hate of the West.
You have a negative stereotypical view which ignores the facts. Pakistan is one of a handful of countries with nuclear weapons and Saudi Arabia has a very large military force. Many of the Gulf States are wealthy and have lower levels of poverty than the US. Obviously no countries are "dogs".
As for criminal the positions you advocate clearly violate the UN charter.
You didn't choose to deny your views were violent!
Kettle, I'd like you to meet Mr. Pot.....
What does that mean?
?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
ummm
I spoke in terms of countries and specifically muslim countries. I was not speaking about all muslims and I am sure many muslims in US have immigrated here to seek a better life than their native countries could ever dream of providing. It is an objective fact that muslim countries are undeveloped and are in generally poor states compared to Western countries.
Pakistan is somewhat of an exception and has a somewhat more capable ruling elite that has managed to steal and build nuclear technology. Even with that said, 95% of their population is living in the dark ages perpetuated by their government. Arab states have been consistently defeated by an enemy with 1/50th of their population. Their economies would have long collapsed were it not for the pure luck of oil's presence in the region and their theft of the Western technology to appropriate that wealth.
As for countries being dogs, you missed the fact that I compared all countries to dogs including US, where muslim countries were ill dogs, and Al Qaeda (non-state) was a rabid dog.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
So you don't beleive the US should keep its promises?
I guess in my view if you make a promise then you keep it but not so for you. Indeed our views are extraordinarily far apart.
The UN charter is a treaty with the other (190-odd) contracting nations not with the UN so your excuse fails. What you are saying is that the US has no obligation to keep any of its promises not even the most solemn of them it can offer. Is that correct? You say the US is utterly faithless?
And presumably the same for Israel.
Now this being the case why is it that you pretend to be outraged that Lebannon according to you broke a deal with Israel? Surely in your view any country can break any deal as it sees fit.
Btw does this philosophy on promises extend to individuals too? If you give a promise does it mean nothing?
Who is who
I've only been on this site for a few days, so I don't really know the players, but it seems there are several "camps".
There are those who defend the US's position in general, but sometimes don't, especially when things aren't going well. They are hard to argue with since they are sure of the correctness of their views. The most extreme in this camp have been known to distort, ignore or otherwise tamper with reality.
There are the strawmen who want the US to "lose" or want the other side to "win" or are otherwise disloyal. They don't exist, but do make for a good rhetorical pinata.
There are those who are exasperated by the first group. They tend to get insulting when they can't make any headway via rational argument. They have also been known to misread reality on occasion as well.
Then there are those (I include myself) who are worried about the direction this country (and much of the western world) is heading in and are trying to understand why public opinions have turned so radical. When a person like Bill Kristol comes out in favor of bombing Iran then it is at the 12th hour as far as reasoned discussion is concerned.
One side screaming at the other doesn't do anything. It doesn't even change people's minds. The need to do this can only be because of some combination of fear and frustration.
I've been thinking about the underlying social problems for several years now and you can read my thoughts on my web site, if you are interested link
.
My general concern is that the world is overpopulated and is running out of key resources. This is the what is causing the friction, it's like a pack of hungry dogs fighting over a few scraps of food. The problem is that ideas on how to change things are in short supply and the few offered are met with resistance by those profiting from the status quo.
My 2 cent - resuming ranting...
--- Policies not Politics
Why don't you show us where
Glen Greenwald was a sock puppet?
He addressed it yesterday at Unclaimed Territory
but since I doubt you'd actually link to it I'll give you the Cliff Notes:
"A new accusation is that I've been engaging in so-called "sock puppetry" by leaving comments in response to posts that attack me under other names., i.e., that I use multiple names to comment and the same comment was left at several blogs by the same IP address under different names.
Not frequently, I leave comments at blogs which criticize or respond to something I have written. I always, in every single instance, use my own name when doing so. I have never left a single comment at any other blog using any name other than my own, at least not since I began blogging. IP addresses signify the Internet account one uses, not any one individual. Those in the same household have the same IP address. In response to the personal attacks that have been oozing forth these last couple of weeks, others have left comments responding to them and correcting the factual inaccuracies, as have I. In each case when I did, I have used my own name."
