DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BT on June 10, 2007, 08:26:00 PM
-
Gramscian damage
Americans have never really understood ideological warfare. Our gut-level assumption is that everybody in the world really wants the same comfortable material success we have. We use “extremist†as a negative epithetic. Even the few fanatics and revolutionary idealists we have, whatever their political flavor, expect everybody else to behave like a bourgeois.
We don’t expect ideas to matter — or, when they do, we expect them to matter only because people have been flipped into a vulnerable mode by repression or poverty. Thus all our divagation about the “root causes†of Islamic terrorism, as if the terrorists’ very clear and very ideological account of their own theory and motivations is somehow not to be believed.
By contrast, ideological and memetic warfare has been a favored tactic for all of America’s three great adversaries of the last hundred years — Nazis, Communists, and Islamists. All three put substantial effort into cultivating American proxies to influence U.S. domestic policy and foreign policy in favorable directions. Yes, the Nazis did this, through organizations like the “German-American Bund†that was outlawed when World War II went hot. Today, the Islamists are having some success at manipulating our politics through fairly transparent front organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
But it was the Soviet Union, in its day, that was the master of this game. They made dezinformatsiya (disinformation) a central weapon of their war against “the main adversaryâ€, the U.S. They conducted memetic subversion against the U.S. on many levels at a scale that is only now becoming clear as historians burrow through their archives and ex-KGB officers sell their memoirs.
The Soviets had an entire “active measures†department devoted to churning out anti-American dezinformatsiya. A classic example is the rumor that AIDS was the result of research aimed at building a ‘race bomb’ that would selectively kill black people.
On a different level, in the 1930s members of CPUSA (the Communist Party of the USA) got instructions from Moscow to promote non-representational art so that the US’s public spaces would become arid and ugly.
Americans hearing that last one tend to laugh. But the Soviets, following the lead of Marxist theoreticians like Antonio Gramsci, took very seriously the idea that by blighting the U.S.’s intellectual and esthetic life, they could sap Americans’ will to resist Communist ideology and an eventual Communist takeover. The explicit goal was to erode the confidence of America’s ruling class and create an ideological vacuum to be filled by Marxism-Leninism.
Accordingly, the Soviet espionage apparat actually ran two different kinds of network: one of spies, and one of agents of influence. The agents of influence had the minor function of recruiting spies (as, for example, when Kim Philby was brought in by one of his tutors at Cambridge), but their major function was to spread dezinformatsiya, to launch memetic weapons that would damage and weaken the West.
In a previous post on Suicidalism, I identified some of the most important of the Soviet Union’s memetic weapons. Here is that list again:
* There is no truth, only competing agendas.
* All Western (and especially American) claims to moral superiority over Communism/Fascism/Islam are vitiated by the West’s history of racism and colonialism.
* There are no objective standards by which we may judge one culture to be better than another. Anyone who claims that there are such standards is an evil oppressor.
* The prosperity of the West is built on ruthless exploitation of the Third World; therefore Westerners actually deserve to be impoverished and miserable.
* Crime is the fault of society, not the individual criminal. Poor criminals are entitled to what they take. Submitting to criminal predation is more virtuous than resisting it.
* The poor are victims. Criminals are victims. And only victims are virtuous. Therefore only the poor and criminals are virtuous. (Rich people can borrow some virtue by identifying with poor people and criminals.)
* For a virtuous person, violence and war are never justified. It is always better to be a victim than to fight, or even to defend oneself. But ‘oppressed’ people are allowed to use violence anyway; they are merely reflecting the evil of their oppressors.
* When confronted with terror, the only moral course for a Westerner is to apologize for past sins, understand the terrorist’s point of view, and make concessions.
As I previously observed, if you trace any of these back far enough, you’ll find a Stalinist intellectual at the bottom. (The last two items on the list, for example, came to us courtesy of Frantz Fanon. The fourth item is the Baran-Wallerstein “world system†thesis.) Most were staples of Soviet propaganda at the same time they were being promoted by “progressives†(read: Marxists and the dupes of Marxists) within the Western intelligentsia.
The Soviets consciously followed the Gramscian prescription; they pursued a war of position, subverting the “leading elements†of society through their agents of influence. (See, for example, Stephen Koch’s Double Lives: Stalin, Willi Munzenberg and the Seduction of the Intellectuals; summary by Koch here) This worked exactly as expected; their memes seeped into Western popular culture and are repeated endlessly in (for example) the products of Hollywood.
