Will the West survive?

[sirs]

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.

Is that so, let's look at my comment and your response.  You'll note that at no time, did you reference the terrorists in any way, much less in comparison.  That, in this reality is called "ignoring".   Now, I will concede that I believe that Bush believes he's acting in how God would want him to.   Most Christians believe that, and endeavor to act in such a way that will make God prowd & pleased.   Far cry however in claiming that "God will lead us to victory", and "God will provide heavenly sanctuary for all those who die in our cause".  Actually, that's more like Objective minded folks are frm Mars and and Hard core leftests are from Venus.......in another galaxy

sirs:  Some folks just have no concept of how religion can drive one to think, and more importantly 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.

[Universe Prince]

And I'd add effective as well

I'm sure you would, but you haven't done anything to support that assertion.

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

You're missing the point. You're advocating going after people based on what you believe they will do in the future. You talk of targeting people because they're planning an attack. The American military plans attacks all the damn time. And I'll ask again, if someone tried to stop that, you would be against that, wouldn't you? If you're targeting people for planning something, you're targeting people for thinking about it. And poof, there goes your distinct difference.

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

Back then the militia were civilians. And I didn't say they targeted or killed civilians. I said they could hide in the civilian population, didn't wear uniforms and didn't fight by the book. If it makes you feel any better, during the American Civil War, both sides had folks who killed plenty of civilians.

"Leaving them alone" does zilch to lessen the threat. 

So? Not that I agree with you, but even if you're right, so what? 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?

"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.

A position we would not be in if we had been leaving them alone in the first place. But regardless of how it is perceived, it is still the right thing to do. 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. So I could care less if leaving makes them happy or not.

"Leaving them alone" does nothing to lessen their ability to wage war on us.

So? What has that got to do with it? Their ability to wage war on us is minuscule. You don't really think mixing chemicals on an airplane was a plan that was really going to work do you? 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.

[The_Professor]

So? What has that got to do with it? Their ability to wage war on us is minuscule. You don't really think mixing chemicals on an airplane was a plan that was really going to work do you? 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.

UP, I think you fail to see it as the terrorist war it is. It is a war, not in a conventional sense, but one where one fanatic idiot can go into the mall down the street from where you live and set off a bomb, all the while crying Allah's name. It is the fear factor that it might happen anywhere because it did happen down the street that can decimate a democractic society. This is why eternal vigilance is needed. Protect your borders as best you can, cooperate with other nations, educate people on the situation and so on. All the while realizing that our personal liberites must be balacned against this vigilance.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Will the West Survive?

Now that's a dumb question. IT will change, as everything does over time, according to the Hegelian formula Action > Reaction > Synthesis. The Syntheses becomes a new Action and the process repeats itself all over again.

The West willl change, the Middle East wil change, Islamic nations will change, as will everything else.

Al Qaeda is a reactionary organization: it is trying to preserve a society which is changing against the medieval structure of the Koran. Before, Arabs could shelter their women and young men from change. Now satellkite TV makes it possible for women, even illiterate women, to see other women drive cars, work in an office or a factory with men. Young men can watch Baywatch babes spilling out of their bikinis, their boobs a-bouncing as they run along the beach.

American troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia. Some military personnel smuggled Bibles into Saudi Arabia and were passing them around. Booze was being drunk by US troops stationed in the sacred sands of Saudia.

It is the Muslims who will change the most as a result of the increased contact via the media between the West and Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Muslim world.  The struggle to prevent modernity from coming to Saudia that will end, as Prohibition ended, after some violence, with an abandonment of the idea that Arabia can stay in the XIII century forever.

Consider that the IRA in the UK, with all its bombs and all its protests, did not really change British society. Al Qaeda is less well organized than any branch of the IRA.

[The_Professor]

Xavier, I, miraculously, find that we agree! And, some say miracles simply do not happen!

[Universe Prince]

UP, I think you fail to see it as the terrorist war it is. It is a war, not in a conventional sense, but one where one fanatic idiot can go into the mall down the street from where you live and set off a bomb, all the while crying Allah's name. It is the fear factor that it might happen anywhere because it did happen down the street that can decimate a democractic society. This is why eternal vigilance is needed. Protect your borders as best you can, cooperate with other nations, educate people on the situation and so on. All the while realizing that our personal liberites must be balacned against this vigilance.