I have to admit, I'm getting pretty peaved at some of the right leaning posters who "warn" us that we're gonna get ours come November. Wow, I'm so scared. Note to such awsome intellects - look at polls not put out by Phaux News.
Except maybe that whole Caliphate issue.
Does your wife want to wear a burqa?
Unproductive comment n/t
Again; Who writes this stuff for you?
"and I am yet to meet a republican interested in strapping on a suicide belt or ramming an airplane into buildings full of liberals."
Of course the people who murder doctors who perform abortions are perfectly normal individuals. And we certainly wouldn't categorize people who call for the lynching of Supreme Court Justices as extremists.
Do you even read what you've written before you post?
As for the Islamic countries living in the Dark Ages: Go read some GODDAMN History! Islam invented the zero for Christ's Sake! While we so-called enlightened westerners were dying of the Black Plague and killing each other over crusts of bread, Islam created a flourishing civilization. Because it went bust, only shows what happens to most civilizations that think too much of themselves.
As for your religious opinions: Have you read what some Evangelicals want to do with us? There are people in this country who believe the earth is 6000 years old, because the Bible says so. They also believe that they will be whisked up to Heaven during the Rapture (your president believes that, btw). Again, Fundamentalism in its extreme does not know any particular religious affiliation. Your arguments are just too stupid for words.
David,
Have you ever given serious thought as to why you've been 86'd at several other blogs? maybe you should.
I'll simply repeat it for you
Anything to back it up? I don't recall bin Laden ever saying his goal was to wipe out all non-muslims.
You've been working on that one for a while it appears.
I appreciate that you try to use rational reasoning when discussing your topics (at your site, I mean).
We do sometimes show our frustrations here. But, all in all, it's significantly better than some of the flamewar blogs.
If you don't mind, Ender,
I'm glad you've cleared up that this is truly a war against two civilizations, but I'd love to know how the Right manages to put such disparate people as al-Zarqawi and Ahmadinejad on the same side in this cultural war, given that they'd eliminate each other (the former was bent on establishing a Sunni-only Iraq, the latter is ruler of the world's largest Shia nation).
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Yes, He's More Obnoxious Than You
But in terms of content, he's pretty much a mirror image. It's just that you support the home team with blind allegience, and he supports the out-of-towners.
Neither one of you cares very much for evidence that gets in your way, and you both avoid the tough arguments, going for the soft underbelly of the more naive--and making them up if they don't actually exist.
I'd say darn near perfectly matched.
Have you ever wondered
why you have not?
As If I Weren't Feeling Guilty Enough All Ready!
It was bad enough when I wasn't finishing book projects. Now I'm not finishing blog projects. Sooner than you think I won't be finishing my sentences, and then you'll
I appreciate your
thoughtful approach to debate and your participation here. I disagree with your final concern as being the biggest problem we currently face (although you didn't specifically state that), however I do agree with your following statement "The problem is that ideas on how to change things are in short supply and the few offered are met with resistance by those profiting from the status quo." in regard to the oil industry.
Thanks for the link to your site.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
You Really Ought To Look Into Projection
Because you've got it all over your brownshirt.
Wikipedia
:
Another flame post from Paul
This sort of flame comment by you just undermines your entire body of work. Why should anyone beleive that everything you say about conservatives isn't as trite as your remarks about me?
For example how exactly am I supposed to be showing "blind alleigenace"? To whom? Are you under the impression there's a million people out there just like me who had the same "ideology"? I'm blindly folowing who exactly? Give me a name of some leading political figure who beleives what I say. What's the name of the movement that says just what I say?
What an assinine comment you just threw out there.
I'm the last person you could ever throw that particular accusation at. As with every other comment you make towards me this was 100% flame. Please quit responding to me if you can't get your mind out of the gutter.
So, Brendan
You picked a weak case. Rhetorical exaggeration is far too common on the internets to amend your complaint with that.
And in such a target-rich environment!
paul
I am not going to respond to you until you finish your blog projects...
