Will the West survive?

[sirs]

So they're all trying to get us to latch onto their fear of a possibility that is by no means inevitable?

If left unchecked, yes, I'd opine, as many, using history as a learning tool, that it would indeed become inevitable

So I think Mr. Williams is not talking about what may happen, but about the threat, as he sees it, right now.

I disagree, but that's cool

Is it? (like catching Hitler and the Nazi party back in the 20's.)

Yes, it is

Suppose one could travel back in time and accomplish raising awareness of the Nazis. What then?

You do what you can to prevent the future wonton slaughter of Jews, and the global goal of Nazi rule.  Kinda like what we're doing currently, but aimed at militant islam vs fascist nazis

However, moving from there (pointing out the threat of militant Islamic terrorists) to a "war for survival" is an error. And as I pointed out before, Mr. Williams is talking about a "war for survival" not in the future tense but in the present tense.

Which again, I disagree with.  I see Mr Williams as simply being more aware of the threat, and passing that awareness as he sees it, on to the rest of us

The thing that makes me the most cynical about this is that the supposed struggle against totalitarianism is resulting in the U.S. government itself becoming more authoritarian, demanding more power in its pursuit of terrorists et al.

Oh, I completely agree with the concern.  And when I see start seeing such in the way of overt unconstitutional behavior by the U.S. government, I'll be right on board.  FBI getting red flags about jihadist & bomb making library books being checked out doesn't make me flinch in the least.  Neither does the NSA listening in on Foreign terrorists calling in & out of the U.S.  Neither does holding these enemy combatants taken off the battlefield and held indefinately, as any other war has done.  Neither does perfectly legal datamining.  Neither does harsh interrogation tactics in trying to learn about the next 911.  I do draw the line at the infliction of any acute physical pain & suffering.  I'll leave that to the enemy   

sadly, along come folks like Michael Savage and even Walter Williams who insist that America is under threat of cultural and physical annihilation

I'm stunned you'd put the 2 togehter.  Savage I completely agree with, but Williams is no where close to the fringe as Savage is.  And we ARE under a threat.  It's been made perfectly clear by our enemy what their intentions are.  Convert or die, with convert largely a questionable option.  One more time, they can't be placated, they can't be appeased, they can't be made to be nice-nice.  They can only be defeated.  And that's about as optimistic as I can be, on this subject.  We're not Rome, we're not trying to make everyone govern like us, or behave like us.  Due to the complete impotence and non-credibility of the UN, we've become the defacto Global security force.  I don't like it, but that's just how it's become.  We could just turn tail and hide within our borders, and pray that everyone will leave us alone, but reality dictates that won't happen.  they will come, and they will kill.  Our options are largely limited to killing them either closer or farther away from our country.  The farther away we can kill them, the less potential death they can inflict within our country

And I don't believe the Islamic fundamentalists are even close to being the Nazis of the 1920s, unless we make them that way.

Which is fundamentally what seperates our way of thinking as it relates to this issue.  I DO believe that, and that they COULD achieve being the Nazis of not just the 20's, but the 30's as well, if left unchecked.  And my POV is reinforced not just by their rhetoric, not just by their actions, but by the large support and minimal condemnations they receive from other countries, especially Muslim countries

[Xavier_Onassis]

Well, of COURSE "the West", whatever that might be, "will survive", whatever is meant by survival. Jews survive. Armenians survive. Cambodians survive.  There are still Samaritans who have survived.

The question is idiotic. Germany survived Hitler, the Nazis and the Occupation. Nations do not cease to be, even when defeated.

Enlightened?


Accurate?

How about "silly" and "pretentious"?
.

[Plane]

The question is idiotic. Germany survived Hitler, the Nazis and the Occupation. Nations do not cease to be, even when defeated.

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]


Lets plan a vacation in Constantinople , I hear that Bizantium is lovely this time of year.

