For what it is worth

[gipper]

I can't provide you a point-by-point refutation of the author's argument, or won't, but instead I will focus on what appears to me to be his overriding concern. (I should add in this highlighted parenthetical that concern (not driving obsession) with Islamist terrorist use of WMD, including nuclear, despite what political gains some might yet derive and might have derived from the possibility, nevermore palpable, is concern shared by all intelligent folks, JS apparently being an exception.) But the thrust of the piece as it's presented to us is a simple battle of ideas, wherein the author casts the Left's entries as somehow suspect, subversive, and seductive: not because of the threat of force of arms but as a precursor to just that. Well, pardon me if I gloat the American anthem, but isn't this just the type of threat our government is designed to meet, the activity wherein we find our greatest glory? I mean, come on.

[sirs]

The first major error in the article is that it places militant Islam in the same category as Nazism and Stalinism. This is hyperbole in one of the most extreme forms. The ways in which they are different is numerous and we can get into that if you wish. The bottom line is that militant Islam is simply not the historical threat that Nazism or Stalinism were. It never was, and no amount of butchering history will make it so.

And those who wish to ignore history are thus doomed to repeat it         Sorry Js, no amount of trying to minimize the threat of militant Islam (Islamofascism) is going to remove the God-awful potential threat it possesses.  Not just to us, not just to Israel, but globally.  No they're not at that military powerful level we all allowed Hitler & Stalin to rise to, but their potential for global terrorism and death is right up there with them.  A mindset of non-believers being obligated to either convert to Islam, be sujugated by it, or die, is no less terrifying than Hitler's ultimate race agenda.  So you can keep right on minimizing the threat, bury your head in the sand, and pretend it's just a few whacked out muslims, and that the rest of the Muslim world is in perfect harmony with the rest of modern Western Civililization.  Personally, I'm not going to sit on my hands and watch it all unfold.......again

[gipper]

The last entry here by Sirs (#16) is dead-on accurate about the threat we face, though, aside from killing active terroist cells, Sirs and I differ on many of the methods to be used to most effectively address this curse.

[Plane]

The first major error in the article is that it places militant Islam in the same category as Nazism and Stalinism. This is hyperbole in one of the most extreme forms. The ways in which they are different is numerous and we can get into that if you wish. The bottom line is that militant Islam is simply not the historical threat that Nazism or Stalinism were. It never was, and no amount of butchering history will make it so.

And those who wish to ignore history are thus doomed to repeat it         Sorry Js, no amount of trying to minimize the threat of militant Islam (Islamofascism) is going to remove the God-awful potential threat it possesses.  Not just to us, not just to Israel, but globally.  No they're not at that military powerful level we all allowed Hitler & Stalin to rise to, but their potential for global terrorism and death is right up there with them.  A mindset of non-believers being obligated to either convert to Islam, be sujugated by it, or die no less terrifying than Hitler's ultimate race agenda.  So you can keep right on minimizing the threat, bury your head in the sand, and pretned it's just a few whacked out muslims, and that the rest of the Muslim world is in perfect harmony with the rest of modern Western Civililization

There is a good argument in this , and we have had it a few times.

I would like to add that the list of potential recruits to the cause is much greater for Islamofacism than it was for classic Facism , and the potential for controll of resorces is greater for Islamists than it ever was for Communists.

For both Communism and Facism one can trace a history that leads to a small circle of persuasive people in the late 18th century or the early 19th.

What stage of this progression might we be seeing the Islamists in? Do we start with Osama or with the origional Whahabbi?

[Plane]

I can't provide you a point-by-point refutation of the author's argument, or won't, but instead I will focus on what appears to me to be his overriding concern. (I should add in this highlighted parenthetical that concern (not driving obsession) with Islamist terrorist use of WMD, including nuclear, despite what political gains some might yet derive and might have derived from the possibility, nevermore palpable, is concern shared by all intelligent folks, JS apparently being an exception.) But the thrust of the piece as it's presented to us is a simple battle of ideas, wherein the author casts the Left's entries as somehow suspect, subversive, and seductive: not because of the threat of force of arms but as a precursor to just that. Well, pardon me if I gloat the American anthem, but isn't this just the type of threat our government is designed to meet, the activity wherein we find our greatest glory? I mean, come on.

Is the author correct to suppose that retribution would be extreme after the use of a WMD?