But tell me this... If you believe (based on rational evidence and your own convictions) that one side is morally right and is acting in good faith, what is wrong with allegiance to that said side? How can it be blind in my case if I agree with the goals and the values of my country's leadership?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Well at least my
Well at least "my" rightwing nutcases don't want to blow up the whole world to bring Jesus back, like "yours" do. :)
All I am saying is that within the context of the so-called war on terrorism the US is the aggressor. That is not an endorsement of every idea the other side has.
Anyway you might like wearing a burqa!
The Words Derive From The English Language, But...
I'll be damned if I can figure out what the hell this means.
As Wolfgang Pauli would say, "It's not even wrong."
the fact that two
could be personal enemies or that Sunnis are the natural enemies of Shia does not necessarily put any of them outside of the same cultural side.
The fact of the matter is that though me and you are decidedly different, we are still both at our core products of the Western civilization and hold values of individual liberty, secular and representative government, scientific advance, and human rights in very high esteem. So no matter how opposed we might be to each of our respective movement's leaders and personal philosophies we are still on the same side of the general West vs Islamic Fundamentalism cultural divide.
At least I'd hope so :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Back on subject....
How do you know enough about the "various programs that our government has instituted to defend our country" to determine that there's no need to worry? Other than having unquestioning blind belief that the administration is 'doing what's best for us' I don't see how you can come to that conclusion.
How do you know that these programs have actually been "instituted to defend our country?" Again, unless you implicitly trust the administration to do only what's in your interests, how can you know?
The only way we can know these things is if our government functions as it was intended to function, with separation of powers and oversight. It's not functioning in that way right now. We DON'T know - but we've got enough information to conclude at this point that there are at the very least highly serious and legitimate questions concerning the legality of the administration's actions.
These legal issues should be decided by the courts -- unless the administration manages to get away with blocking any investigation into their actions. I don't think they will get away with that, if our democracy functions as it should. I'm sure you hope they will.
As to this:
You're deliberately mischaracterizing the left's position and intent here. And, I think, deliberately overstating your case in a pretty hamfisted emotional appeal. I think pretty much everyone thinks this struggle is important. Where we differ has to do with the prosecution of this 'war on terror' -- how it should be done, not whether it should be done.
The bottom line seems to be this -- you trust that the administration is acting in your best interests.
I don't.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Wait, I know this one
I'm going to hazard a guess that it is due to some form of propaganda?
Underpopulation horror!
Beleive it or not my newspaper had a story suggesting the human race was in peril because of falling birth rates. It claimed most countries now have birth rates below replacement levels. It suggested that max population would hit about 9 billion and then decline. Great news huh?
Also the report on the work of the UN the other year reported massive reductions (eg 80%) in the rate of wars, genocides and other conflicts. And of course the death rate from poverty and hunger has reduced by nearly half both within the last couple of decades.
There are the strawmen who want the US to "lose" or want the other side to "win" or are otherwise disloyal. They don't exist, but do make for a good rhetorical pinata.
I do exist but I'm not "disloyal" since I'm not American. Funny how you automatically call a disagreement over foreign policy being "disloyal".
Right, but
you haven't made it the central focus of your agenda to wipe out liberals and establish a supreme Conservative state.
Have you?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
no
we just haven't had the long history like Sunni and Shia to want to kill each other yet.:)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Social Democracy
A liberal democracy is a democratic system in which a framework of social and political rights protects the individual against illiberal majoritarian persecution.
A social democracy is a democratic system in which that framework of rights is expanded to specifically include economic rights as well, protecting individuals against systemic failures of the economic system over which they otherwise have no effective control.
The prototypical social democracies are those identified as such by Gøsta Esping-Anderson in The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism
, based on a variety of empirical criteria. These include the Scandanavian countries, as well as the Netherlands. Their policies are determined by a broad egalitarian commitment that results in very low poverty rates, typically 1-4%, and very low rates of social inequality. In a broader sense, all welfare states represent some degree of social democratic practice, though often in the service of other goals as well.
And Every So Often David Byron Writes A Totally Brilliant Post
Now There's A Real "Mainstream Position"
For a guy who thinks (without any evidence) that liberals are far outside the mainstream, you sure know how to pick your positions.
The GSS no longer asks this question, but from 1975 to 1994, it asked, " Do you think our government should continue to belong to the United Nations, or should we pull out of it now?"
