Will the West survive?

[Universe Prince]

I disagree, in time of war the emergency does justify sacrifices.

Not of liberty.

Seen from the other side , in time of peace liberty ought to be maximised to the best extent that is possible while keeping the peace.

You say that as if you think maximizing liberty might somehow endanger the peace.

Should our discipline and level of sacrifice always be at a wartime level? or when the threat is lower can our exercise of freedom be less restricted?

The free exercise of our rights should never be restricted, and this free exercise is in point of fact at no time more crucial and more needed than in time of war.

If the level of sacrifice and discipline ,must always be the same , then it must always be set at a level compatible with war.

When are we not at war? Before the "war on terror" we had the Cold War. And if the "war on terror" should falter or have a lull, we still have the "war on drugs". And we may soon have a war with North Korea. At what point do we stop being at war so that we can have all of our liberty back?

And frankly, if the free exercise of our rights is so incompatible with war, then perhaps we should work harder on achieving and maintaining that liberty rather than on telling other countries what to do. If we kept a "cleaner house" at home, we might have better grounds to chastise other countries for their lack of such "cleanliness".

But beyond that, where do you draw the line? What is the acceptable level of risk? If you sacrifice this much liberty, and the attack or threat of attack still comes, do you sacrifice more liberty? At what point do you say, this much and no more? And if you say this much and no more, how can you justify not sacrificing more liberty if it means more security? (Not that it ever does.) I draw the line back at the beginning of the process, liberty complete and no further, because no sacrifice of liberty makes us safer and because whatever power is given the government to do things for us ipso facto carries with it the equivalent power for the government to do things to us. And because the only real purpose government should ever have is to protect the free exercise of the inherent and unalienable rights of the people. Any sacrifice of that is a corruption of government and should be abolished.

[Universe Prince]

No?  History books referencing a similar history doesn't count, huh?  I'll have to remember that.  But what I'll remember more so is that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  You may be ready and willing to risk repeating history.  I prefer not

You're clearly assuming your comparison of current events to history is the only valid one, and this I doubt seriously. And you have yet to give me any reason not to do so.

No, that would be you missing the point.  I'm advocating going after people who have pledged to do what I believe they have pledged to do in the future.  A DISTINCT difference, I might add

When did the Islamic extremists pledge to become like the Nazis?

Back then the militia were civilians. And I didn't say they targeted or killed civilians.

Yet the current crop of non-unifomred terrorists are doing precisely that.  Again, a DISTINCT difference than the militias of the U.S Revolution

Yet your initial complaint was, "I do wish they'd play by the rules of war, wear uniforms & adhere to the Geneva Convention, but they just don't seem to be the 'do-it-by-the-book' type of soldiers". And so my point remains. Not wearing uniforms and not making war "by the book" is hardly a reason to condemn them. And quite frankly, that our own government seeks to use the letter of the Geneva Convention to circumvent the intent of it, we hardly have much high ground there either. Stick to arguing your distinct differences, not some lame anti-enemy propaganda.

So? Not that I agree with you, but even if you're right, so what? ("Leaving them alone" does zilch to lessen the threat.)

I'm stunned an objective person as yourself needs to ask such a question.

You might not be so stunned if you had included the rest of my comments in that paragraph: "Quite frankly, what we're doing now does nothing to lessen the threat. But leaving them alone means we're not wasting our military and resources. How is that not an improvement?"

As I gather, you're advocating a complete "do-over".  We bring everyone home. close up shop, let AlQeada and the growing militant Islam movement get completely rehabilitated, re-supplied, re-armed, double/triple the amount of new recruits, train with abandon with no interference.  And seeing how they "scared those cowardly americans away", motivate them for the next few 911's they can cause.  And of course it'll be made easier, because we shouldn't be listening in on their phone conversations....noooooo, perish the thought.  We ought not tracking their bank records or datamining calls......noooooo, baaaaaaad.  Just when they do hit, we........hit back hard, and hold nothing back........kinda like what we're doing now, but with alot more loss of both our civilian life from those 911-like events, and thousands more sodliers as we try to take on new refortifie, rearmed, and fresh terrorist forces.  I'll be honest here Prince.......I don't see that as the "right thing to do"

Wow. You give them an awful lot of credit. Double to triple the amount of new recruits? What makes you think they can so dramtically up their recruitment rate with American troops not there? And what makes you think they're not being resupplied and rearmed now? And given their track record, what makes you think they'll get in a "few 911's"? Where was this massive militant Islamic extremist uprising before September 11, 2001? I just don't buy it. I'm not saying they'll all go away, I'm just doubting this scenario you're proposing.