[_JS]

And those who wish to ignore history are thus doomed to repeat it         Sorry Js, no amount of trying to minimize the threat of militant Islam (Islamofascism) is going to remove the God-awful potential threat it possesses.  Not just to us, not just to Israel, but globally.  No they're not at that military powerful level we all allowed Hitler & Stalin to rise to, but their potential for global terrorism and death is right up there with them.  A mindset of non-believers being obligated to either convert to Islam, be sujugated by it, or die, is no less terrifying than Hitler's ultimate race agenda.  So you can keep right on minimizing the threat, bury your head in the sand, and pretend it's just a few whacked out muslims, and that the rest of the Muslim world is in perfect harmony with the rest of modern Western Civililization.  Personally, I'm not going to sit on my hands and watch it all unfold.......again

And what is the price for exaggerating that threat Sirs? What is the price to be paid, very possibly in cold blood or in psychological horror, for far outweighing the threat that Militant Islam plays in the modern world?

I have no problem with taking logical precautions and of course no one wishes to see another 9/11, Madrid train bombing, or July 7th happen again. Yet, what happens when the extremists on the other side take hold of the agenda? Gipper? Sirs?

"Those who ignore history...doomed to repeat" is a fine cliche, but it requires that one actually has knowledge of history at the outset, something this author does not have. Quite clearly this author is far more interested in ad hominem attacks on all that is modern leftism. In fact, he uses an approach that would have made the most cowardly of foppish hacks seem legitimate.

He even alludes to drastic measures before more drastic measures will be taken when the fascists take over. Yet, you seem at ease with this suggestion?

[Michael Tee]

<<And those who wish to ignore history are thus doomed to repeat it   >>

Yeah but what about those who just make up history as they go along?

[Michael Tee]

I also have a very simple prescription for those who concern themselves with "what to do" about "Muslim terror cells."  Stop fucking with their world and maybe they'll stop fucking with yours.

[sirs]

And those who wish to ignore history are thus doomed to repeat it         Sorry Js, no amount of trying to minimize the threat of militant Islam (Islamofascism) is going to remove the God-awful potential threat it possesses.  Not just to us, not just to Israel, but globally.  No they're not at that military powerful level we all allowed Hitler & Stalin to rise to, but their potential for global terrorism and death is right up there with them.  A mindset of non-believers being obligated to either convert to Islam, be sujugated by it, or die, is no less terrifying than Hitler's ultimate race agenda.  So you can keep right on minimizing the threat, bury your head in the sand, and pretend it's just a few whacked out muslims, and that the rest of the Muslim world is in perfect harmony with the rest of modern Western Civililization.  Personally, I'm not going to sit on my hands and watch it all unfold.......again

And what is the price for exaggerating that threat Sirs?

That we're overdiligent in protecting our way of life.  That we pay too much attention to others and their cultures.  You'll note how I have never advocated going after "the Muslims", so don't try that distortion.  I have consistently been specific in who we're to target, that of radical militant Islamic terrorists, and their supporters/providers.

And the price for not taking the threat seriously would be??  The price for egregiously minimizing the threat militant Islam poses is _________________  (you fill in the blank)  What is the price to be paid in lives, perhaps in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, if we doom ourselves to repeat history?   

[_JS]

You haven't answered my question Sirs.

What is the price to be paid in truly over exagerrating the threat of Militant Islam?

I'm not pointing the finger at you, or making an attack on you personally.

I'm asking a fair question. Can you perceive a world in which a very anti-Islam sentiment comes to the forefront due to an overexaggeration of this threat?

[BT]

'm glad the right feels threatened enough by Huffington Post to answer it by building an equivalent.

I doubt they feel threatened, but it is a good revenue model.

[BT]

What Islamist nation?

Why would who develop them?

Pakistan for now, Iran when they get them.

[_JS]

What Islamist nation?

Why would who develop them?

Pakistan for now, Iran when they get them.

Pakistan built theirs as a direct response to India.

Iran has Israel, Pakistan, India, as well as Russia very near it with nuclear weapons. Plus it serves as an obvious deterrent for any invasion by the United States.

Most nations who have nuclear weapons have never used them (beyond testing).

[gipper]

How does your view line up with the virtual entirety of our foreign policy establishment as promoting non-proliferation as a fundamental precept? That would seem to eschew "a little exception here, a little exception there" approach

[Religious Dick]

I take it that nobody has a clue who Armed and Dangerous is?  That's too bad.  I'm betting Zionist, but it could just be standard right-wing crazy from the old (formerly anti-Semitic) type.

Armed and Dangerous is actually Eric S. Raymond, a free software developer associated with Linux and other open-source software.

http://www.catb.org/~esr/

Quite the software genius, but not anybody of particular note in political circles. As the title says, take him for what he's worth.