Those answering "Pull Out" ranged from a high of 20.8 in 1976 to a low of 9.6 in 1991.
But it's more than being in a marginal minority position.
Your language, "I believe it's long past due time to withdraw from that corrupt organization of worthless nation states," indicates a level of contempt for others that is hard to reconcile with a state of basic mental health. People with healthy self-regard almost invariably show more respect for others, even those they disagree with.
Unless, of course, you're going for the David Byron rhetoric excess exemption.
Like I said. You two guys. Peas. Pod. The whole enchelada.
thanks for the description
though of course in my view these "economic rights" are there more to protect individuals against their personal systemic failures than those of the economic system itself.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Break All The Mirrors!
Ender:
They show such unflattering images!
All will be well, truth and harmony shall reign, once we
Break All The Mirrors!
(Or, in the alternative, "The beatings will continue until morale improves.")
I'm afraid I'd be at a disadvantage,
being a conscientious objector, and all.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Explaining Blindness To A Blind Man
Well, there's this thing called "sight," see?
Yeah, like that will work.
The basic problem, dear Ender, is so fundamental, I can't explain it to you. If you could understand, you would never have to ask.
But a couple of more accessible problems are:
(1) "Good faith" is no excuse for killing the innocent. Don't believe me? Just try it in a court of law.
(2) You don't believe that one side is morally right "based on rational evidence and your own convictions." We've seen it repeatedly demonstrated how capriciously selective you are about what you count as rational evidence.
What was that charming phrase? Like a drunk, who depends on a lamppost, not for illumination, but for support? That's you to a "t." I'll grant you this much--you occassionally ask questions, and seem interested in learning little bits of information. But once they show any signs of challenging your pre-detrmined worldview, well, it's channel-surfing time.
In fact, the comparison I made was unfair to David Byron. He readily admits that bin Laden & co do some nasty things, and that he doesn't support every thing they do.
Your response has underscored that crucial difference.
Cool Off, David!
Yeah, it actually was a bit unfair to you. But how else to underscore it than via the response I got from Ender?
Still, there's more than a bit of truth to it. You're both pretty selective in what you focus on. And you're both capable of better, as you both demonstrate on too-rare occassions.
I wouldn't worry about it too much
despite what the crazies on your side say about the upcoming revolution :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Agreed.
It's a much more generic term, and is clearly applicable.
How Can This Be???
Under the theory of a "natural rate of unemployment" there can't be zero percent unemployment, and if there could be, it would produce explosive inflation. So how can you blame everyone who's unemployed for not having a job?
It's precisely this sort of inability to think in terms of systematic cause and effect that limits your thinking on virtually any topic that comes up, and causes you to attribute multi-factor problems to the intentional bad acts of individuals you happen not to like.
This is symptomatic of incomplete cognitive development--which is very common among rightwing writers, politicians, pundits, etc. It's quite independent of native intelligence, however. People can get unstuck from the stage they're in. But they have to want to change. You don't seem to want to. At least not yet.
Why???
Why should David be considered outside the bounds here?
I know he's been obnoxious and disruptive elsewhere, but here he's provided an illuminating counterpoint to Ender. His manner is a bit more obnoxious, but his reasoning is strikingly similar, with the exception that he's aware he's defending folks who have flaws--something Ender's not quite grown up enough for just yet.
And Ender's a front-pager, for cryin' out loud!
Do I think David should be a front-pager, too? No. But neither should he be banned. It's only fair that Ender should have to confront someone who's style is so similar to his own, but from a very different direction.
Things could change in the future. But banning him because he says things that Ender doesn't like? What's the point of this site, then?
There is no "bit of truth to it"
Again: please quit responding to my comments or refering to me since for whatever reason you just lose all self-control whenever you do so. You hate me. We get it. Ok? Just quit now.
I Don't Hate You
I don't even know you.
I do think you're very socially unconscious, which makes it innappropriate for you to participate in certain forums. At least so far, I don't think Swords Crossed in such a place. In fact, I think it might be perfect for you.
In my view, it's altogether possible that if you find your niche, and lose some of your social awkwardness, you could become a really valuable member of the online community.