Indeed, the index of Soviet success is that most of us no longer think of these memes as Communist propaganda. It takes a significant amount of digging and rethinking and remembering, even for a lifelong anti-Communist like myself, to realize that there was a time (within the lifetime of my parents) when all of these ideas would have seemed alien, absurd, and repulsive to most people — at best, the beliefs of a nutty left-wing fringe, and at worst instruments of deliberate subversion intended to destroy the American way of life.
Koch shows us that the worst-case scenario was, as it turns out now, the correct one; these ideas, like the “race bomb†rumor, really were instruments deliberately designed to destroy the American way of life. Another index of their success is that most members of the bicoastal elite can no longer speak of “the American way of life†without deprecation, irony, or an automatic and half-conscious genuflection towards the altar of political correctness. In this and other ways, the corrosive effects of Stalin’s meme war have come to utterly pervade our culture.
The most paranoid and xenophobic conservatives of the Cold War were, painful though this is to admit, the closest to the truth in estimating the magnitude and subtlety of Soviet subversion. Liberal anticommunists (like myself in the 1970s) thought we were being judicious and fair-minded when we dismissed half of the Right’s complaint as crude blather. We were wrong; the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss really were guilty, the Hollywood Ten really were Stalinist tools, and all of Joseph McCarthy’s rants about “Communists in the State Department†were essentially true. The Venona transcripts and other new material leave no room for reasonable doubt on this score.
While the espionage apparatus of the Soviet Union didn’t outlast it, their memetic weapons did. These memes are now coming near to crippling our culture’s response to Islamic terrorism.
In this context, Jeff Goldstein has written eloquently about perhaps the most long-term dangerous of these memes — the idea that rights inhere not in sovereign individuals but identity groups, and that every identity group (except the “ruling classâ€) has the right to suppress criticism of itself through political means up to and including violence.
Mark Brittingham (aka WildMonk) has written an excellent essay on the roots of this doctrine in Rousseau and the post-Enlightenment Romantics. It has elsewhere been analyzed and labeled as transnational progressivism. The Soviets didn’t invent it, but they promoted it heavily in a deliberate — and appallingly successful — attempt to weaken the Lockean, individualist tradition that underlies classical liberalism and the U.S. Constitution. The reduction of Western politics to a bitter war for government favor between ascriptive identity groups is exactly the outcome the Soviets wanted and worked hard to arrange.
Call it what you will — various other commentators have favored ‘volk-Marxism’ or ‘postmodern leftism’. I’ve called it suicidalism. It was designed to paralyze the West against one enemy, but it’s now being used against us by another. It is no accident that Osama bin Laden so often sounds like he’s reading from back issues of Z magazine, and no accident that both constantly echo the hoariest old cliches of Soviet propaganda in the 1930s and ’40s.
Another consequence of Stalin’s meme war is that today’s left-wing antiwar demonstrators wear kaffiyehs without any sense of how grotesque it is for ostensible Marxists to cuddle up to religious absolutists who want to restore the power relations of the 7th century CE. In Stalin’s hands, even Marxism itself was hollowed out to serve as a memetic weapon — it became increasingly nihilist, hatred-focused and destructive. The postmodern left is now defined not by what it’s for but by by what it’s against: classical-liberal individualism, free markets, dead white males, America, and the idea of objective reality itself.
The first step to recovery is understanding the problem. Knowing that suicidalist memes were launched at us as war weapons by the espionage apparatus of the most evil despotism in human history is in itself liberating. Liberating, too, it is to realize that the Noam Chomskys and Michael Moores and Robert Fisks of the world (and their thousands of lesser imitators in faculty lounges everywhere) are not brave transgressive forward-thinkers but pathetic memebots running the program of a dead tyrant.
Brittingham and other have worried that postmodern leftism may yet win. If so, the victory would be short-lived. One of the clearest lessons of recent times (exemplified not just by kaffiyeh-wearing western leftists but by Hamas’s recent clobbering of al-Fatah in the first Palestinian elections) is that po-mo leftism is weaker than liberal individualism in one important respect; it has only the weakest defenses against absolutist fervor. Brittingham tellingly notes po-mo philosopher Richard Rorty’s realization that when the babble of conflicting tribal narratives collapses in exhaustion, the only thing left is the will to power.