But let's look at how things are stacking up now. American troops are getting killed. Iraqi citizens are getting killed. People are having possessions large and small taken away from them at airports and never returned. Some folks here in America got arrested because they had "too many" cell phones. Some people are being held indefinitely, without trial, and if they get a trial, it may be one where they are not allowed to mount an appropriate defense against the charges due to "national security" issues. And the terrorists are rearming and resupplying anyway. And their recruitment rate has, as I understand it, gone up since the beginning of the Iraq war. And they have new excuses to spin themselves as victims of American aggression. And the American government continues to insist it needs more power to go after terrorists at home and abroad. Folks like you and Plane are telling me how we need to be willing to sacrifice liberty for the sake of national security. Nothing about this situation is the right thing to do.

And I'll tell you the same thing I told Plane. What I believe the government should do at home—leave people alone—is what I believe the government should do abroad. We will never save the world by trying to control it, either here or overseas. It's a fool's dream, and one we would be better off discarding sooner rather than later. And I'll repeat what I said to you. Continuing to do something stupid because quitting would make you look bad doesn't make continuing to do the something stupid a good idea or the something stupid any less stupid. And frankly, this whole "emboldening the terrorists" bit is really lame. It doesn't matter what we do, they're going to spin it to their advantage. If we remain, we're emboldening them by being there to be seen as an invading/oppressive force to fight. And while we're here, I should add that just because doing the right thing might make you lose face doesn't mean it isn't still the right thing to do. And just because doing the right thing might seem to let the bad guys win doesn't mean it isn't still the right thing to do. Or do you advocate that previously convicted criminals should not be given a fair trial and reasonable defense because it might let them back on the street?

They're shooting into the darkness, hoping something gets hit. That is not exactly what I would call a serious ability to wage war on anyone.

Hitler did pretty much the same thing when he sent a small underarmed contingent of troops into the Rhineland.  We turned a blind eye to that one to.  We have history to tell us where it went from there

And you expect me to believe your comparison of the terrorists to Nazis is accurate?

[Universe Prince]

9/11 WAS a wake up call because we were lax in security.

We were not lax in security or intellegence. We were lax in listening to them. Or rather, our leaders were. (Both the Clinton and Bush administrations.) The actions taken since have not helped that one bit.

[sirs]

Prince, when did I EVER claim that Islamofacists were identical to German Fascists?  When did I ever opine that militant Islam is trying to copy Hitler & Nazi Germany?  If you recall, I made it painfully clear that their not "identical", simply historically comparable.  So why the continued questions or implications along the lines of "when did the Islamic extremists pledge to be Nazis", is a question I might see knute or Brass ask, but not you. 

You're clearly assuming your comparison of current events to history is the only valid one, and this I doubt seriously. And you have yet to give me any reason not to do so.

Again, if you wish to run the risk of repeating History, by all means, ignore the signs of Militant Islam, ignore their rhetoric, ignore their actions, and keep condeming Bush for daring to try and listen in on their overseas phone calls.  I've given you ample reason, that of a repeat of the likes of the Nazi war machine of the 30's & 40's.  It is you that are chosing to ignore that potential.

You give them an awful lot of credit. Double to triple the amount of new recruits? What makes you think they can so dramtically up their recruitment rate with American troops not there?

Again, another question I'm stunned that you'd even ask.  Suffice to say, without our military intervention, they can recruit, train, and re-arm to their heart's content, without any obstrution or hiccup of impedence.  This should fall into the category of what I'd dare say is "obvious", though I'll concede on how we all know how that term has been mutated by the likes of Xo

And you expect me to believe your comparison of the terrorists to Nazis is accurate?

And you expect me to believe that its not?