Right now, not so much. But we all have to start somewhere.
You're wrong.
I've been booted from a few blogs. I've mentioned Redstate here on a couple of threads. Others for other reasons.
I've learned. I mean, at redstate, it wouldn't have mattered. They aren't going to put up with my opinions after a while. And after a while, they didn't. It's their blog. It's their choice & their right. I'm not offended.
The others, well let's just say I was less than tactfull on occasion. I also am not bothered as they weren't important.
But you have potential to be a good blogger. You just have to learn the tolerance limits within each blog & go with that.
Use links. Other people say what you say. If you link to them saying it, it won't be nearly as exasperating on others.
I hope that....
.... nobody gets banned for expressing an opinion. David seems to be a very smart guy, and even though I don't agree with many of his conclusions, he's presenting reasoned (if radical) opinions for the most part. As long as he is willing to participate without being abusive I don't see a problem, personally.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
I don't know why
you have such an aversion to the term. I use it to mean fundamentalist Muslims who insist on enforcing their version of Islam upon others. There is a lot of evidence that Bin Laden and his followers want a strict form of sharia law enforced. Look at the synonyms for fascism here
and you get a sense that the word has a broader meaning. Within Islam, these men are extremists and it is in our favor to minimalize them in favor of moderate Muslims. So I think sticking them and their ilk with a unfavorable label is productive.
Bin Laden
and his fundamentalist Muslims want to enforce a version of sharia law that seems authoritarian to me. You seem to have a different opinion.
AlGore would not invade Iraq
You never listened to his MoveOn Speeches. Besides Gov Dean he was speaking out against the War prior to the invasion.
Are you affiliated w/ LaRouche? Because you said you are neither a Democrat, Gree, Socialist.
May I pose a question
and I hope I can do so coherently.
this war on terrorism........ a tactic after all, a tactic where human beings effectively deflect a stronger more powerful force, by turning themselves into the weapons.
Isn't terrorism, in the al Queda sense using an idea that Westerners can not comprehend, using oneself as a weapon to defeat an enemy that is of superior strength.
So in essence, to defeat "the enemy", we are trying to cripple their military force, which is in fact humans, not traditional machinery, jets, bombs, etc. of war. De-radicalizing arabs would seem to be a wiser tact, ie winning hearts and minds, yet are we not now doing the Exact opposite, radicalizing the arabs even more. Uniting against an enemy that seems an occupier not a liberator, a force of demolishment.
Therefore in Ender's world view the ONLY solution would be to literally KILL all of the military infrastruture, or wipe out the whole of the Arab population. For if one lives they will fight for the land and their culture, whether we see that as right or wrong. So Ender's conclusion would be an all out Hiroshima style attack on the Iran........ yes? And then like Japan, the US would have a new ally in the Middle East. Isn't that the neocon strategy. They are itching and burning to have some nuclear action..... and teach those terrorists a lesson.
If we really wanted to win the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq, we could have easily. Instead chaos reins. And it seems less clear that the US objective is about helping the people, and more about helping themselves to the regions rich and bontiful resources. So the battle isn't over "evil" it is over who has control of the land and it's resources. And in fighting a larger and stronger enemy, the people defending their homeland use non traditional warfare tactics out of necessity. And it has been largely effective.
Dropping a bomb from an airplane the casualities are impersonal.
Strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing others up, the casualities become shockingly human and very personal, and the graphic nature of warfare is fathomable.
I think in the end, it is important to separate the people, from their leaders. I doubt that anyone in Iraq, Iran or Lebanon welcomes the total destruction of their country. Many of the youth especially are less radical, and now may stand in stronger solidarity with the hardliners in leadership, because they become More Not Less radicalized with each passing day.
I'm only half stupid
Don't know who LaRouche is
So I am guessing I am not affiliated.
Who knows what he would have done? I don't think the present day Gore would have done it, and maybe not the 2003 Gore either, but Gore has changed a lot it seems to me. You have to admit that the difference between the Dems and Rethugs on foreign policy in general is tiny.
It is supreme folly...