I disagree. That people could be killed does not make it a war. And we do not need to balance our personal liberties against national security. If anything could genuinely be said to be at stake in this matter, it is our liberty. We do not protect our liberty by whittling it away to achieve a false measure of security. If we sacrifice protecting our liberty for the sake of stopping the terrorists, we lose. I'm not suggesting we do nothing about terrorism. I'm suggesting that if the security we seek to maintain does not include our liberty, our free exercise of our rights, then the security is a fraud. If we cut down the protections of our liberties to keep the terrorists at bay, there will be nothing to protect us from our government. We do not need to balance our liberties against national security because protecting our personal liberties is our national security. If we must have a war, let us have a war to protect our liberty, our rights. Without that protection, our borders might be intact, but America will have lost.

[Plane]

So? What has that got to do with it? Their ability to wage war on us is minuscule. You don't really think mixing chemicals on an airplane was a plan that was really going to work do you? 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.

   Yes ,I do think that mixing chemicals on an airplane could pose a real danger, with a large team of suicidal terrorists several Aircraft could be brought down killing a few thousand persons.

    Should we just put up with the the loss of a few thousand persons now and then?

   I do not think that leaveing them entirely alone would be suficient to them , several Al Quieda tapes present their demands which are wide rangeing and sometimes even include us all embraceing Islam.  As long as some portion of their demands were not met they would very likely continue just the same, if all of their demands were met , they could always get more demands.

[Plane]

"If we must have a war, let us have a war to protect our liberty, our rights. Without that protection, our borders might be intact, but America will have lost."




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

     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.

      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?

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

[sirs]

I'm sure you would, but you haven't done anything to support that assertion

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 missing the point. You're advocating going after people based on what you believe they will do in the future

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

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

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.  Perhaps I can get Pooch or Majorstrictland to answer that one for you, Prince

A position we would not be in if we had been leaving them alone in the first place. But regardless of how it is perceived, it is still the right thing to do.

Well, that's one person's opinion, that IMHO doesn't have much realistic merit to it.  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"

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

[_JS]

UP, I think you fail to see it as the terrorist war it is. It is a war, not in a conventional sense, but one where one fanatic idiot can go into the mall down the street from where you live and set off a bomb, all the while crying Allah's name. It is the fear factor that it might happen anywhere because it did happen down the street that can decimate a democractic society. This is why eternal vigilance is needed. Protect your borders as best you can, cooperate with other nations, educate people on the situation and so on. All the while realizing that our personal liberites must be balacned against this vigilance.

On the contrary Plane, I think it is you who fails to see terrorism for what it is. Yet, you write about it well. Let's look again:

one fanatic idiot can go into the mall down the street from where you live and set off a bomb

You want to know the cold, hard truth? Anyone can do this at any time. It really isn't all that damn difficult. There's no such thing as 100% safety and security. Look at what you are talking about. Semtex is a 1960's technology. Dynamite is a century older. Or for pure evil without the mess, look to the Chicago Tylenol murders of 1982.

For some reason many of you see 9/11 as this great awakening. You see UP and others (probably me as well) as people who don't see this "war on terrorism" correctly and have not "awakened" to the threat exposed on 9/11.

Have you ever thought that perhaps we were awake and aware before the eleventh of September 2001?

You're right. Much of the defenses against "one fanatic idiot(s)" are weak. Mainly I rely on the notion that none of you are going to run into my place of work with semtex strapped on your chest yelling "God Save the Queen," "Mark Richt is god," or "I'm a Lumberjack" before shooting us all to the moon.

Yet, that's life. The other less palatable option is to live in a truly 99.9% secure state like Papa Doc Duvalier's Haiti or Franco's Spain.

[The_Professor]

You miss the point. 9/11 WAS a wake up call because we were lax in security. Now, we are NOT so lax. I am convinced, as is apparently Plane, that one of the primary reasons another such event has not happened since is the vigilance by the FBI, among others.

Sure it can happen anytime, but how often has it? Let me provide an example. Grab 100 people off the streets in Gaza and 100 off a street in Mt. Airy, NC. Tell 'em they can set off a bomb in the midst of a mall. Now, count the number of folks that possibly would, given the opportunity. And don't give me all that CRAP MT spouts about how the poor Arabs are downtrodden by the big and mighty Jews and so that is why they will do these descpicable acts. Wrong is wrong. Period.

When I was in college, you could have lit a match around me sometimes and I would have gone up in smoke due to the alcohol content in my blood. But, deep deep down, I knew it was wrong. If you had asked me, I would have denied it perhaps, BUT I KNEW.