[Universe Prince]

I think you're overestimating the difficulty of the plan. Liquid explosives are difficult to use because they are inherently unstable; however safety of the user is not at the top of a list of suicide bomber's priorities. There are many liquids are are, in and of themselves, stable, yet highly volatile when mixed with another liquid. For some combinations, the skill required is no more than is required to use home hair color treatments - mix in the correct proportions and shake.

From what I have read, mixing the chemicals via the proper procedure and in the proper contitions to create an explosion large enough to actually destroy the airplane would be a nearly impossible task on an airplane even if one could get into the lavatory for the amount of time needed without anyone noticing. While I am sure there are some simpler combinations, the reports I have read say the terrorist plot was to create triacetone triperoxide, which is not something one just mixes in the correct proportions and shakes in a bottle. And as for the safety of the user, I should think that would come into play in so far as the terrorists would not get very far if they blew up only themselves before they got to the plane, or if fumes from the process of making the explosive killed them or made them pass out. And as for the simpler combinations, my understanding is that most of them require more than a 20oz bottle to create a large enough explosion to bring down a plane.

[Amianthus]

From what I have read, mixing the chemicals via the proper procedure and in the proper contitions to create an explosion large enough to actually destroy the airplane would be a nearly impossible task on an airplane even if one could get into the lavatory for the amount of time needed without anyone noticing.

You'd be surprised. I've been on flights where someone was in the bathroom for nearly the entire flight. Also, TATP has been used in terrorist attacks previously, including the attempted "shoe bomber" and the London subway attacks.

[Universe Prince]

Prince, when did I EVER claim that Islamofacists were identical to German Fascists?  When did I ever opine that militant Islam is trying to copy Hitler & Nazi Germany?

I don't recall that you did. But then, I don't recall having said or implied that you did.

If you recall, I made it painfully clear that their not "identical", simply historically comparable.

No, I don't recall that, but I'll take your word for it.

So why the continued questions or implications along the lines of "when did the Islamic extremists pledge to be Nazis"

Uh, I believe my question was "When did the Islamic extremists pledge to become like the Nazis?" Notice that word between the words "become" and "the Nazis"? You get to say, "you don't believe the Islamic fundamentalists are anywhere close to being the Nazis of the 1920s, thus that's what drives your thought process.  I DO, again reinforced by their rhetorical goals & actions upon us." But I don't get to ask "When did the Islamic extremists pledge to become like the Nazis?" What's up with that? This hardly seems fair. You get to compare the two, but I don't get to call you on it? Frack that.

You're clearly assuming your comparison of current events to history is the only valid one, and this I doubt seriously. And you have yet to give me any reason not to do so.

Again, if you wish to run the risk of repeating History, by all means, ignore the signs of Militant Islam, ignore their rhetoric, ignore their actions, and keep condeming Bush for daring to try and listen in on their overseas phone calls.  I've given you ample reason, that of a repeat of the likes of the Nazi war machine of the 30's & 40's.  It is you that are chosing to ignore that potential.

You have made the comparison of the Islamic extremists to the Nazis, yes, but you have not actually given a reason why your comparison of current events to history is the only valid one. And stop assuming that just because you haven't convinced me you're correct I must then be ignoring history. I'm chooseing to not be quite so singularly selective as to what history I compare current events.

You give them an awful lot of credit. Double to triple the amount of new recruits? What makes you think they can so dramtically up their recruitment rate with American troops not there?

Again, another question I'm stunned that you'd even ask.  Suffice to say, without our military intervention, they can recruit, train, and re-arm to their heart's content, without any obstrution or hiccup of impedence.  This should fall into the category of what I'd dare say is "obvious", though I'll concede on how we all know how that term has been mutated by the likes of Xo

Which leads me back to a question I already asked, but you ignored. Where was this massive militant Islamic extremist uprising before September 11, 2001? I mean if all they need is a lack of American military intervention, why were they not a vast military force before September 11, 2001? Our military presence in the Middle East was not nearly then what it is now, and the terrorists had years to recruit with virtually no interference during the Clinton administration. So why now are they going to suddenly surge in numbers, doubling or even tripling in size, if our troops depart? Please explain.