[Michael Tee]

The West has been fucking with the Middle East since the Crusades amd more recently since the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

The War of Civilizations is bullshit.  It was invented by people who fervently support the State of Israel and want to drag the US even more firmly into the Israeli-Palestinian struggle  on the side of Israel.

It very cleverly takes advantage of widespread Muslim rage against the West (itself a very natural reaction to economic exploitation, colonialism and neo-colonialism) and conflates it with the somewhat later and also very natural reactive rage to the establishment of the State of Israel and the ethnic cleansing that accompanies it.

The very idea of a Muslim war against the West is absurd.  The numbers tell the story.  There aren't enough Muslims to conquer the West.  The most successful Muslim attack in history on the USA was a flea-bite when you compare it with the devastation visited upon both Iraq and Afghanistan by the US.
The authors of this War of Civilizations baloney would have you believe that the Muslims are stupid enough to think they can take down America and/or Europe.  Does it look like they are taking them down?

What the War of Civilizations authors won't tell you is that the real target of the jihadi attacks are the puppet governments of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.  And Algeria and Morocco after that.  They want America to lean on its puppets to crack down on militant religious Muslims, and "terrorists," i.e. Palestinian resistance fighters, so that the generalized Arab resentment against America and Israel can be mobilized, focused on the puppet government and its servitude to America and the Jews,  hopefully resulting in Sadat-like assassinations and regime change.  

In reality the so-called War of Civilizations is nothing more than a Muslim civil war of religious fundamentalists against Westernized elites.

[sirs]

Some folks just have no concept of how religion can drive one to think, and more imortantly believe that they can do things that rational (and even irrational leftists) would think impossible       

[Plane]

"The very idea of a Muslim war against the West is absurd.  The numbers tell the story.  There aren't enough Muslims to conquer the West.  The most successful Muslim attack in history on the USA was a flea-bite when you compare it with the devastation visited upon both Iraq and Afghanistan by the US.
The authors of this War of Civilizations baloney would have you believe that the Muslims are stupid enough to think they can take down America and/or Europe.  Does it look like they are taking them down?"

HA!

Take that Osama!

Last time I heard one of your tapes you were still talking about your inevitable victory ,  you havent even convinced MT (and he is kinda easy).

[Universe Prince]

If left unchecked, yes, I'd opine, as many, using history as a learning tool, that it would indeed become inevitable

So, it would be inevitable, if left unchecked, because... you think so? Is that all you've got?

You do what you can to prevent the future wonton slaughter of Jews, and the global goal of Nazi rule.  Kinda like what we're doing currently, but aimed at militant islam vs fascist nazis

So what does that mean? You'd advise Roosevelt and Churchill to make a preemptive strike against Germany? Based on what? How do you justify taking out people based on actions you believe they will take but have not yet happened? Isn't punishing people based on what you think they'll do eventually rather arrogant? I mean, it's easy to say let's stop the Nazis, but just why does that give you or anyone else a position to declare definitively what other people will do in the future?

And when I see start seeing such in the way of overt unconstitutional behavior by the U.S. government, I'll be right on board.  FBI getting red flags about jihadist & bomb making library books being checked out doesn't make me flinch in the least.  Neither does the NSA listening in on Foreign terrorists calling in & out of the U.S.  Neither does holding these enemy combatants taken off the battlefield and held indefinately, as any other war has done.  Neither does perfectly legal datamining.  Neither does harsh interrogation tactics in trying to learn about the next 911.

The first sentence there seems in conflict with the rest of the paragraph. Unless you mean you're willingly turning a blind eye to the unconstitutional behavior so that you don't see it. Yeah, yeah, I know, the courts say blah blah, and foreigners are not protected blah blah. I am not so cavalier with human rights or the nature of the Constitution. The Constitution exists to restrict government and protect the rights of people, even the bad ones. And spying on what people read is far too close to policing what people think for me to stomach it. It makes me ill to think of it. I frankly don't understand how people can be not bothered by such things. Yes, I understand the rationalizations, but that anyone would actually say, oh sure, holding someone indefinitely without a trial, nothing wrong with that, what the f...? I expect that of the mafia, of criminals, of terrorists, but we're supposed to be the good guys, the folks who give a damn about the rights of other human beings. Apparently this is not the case. We only care about the rights of our people, and anyone else gets treated like a wild dog. Frankly the extent to which we're willing to ignore the rights of people who are not us, not Americans, not on our side, is rather scary.