.... to think that this 'war on terror' can be waged and won by solely by US military forces. Yet that seems to be exactly the delusion that the Neocons are operating under. A real 'solution' to this problem requires a significant cultural shift, and how (or whether) that can be forced externally - I have no idea.
The plan was, of course, that a free, democratic, pro-western Iraq would start a chain reaction (domino theory -- where have we heard that before?) in the Middle East. I don't think a free, democratic, pro-western Iraq is in the cards at this point. I hope I'm wrong about that.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
I am concerned
that the word terrorist, is being used to broadly.
All you have to say it, and then it is there true???
That the set up is a clash of civilzations........ sheesh. Isn't that just a little extreme?
I'm only half stupid
As we....
.... learned in Nicaragua, today's 'terrorist' is tomorrow's 'freedom-fighter'.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
As kindness is to RedState
DavidByron is to so-called liberal sites.
Everyone likes to think they could put up with people with different views but it isn't true on the whole. They booted you for your politics and you don't have any problem recognising that -- though they would. Since I'm probably further to the left of liberals than you are to the left of RedState why I assume I was banned for anything other than my politcs?
Ender and others have already openly called for me to be banned for my political views.
Other people say what you say.
Wish they did.
If you don't hate me
why are you out of control?
perhaps what you need is to
calm the hell down and stop with the insults.
does not mean that I am talking about everyone.
Either you behave like a respectful adult or go away.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
You Insult Folks All The Time Ender
I know how addicted you are to double-standards, but isn't this taking it a bit too far???
And what was the insult? That I gave a frank assessment of what I've observed about your thought patterns???
Why not just show that I'm wrong? That would be the adult thing to do, IMHO.
You Really Don't Get It
The number one reason is that it's a rightwing propaganda term. Every time you use it, you reinforce the neo-con world view. If you enjoy helping that crowd hurry us toward the destruction of America as we know it, then by all means, just keep using that word.
There is a more general principle here, too. You don't just use heavily-loaded terms any old which way, and justify it by the fact that other people do it, so it must be okay. ("Well, Johnny does it!"--the height of 7-year old wisdom.) This is what you're doing when you cite dictionaries to "prove" that your use of fascism is okay with "a broader meaning," and hence your use of "islamofascism" must be okay too.
Well, by that same logic, one of the synonyms given in the first entry on the page you linked to was "bureaucracy," which would make that Vatican a "Christofascist" organization.
Now, do you think someone might have a problem with that???
why not
concentrate on the actual subject of the post or comment in question instead of constantly psychoanalyzing me?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
There is a distinct difference.
Neocons tend to think of this as war between two civilizations, between Islam and the West, following the likes of Bernard Lewis. I don't see this as a clash of civilizations. Here's a sample of Lewis
.
I'm sure you are aware that people with vastly different views can use the same vocabulary in some instances. I happen to think that fundamentalist Muslims are fascistic. I would also use the term "Christofascists" to apply to people like those who ran the Spanish Inquisition. Perhaps you and I disagree about what the goals of fundamentalist muslims are? The establishment of a Caliphate to enforce their version of sharia law is a central goal and, in my estimation, their goals to purify Islam are not totally dissimilar from the goals of the inquisition.
At any rate, I understand the intellectual part of your objection to the term, but I don't understand why there seems to be so much emotion in the objection. Do you really believe that to use just one word that the neoconservatives use is to reinforce their whole belief structure? That seems an overstatement to me.
Symptomatic Idiocy of The Democratic Party
I thought that the idea that you can use the GOP's language and not reinforce their positions by doing so was so naive that no one outside of DC would openly defend it.
Well, you learn something new every day.
Or, maybe you're just looking for a job with Bob Shrum?
Calling those who disagree with you idiots,
especially when it is on such a minor detail as the use of one word, does not advance your cause at all. I am willing to not use the word to avoid needless argument, but I suggest that you stop calling those who disagree with you childish or stupid. It just isn't productive.
I Don't Constantly Psychoanalyze You
I've been debating folks since I was in grade school, if not earlier. I learned about classical syllogisms before I could write. So I do tend to notice the patterns of people's arguments, as well as their content.