And you expect me to believe your comparison of the terrorists to Nazis is accurate?

And you expect me to believe that its not?

Well, no, not if you really think Hitler was blindly shooting into the dark when he sent troops to the Rhineland. But don't expect me to believe you.

[Universe Prince]

Also, TATP has been used in terrorist attacks previously, including the attempted "shoe bomber" and the London subway attacks.

Mixing it at home seems a tad easier than getting it all past airport security and standing in an airplane lavatory, while the plane is in the air, to mix it. I'm just not buying it.

[The_Professor]

"...You'd be surprised. I've been on flights where someone was in the bathroom for nearly the entire flight..."

Yes, but that for for becoming a full-fledged member of the mile-high club! :-)

[Plane]

Also, TATP has been used in terrorist attacks previously, including the attempted "shoe bomber" and the London subway attacks.

Mixing it at home seems a tad easier than getting it all past airport security and standing in an airplane lavatory, while the plane is in the air, to mix it. I'm just not buying it.

Mixing it at home runs the risk of premature explosion , mixing it onsite with a disposable person doing the mixing obviates this risk.

What requirement of an explosive would make mixing it on an aircraft impossible? The enviornment is not all that diffrent and the explosive being unstable is hardly a reason to prefer premixing.


Is one of us an actual Chemist ? I am not , just an interested ametuer.

[Plane]

I disagree, in time of war the emergency does justify sacrifices.

Not of liberty.

On the contrary , when I enlisted in the Military I gave up a large amount of liberty because I beleived it necessacery to my countrys defence . On a periodic basis we have instituted a draft which is the forced removal of these libertys . These sacrifices are much greater than the ones we are currently speaking of , how about looseing the right to speak across the borders in privacy? Only a very few of us will miss that .

But giveing up the right to decide for myself where I would live , what I would wear and what I would do with my weekend was a major impact on my life.

We have always accepted that some of us will give up some libertys for the greater good , what makes the current sacrifices worse than usual in simular circumstances?

[Universe Prince]

On the contrary , when I enlisted in the Military I gave up a large amount of liberty because I beleived it necessacery to my countrys defence

You choosing to give up your liberty voluntarily does not give you the authority to decide for others that they should have to give up their liberty. And you choosing to give up your liberty is not at all the same as the government or even a voting majority to decide to take liberty away from others.

On a periodic basis we have instituted a draft which is the forced removal of these libertys

Which was wrong. And that something wrong has been done in the past does not make it something we should do now or in the future.

These sacrifices are much greater than the ones we are currently speaking of , how about looseing the right to speak across the borders in privacy? Only a very few of us will miss that

Many people make overseas calls, not just a few. But that is beside the point. What does it matter how many people's liberty you trample on? It is still wrong whether it is done for one million or merely one.

But giveing up the right to decide for myself where I would live , what I would wear and what I would do with my weekend was a major impact on my life.

An impact you voluntarily chose to accept by enlisting in the military. Again, not the same as deciding for other people  what "sacrifice" of liberty will be imposed upon them regardless of their choice.

We have always accepted that some of us will give up some libertys for the greater good , what makes the current sacrifices worse than usual in simular circumstances?

To say some of us will give up some liberty is one thing. To say that all of us should "sacrifice" some liberty is altogether something else. To choose to agree to not do certain things is the free exercise of the liberty to do or not do those things. The liberty to exercise rights does not only mean the liberty to speak out or to choose where one lives, or the like. It also means the liberty to choose not to do these things. It means each person has the right to choose for himself how to exercise his rights. It means you choosing to make a contractual agreement to exchange part of your life and part of your decisions about your life in exchange for recompense from the government is you exercising your rights. This is fundamentally and substantially different from taking liberty away from people without their consent, whether by government fiat or majority vote.

The greater good is not served by taking liberty away from the people. (And before you start talking about how we put people in jail, that isn't what I'm talking about, and you know it. Punishing people who violate the rights of others is not the same as expecting everyone in society to "sacrifice" their liberty. And I would add that even accused people and convicted criminals have rights that should be protected, and the abuse of those rights also does not serve the greater good.) Protecting and preserving the free exercise of rights is the greater good, and that cannot be served by doing the opposite of protecting and preserving the free exercise of rights. The integrity of a house is not protected by knocking a hole in the outside wall. A family is not protected by child abuse. Your cake is not kept by eating it. The greater good is not protected by "sacrificing" liberty. The greater good is protected when we protect liberty.