I do draw the line at the infliction of any acute physical pain & suffering.  I'll leave that to the enemy

Well, I suppose that is something. I'm glad to see you're willing to draw the line somewhere.

but Williams is no where close to the fringe as Savage is.

Didn't I say that?

And we ARE under a threat.

We may face a threat but we are not under a threat.

It's been made perfectly clear by our enemy what their intentions are.  Convert or die, with convert largely a questionable option.  One more time, they can't be placated, they can't be appeased, they can't be made to be nice-nice.

All the more reason to leave them alone.

They can only be defeated.

Yes, I know. We must beat them into submission or kill them. Remind me why we're the good guys... oh yeah, because we're not Islamic terrorists who want to control the world. We're just Americans who want to influence the world. Right. Yeah. Sure.

We're not Rome,

Your pal Williams made the comparison, not me.

we're not trying to make everyone govern like us, or behave like us.  Due to the complete impotence and non-credibility of the UN, we've become the defacto Global security force.

You probably believe that. I don't.

We could just turn tail and hide within our borders, and pray that everyone will leave us alone, but reality dictates that won't happen.  they will come, and they will kill.  Our options are largely limited to killing them either closer or farther away from our country.  The farther away we can kill them, the less potential death they can inflict within our country

Or instead, we could simply start leaving other countries alone and take care of our own concerns. Leaving other people alone is not the same as running away. I'm not suggesting that if we leave them alone, then no one will try to hurt us. But that other people might try to hurt us is not a valid excuse for us to decide we know what is best for other countries. If we really want to deter other countries from screwing around with world, then we should lead by example and start following our own advice. And if we want to maintain the safety of our people, then we establish that anyone who attacks us or our people is going to end up bombed, hunted down and killed, or otherwise made irrevocably dead. No negotiations, no Jimmy Carter hand-wringing, just retaliation. That would be protecting Americans. This nonsense about a "war on terror" is a lot of rhetoric, and a lot of people are dying, but we are no closer to accomplishing our goal now than we were before the Iraq War. The U.S. government is making the wrong decisions and pursuing the wrong foreign policy. No amount of talk about "capitulation" or "turning tail and hiding" alters that fact one iota. And we will not be pursuing a policy of protecting Americans from the terrorists until the U.S. government starts making the correct decisions and pursuing a rational, non-interventionist foreign policy. Instead of continually acting as if America is afraid that the terrorists are going kill us all, the government needs to take off the temper-tantrum shorts, put on some clean long pants, grow a damn spine, and start acting like the leadership of a strong and free nation.

I DO believe that, and that they COULD achieve being the Nazis of not just the 20's, but the 30's as well, if left unchecked.  And my POV is reinforced not just by their rhetoric, not just by their actions, but by the large support and minimal condemnations they receive from other countries, especially Muslim countries

If left unchecked, if left unchecked, if left unchecked. You keep saying that, but what does that mean? Is someone around here suggesting we ignore terrorist activity? Is some one suggesting Chamberlain-like treaties with the terrorists? I realize that some folks want to equate a non-interventionist policy with appeasement of the terrorists, but that is really stupid and not even remotely accurate. One thing people tend to overlook about the rise of the Nazi Party is that this was really an extension of events that started with the damn Treaty of Versailles, governments pushing around the defeated Germany. So even if a defeat of the terrorists is achieved, you have no guarantee that your end result will not be something worse than what you started with. Which is to say, we could end up being the catalyst that leads the Islamic extremists to becoming the Nazi-like horror you keep insisting they will be. Unless of course you intend to advocate their complete annihilation as I discussed before. In which case, I'll repeat what I said before. To take a stand against totalitarianism in a situation like the one we are in, the answer to totalitarianism is not war but liberty.