The Greeks (you remember the Greeks, don't you? Co-founders of this Western Civilization thingie that you alone can save and folks like me are plotting to destroy?) thought that this sort of analysis--separating form and content--was important for gaining insight, avoiding error, and clarifying the quest for truth.
Over the last few decades, enormous advances have been made in understanding human cognition. (This is not psychoanalysis, though a few psychoanalytic terms may come in handy from time to time.) Some of those advances have direct relevance to understanding structures of argumentation.
It's only natural that folks who share the Greeks' outlook on truth-seeking would want to enhance their awareness by studying these developments, and making themselve more aware of them in everyday life. And that's what I do--in very measured doses.
If I were to do it full out, I would never have engaged in any sort of dialogue with you at all. I would simply stand back and comment on the failed nature of your arguments.
But you almost invariably fail to respond to my core arguments. You even front-paged a diary of mine "Conservative Blogger Out Of Touch With Reality"
about your faulty reasoning, and promised "When I have some time, I will respond as well." That was last Sunday. You still have yet to respond.
In the interim, you've been too busy taking cheap shots at others to bother defending yourself. A good choice, really. Why defend the indefensible, when you can just hope that people will ignore it, and it will go away?
Add that to your promised counter to my post showing that liberals are not out of touch with mainstream opinion, which is going onto five weeks overdue by now, and we can see a very clear pattern here:
You got nothin'.
That's it. You can huff and puff and rant and rave, but when someone comes back at you with a well-documented response to your absurdist demonization of those you disagree with, you have no response whatsoever.
Paul
You're a bright guy. Check back over your responses to Ender and see how many of them have arguments such as another example of why Paul is incapable of comprehending simple logic as opposed to, or in addition to, perfectly acceptable arguments like Paul, I think your logic is flawed because X.
The fact that you just got in a spat with Mike (!) should perhaps make you question whether this is really all just in our heads.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Where's The Data???
I'm sorry, Brendan, but I'm a member of the reality-based community. If one side ignores the overwhelming preponderance of the data, but then, based on assumptions grounded in fantasy, conducts itself somewhat scrupulously, I am not impressed. If repeated entreaties for them to pay attention to reality fall on deaf ears, I will start needling them, especially if they respond to needling.
I may not get any substantive arguments out of them, but I will show that they have plenty of time to posture as reasoned debaters, but zero time for looking at the facts. With respect to Ender, this has now been established beyond a shadow of a doubt.
As for Mike, it doesn't matter who it is. If someone insists on using bigoted language I will challenge them. And if someone who thinks they are a progressive uses reactionary language, I will definitely challenge them.
Why in the world do you think this makes me look bad? What's your operating assumption here? I'd really like to see you lay it out and explain yourself.
Sorry To Offend You, But
I tried reasoning, and it didn't get me very far, now did it?
It's only a minor detail if you're not on the receiving end.
I think those who follow
bin Laden are mostly not nice people. Incidentally, Martin used the term here
. Notice there isn't much complaint about his use of the word, though his use does seem more tongue in cheek and he doesn't really discuss the term per se.
Lots of Not Nice People Aren't Fascists
No argument there. But that doesn't automatically mean they are fascists.
More importantly, the term "islamofascist" is used precisely to blur the lines between al Qaeda, those who may occassionally give it some specific support, those who may sympathize (at least when the latest neo-con atrocity makes him look good by comparison from their POV) and those who have similar Islamic theocratic tendencies, but who may have deep doctrinal and/or political differences with him.
If we seriously want to defeat the threat of terrorism we face, then we have to everything possible to understand, and take advantage of those differencese, not blur them and make them irrelevent.
And, yes, when people use the term derisively, folks like me tend not to complain. Heck, I use the term derisively. It's one of the ways to attack Orwellian language, through ridicule and derision.
OK this time you
made an argument worth discussing, that use of the term blurs the line between Bin Laden and his followers and those who are sympathetic to his cause but aren't hardliners themselves. I agree that neo-conservatives do this blurring. But my intention is not to lump all them under the label but to paint the hardliners as extremists who do not represent Islam as a whole. I use the word differently than the neocons. But as I said, I am willing not to use the term to avoid needless argument.
Watch Your Language
Then use a different word. Such as "Islamic theocrats."