[sirs]

I don't recall that you did (claim militant Islamists were trying to be like Nazis). But then, I don't recall having said or implied that you did.

Your query "When did the Islamic extremists pledge to become like the Nazis?" was a direct accusation/implication of such, in response to my clarification of "I'm advocating going after people who have pledged to do what I believe they have pledged to do in the future.  A DISTINCT difference, I might add"

I believe my question was "When did the Islamic extremists pledge to become like the Nazis?" Notice that word between the words "become" and "the Nazis"?

LOL....yea, no accusations/implications here

I don't get to ask "When did the Islamic extremists pledge to become like the Nazis?" What's up with that?

Because you're purposely phrasing the question in such a way as to make a bogus implication on my part.  A better question would be along the lines of "When did Islamic extremists start demonstrating similar traits and tactics that the Nazis employed?"  A much more accurate question without the underlying misrepresentation of my position.  The answer to that question largely was when Usama declared war on the U.S. specifically, and western civilization in general.  It began occuring as more and more soldiers of militant Islam, most exemplified by AlQeada and the Iranian President, began engaging in systematic attacks on both U.S. & Israeli populations.  Unlike Germany of course, Islamofascists aren't limited to just being AlQeada.  It includes Baathists, Suuni nationalists, Hamas, Hezbollah, just to name a few.  All with differing leaderships, but all with a generalized goal of wiping Israel & America off, and implimenting their version of a some global Islamic governance.  Convert, be subjugated, or die being the only viable options.  I recall listening to an excerpt of a high ranking AlQeada member declaring precisely that agenda

You have made the comparison of the Islamic extremists to the Nazis, yes, but you have not actually given a reason why your comparison of current events to history is the only valid one

Show me one more valid, in your opinion

Where was this massive militant Islamic extremist uprising before September 11, 2001?

You do grasp the concept of a malignancy?  That's the most accurate analogy I can provide for you in this case.  This uprising has been hitting us since the late 80's, early 90's.  911 was simply a wake up call.

But don't expect me to believe you

Ditto, I'm afraid

[_JS]

You have made the comparison of the Islamic extremists to the Nazis, yes, but you have not actually given a reason why your comparison of current events to history is the only valid one

Show me one more valid, in your opinion

How about comparing Islamic extremism to Islamic extremism? A novel approach indeed. Quite frankly you don't have the grasp of history or political philosophy to make a valid comparison between Nazism and Islamic Militancy, which is perhaps worse than your attempt to compare the same to fascism.

[The_Professor]

To say some of us will give up some liberty is one thing. To say that all of us should "sacrifice" some liberty is altogether something else. To choose to agree to not do certain things is the free exercise of the liberty to do or not do those things. The liberty to exercise rights does not only mean the liberty to speak out or to choose where one lives, or the like. It also means the liberty to choose not to do these things. It means each person has the right to choose for himself how to exercise his rights. It means you choosing to make a contractual agreement to exchange part of your life and part of your decisions about your life in exchange for recompense from the government is you exercising your rights. This is fundamentally and substantially different from taking liberty away from people without their consent, whether by government fiat or majority vote.

The greater good is not served by taking liberty away from the people. (And before you start talking about how we put people in jail, that isn't what I'm talking about, and you know it. Punishing people who violate the rights of others is not the same as expecting everyone in society to "sacrifice" their liberty. And I would add that even accused people and convicted criminals have rights that should be protected, and the abuse of those rights also does not serve the greater good.) Protecting and preserving the free exercise of rights is the greater good, and that cannot be served by doing the opposite of protecting and preserving the free exercise of rights. The integrity of a house is not protected by knocking a hole in the outside wall. A family is not protected by child abuse. Your cake is not kept by eating it. The greater good is not protected by "sacrificing" liberty. The greater good is protected when we protect liberty.

Aren't we basically talking about balance?