[Michael Tee]

sirs:  Some folks just have no concept of how religion can drive one to think, and more imortantly believe that they can do things that rational (and even irrational leftists) would think impossible   

Well, I suppose we do have the example of George W. Bush believing that he can conquer Iraq and Afghanistan and maybe Iran too and turn them all into constitutional democratic republics just like America.   


plane : Last time I heard one of your tapes [Osama] you were still talking about your inevitable victory [over the West]  you havent even convinced MT (and he is kinda easy).

Right, plane.  They can conquer the West because Osama says they can.  I didn't realize you had such faith in Osama's words.

[sirs]

Well, I suppose we do have the example of George W. Bush believing that he can conquer Iraq and Afghanistan and maybe Iran too and turn them all into constitutional democratic republics just like America

Strange, I have yet to see or hear Bush claim that "God will see us thru to victory".  Must be that upside down alternate reality you frequently vacation at.  In this reality, it's the terrorists and insurgents who consistently & on videotape I might add, use Alllah as their rallying cry, who have a can't lose attitiude that allows them to kill infidels in the name of Allah, and if they get killed, there's all these virgins Allah has waiting for them.

I don't suppose you want a do-over, do you Tee?  Naaa, don't even bother making yourself look that much sillier

[sirs]

So, it would be inevitable, if left unchecked, because... you think so? Is that all you've got?

Well, I've got history as well, if that helps

So what does that mean?

I didn't think that was complicated concept.  It means killing them before they kill us.  It means targeting those who are planning, organizing, and carrying out attacks on us, before those attacks see the light of day.  It means that Usama and Islamofascist terrorists are a tad farther down the road than Hitler and his Nazi party were in the early 20's.  Hitler did have the luxury of Germany's borders and remedial scouting technology on our part, to build his war machine.  That's the advantage Hitler had.  The advantage that militant Islam has is widespread muslim support, and the ability to hide among the civilian population.  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

The first sentence there seems in conflict with the rest of the paragraph

Not at all, since I don't see any overt unconstitutional acts.  What I do see is Bush bending the constitution as far as he can, withOUT breaking it.  What I do see are efforts and actions by the Administration, that make perfectly sound sense, and appear to be within the legal boundries of the CnC, in a time of war.  I realize you don't see that, but then again, our biases do tend to shade towards our respective ideologies, your Libertarian & my Conservative, and thus modify what we see, and why we're seeing it

All the more reason to leave them alone

Addressed already in that such an (in)action will NOT stop the threat, will NOT impair their ability to train, plan, and instigate attacks on us, will NOT diminish their goal of both killing us and installing some global Muslim Governance

Yes, I know. We must beat them into submission or kill them. Remind me why we're the good guys...

Because we're doing it to defend ourselves, and to prevent what we had to prevent back in the 1940's.  Hopefully this time around, we can do it with a lot less American & civilian casualties
But again, it really comes down to this; 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.  That's what I believe, and despite how articulate and patient you've been in this debate, have been unable to convince me otherwise, thus I'm going to continue to give the benefit of the doubt to Bush and our military until clear evidence, (not just the rabid left's incoherent say so, as typified by Tee & Brass), shows me otherwise

[Universe Prince]

Well, I've got history as well, if that helps

I don't believe you. Yeah, I know you keep comparing the Islamic extremists to the Nazis, but that is rather selective.

It means killing them before they kill us.  It means targeting those who are planning, organizing, and carrying out attacks on us, before those attacks see the light of day. 

So if I understand this correctly, your position is that we should kill people not just for what they do, but also for what we thinking they could, would or might do if we don't kill them. We are to take the position of world authority on what other people are allowed to think, and to kill people whose thoughts are too dangerous. We, of course, are to be left free to plan and organize attacks that we may or may not ever carry out on other people, left free to decide for ourselves what is and is not a threat and how to defend ourselves, but no one else should be allowed this freedom. No, I cannot go along with that.