Contrary to what many nowadays believe, there is truth and then there is Truth. Your concience may be seered, but deep down there, people know what is RIGHT and what is WRONG.

[hnumpah]

Mainly I rely on the notion that none of you are going to run into my place of work with semtex strapped on your chest yelling..."I'm a Lumberjack" before shooting us all to the moon.

I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay.
I sleep all night. I work all day.
Boom!

Dang, someone else in here remembers Monty Python?

[Plane]

You're right. Much of the defenses against "one fanatic idiot(s)" are weak. Mainly I rely on the notion that none of you are going to run into my place of work with semtex strapped on your chest yelling "God Save the Queen," "Mark Richt is god," or "I'm a Lumberjack" before shooting us all to the moon.

Yet, that's life. The other less palatable option is to live in a truly 99.9% secure state like Papa Doc Duvalier's Haiti or Franco's Spain.

   There is a line to be drawn and a balance to be struck.

    Before 9-11 there was a strict prohibition against the CIA and FBI shareing resorces in order to limit their power in our lives.

      Now that this prohibition is practicly gone , do we really miss that rule?

     I don't want cameras to be inescapable , but cameraas in public places wouldn't bother me , even if they were attached to an AI device that could recognise and catalog people as they passed.

      Could we have enough police power running around to eliminate terrorism without also makeing ourselves miserably repressed?
No , but...

   Can we have enough police power invested in the right sort of police to make  reasonably terrorism difficult without going so far as to cause repression?


    I see this as a spectrum of tolerance , Daniel Boone might have felt crouded if he could see his neighbors cabin's smoke, modern circumstances have millions of us liveing in each others pockets , we tolerate crouding and observation already more than we used to, because we need to.

    I think that the need will determine the amount of police pressure we will tolerate.

[Universe Prince]

Yes ,I do think that mixing chemicals on an airplane could pose a real danger, with a large team of suicidal terrorists several Aircraft could be brought down killing a few thousand persons.

I think you're naive about how easy (difficult) setting up and carrying out such scenario would be. Everything I have read on the matter leads me to the conclusion that not only would it be extremely difficult, the people charged with the plot didn't have the skill to carry out such an inherently risky plan.

Should we just put up with the the loss of a few thousand persons now and then?

No, of course not. But every time someone mentions the people killed in Iraq, I see the response that war is hell and people are going to die. Why is it okay for you to be concerned about dead people in America, but wrong for other people to be concerned about dead people in Iraq. And before you start in with but our troops knew blah blah blah, civilians are being killed in Iraq as well. Civilians who did not sign up to be in a war zone. And I repeat, every time someone mentions the people killed in Iraq, I see the response that war is hell and people are going to die. So why is it okay for civilians in Iraq to die because of this war, but not Americans? And please do not misunderstand me. I am not in favor of Americans getting killed. But when you ask me "Should we just put up with the the loss of a few thousand persons now and then?" my first thought is, aren't we doing that now? We're putting up with our troops being killed. We're putting up with Iraqis being killed. I just want to know why people who are in the U.S. of A. are more important than people who are in Iraq.

I do not think that leaveing them entirely alone would be suficient to them , several Al Quieda tapes present their demands which are wide rangeing and sometimes even include us all embraceing Islam.  As long as some portion of their demands were not met they would very likely continue just the same, if all of their demands were met , they could always get more demands.

I could care less what their demands are. My proposal to leave them alone has nothing to do with their demands. My proposal to leave them alone is based on what I believe is the only appropriate foreign policy, non-intervention. What I believe the government should do at home—leave people alone—is what I believe the government should do abroad. I don't believe there should be seat-belt laws or massive business regulations or bans on weapons. And likewise, I don't believe the government should be telling other countries what to do. Government should have one main purpose, protecting the rights of its people, and purt' near anything else should out of bounds for the government. I realize that you and others paint the "war on terror" as protecting our lives, but I believe that story less and less everyday. Not because that isn't how it is intended, but because that simply is not what it is accomplishing. And frankly, the notion that America can protect Americans if can just control the rest of the world or even just the Middle East is ludicrous. It's the same thinking that says America can protect Americans if we just ban enough guns or mandate enough safety requirements or legislate enough control over business. It does not work here and it does not work there. It does not work now and it never has. The fact is that 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.

[Amianthus]

I think you're naive about how easy (difficult) setting up and carrying out such scenario would be. Everything I have read on the matter leads me to the conclusion that not only would it be extremely difficult, the people charged with the plot didn't have the skill to carry out such an inherently risky plan.

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.