It means that Usama and Islamofascist terrorists are a tad farther down the road than Hitler and his Nazi party were in the early 20's.  Hitler did have the luxury of Germany's borders and remedial scouting technology on our part, to build his war machine.  That's the advantage Hitler had.  The advantage that militant Islam has is widespread muslim support, and the ability to hide among the civilian population.  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

Once upon a time, we had people fighting for the U.S. who could hide in the civilian population, who didn't wear uniforms, who didn't fight by the book. They were called militias and helped win the American War for Independence. I find it hard to hold such tactics as criminal behavior. Anyway, you have yet to demonstrate how the Islamic terrorists are even close to the Nazi Party in terms of preparedness to make war.

Addressed already in that such an (in)action will NOT stop the threat, will NOT impair their ability to train, plan, and instigate attacks on us, will NOT diminish their goal of both killing us and installing some global Muslim Governance

So? You seem to keep confusing "leave them alone" with "never do anything about them". "Leave them alone" means we stop screwing around in the Middle East, bring the troops home and adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy. It does not mean ignore them and do nothing if they decide to attack. Frankly, I don't give a damn what they plan. They can plan until their lips turn blue and their fingers fall off. Our military constantly plans for what to do if we should defend or attack some place or other. If someone tried to stop that, you would be against that, wouldn't you? I fail to see why we should stop other people from doing what we do unless we're willing to stop doing it too. This "do as we say, not as we do" policy seems rather... what's the word... hypocritical.

[sirs]

Yeah, I know you keep comparing the Islamic extremists to the Nazis, but that is rather selective

And I'd add effective as well

So if I understand this correctly, your position is that we should kill people not just for what they do, but also for what we thinking they could, would or might do if we don't kill them

No, apparently you don't understand.  We should kill those not for "thinking" about it (killing Americans & Israelis, and anyone who doesn't covert to Islam), but those actively working on it.  A distinct difference, I might add

Once upon a time, we had people fighting for the U.S. who could hide in the civilian population, who didn't wear uniforms, who didn't fight by the book.

Perhaps you can point out the chapters in the history books, that demonstrated where our militia were fighting from positions amongst the civilian population.  Perhaps you can also show where these militias actively targeted and killed innocent civilians

You seem to keep confusing "leave them alone" with "never do anything about them"

Not at all.  "Leaving them alone" does zilch to lessen the threat.  "Leaving them alone" does nothing but embolden them to do more, since we'll have been perceived as running away with our tails between our legs.  "Leaving them alone" does nothing to lessen their ability to wage war on us.  "Leaving them alone" is not a smart option, IMHO, given the many negatives that go along with such a tactic.

[Michael Tee]

<<Strange, I have yet to see or hear Bush claim that "God will see us thru to victory".  Must be that upside down alternate reality you frequently vacation at. >>

It's not strange at all.  If you live with your head up your ass, as most conservatives do, there are a lot of things that you have yet to see or hear.  Although I did not claim that Bush ever said "God will see us through to victory," (another example of your over-active imagination, never lacking for invented words and phrases to put in other people's mouths as an alternative to intelligent argument) there are numerous occasions where Bush has claimed to be working on God's side, unlike his enemies.  There are numerous references he has made to the "evil" of his opponents contrasted with the "goodness" of America.

[sirs]

I did not claim that Bush ever said "God will see us through to victory," there are numerous occasions where Bush has claimed to be working on God's side, unlike his enemies.  There are numerous references he has made to the "evil" of his opponents contrasted with the "goodness" of America.

Which has pretty much next to nothing to do with your implication how he's using God as his rallying cry & justification for our military intervention in Iraq & Afghanistan.  Nor does it debunk your obvious ignoring of the terrorists & insurgents that do

[Michael Tee]

On the contrary, I did not ignore the "terrorists" who claim that God is on their side.  I said that they are just like Bush, who thinks that God is on HIS side.