Again, this is by design. Lenin and Stalin wanted classical-liberal individualism replaced with something less able to resist totalitarianism, not more. Volk-Marxist fantasy and postmodern nihilism served their purposes; the emergence of an adhesive counter-ideology would not have. Thus, the Chomskys and Moores and Fisks are running a program carefully designed to dead-end at nothing.
Religions are good at filling that kind of nothing. Accordingly, if transnational progressivism actually succeeds in smothering liberal individualism, its reward will be to be put to the sword by some flavor of jihadi. Whether the eventual winners are Muslims or Mormons, the future is not going to look like the fuzzy multicultural ecotopia of modern left fantasy. The death of that dream is being written in European banlieus by angry Muslim youths under the light of burning cars.
In the banlieus and elsewhere, Islamist pressure makes it certain that sooner or later the West is going to vomit Stalin’s memes out of its body politic. The worst way would be through a reflex development of Western absolutism — Christian chauvinism, nativism and militarism melding into something like Francoite fascism. The self-panicking leftists who think they see that in today’s Republicans are comically wrong (as witnessed by the fact that they aren’t being systematically jailed and executed), but it is quite a plausible future for the demographically-collapsing nations of Europe.
The U.S., fortunately, is still on a demographic expansion wave and will be till at least 2050. But if the Islamists achieve their dream of nuking “crusader†cities, they’ll make crusaders out of the U.S., too. And this time, a West with a chauvinized America at its head would smite the Saracen with weapons that would destroy entire populations and fuse Mecca into glass. The horror of our victory would echo for a thousand years.
I remain more optimistic than this. I think there is still an excellent chance that the West can recover from suicidalism without going through a fevered fascist episode and waging a genocidal war. But to do so, we have to do more than recognize Stalin’s memes; we have to reject them. We have to eject postmodern leftism from our universities, transnational progressivism from our politics, and volk-Marxism from our media.
The process won’t be pretty. But I fear that if the rest of us don’t hound the po-mo Left and its useful idiots out of public life with attack and ridicule and shunning, the hard Right will sooner or later get the power to do it by means that include a lot of killing. I don’t want to live in that future, and I don’t think any of my readers do, either. If we want to save a liberal, tolerant civilization for our children, we’d better get to work.
Links etc. (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=260#)
-
It's worth a lot, thanks Bt.
Everyone realizes the frequent rhetoric we hear about Bush...."The war is lost"....""The war is a criminal act"...."You can't win"...."Your president is a war criminal".....yada, blah, etc. Did anyone catch how eerily similar it is to what our prisoners were hearing during the days of Tokyo Rose?
-
So boiling this down to its essence, if the liberals don't stop criticizing American fascism, they're gonna get . . . Amerikkkan Fascism!!! and Mecca will be fused into glass. (as if they gave a shit)
Scary world. I loved the description of Robert Fisk and Noam Chomsky as Soviet memebots. This guy is hilarious.
Also states - - without a shred of evidence - - that Gramsci's influence on the Comintern produced a meme war in which European and American criticisms of imperialism, fascism, militarism and racism were conscious promotions of Stalinist agents. As if such criticism could never spontaneously suggest itself to any thinking observer. Actually, when I think back to the 1950s and 1960s, every instance of anti-racism, anti-militarism, etc. was met with allegations of "Moscow gold" being behind it. I guess some things never change. Or maybe, "Everything old is new again."
I was kind of pleased to think that poor old Gramsci might have had a bigger influence on Soviet subversion policies than I ever realized, so I took the trouble of going to Wikipedia, to look up where his ideas had had influence. In a whole long list of people influenced by Gramsci (including, I was happy to see, Noam Chomsky - - probably where I had first heard of him - - and Howard Zinn) the Soviets and the Comintern were conspicuously absent. Oh, well, that's only to be expected, I guess - - obviously, Wikipedia and its editors are themselves Soviet memebots and one iron rule for all Soviet memebots is never to expose another Soviet memebot. Honest, it's probably a much bigger offence than outing Valerie Plame - - could probably getcha whacked in the blink of an eye.
Well, I gotta say, that was some fascinating read, BT. When it comes to paranoid imagination, and sheer craziness, the left-wing "useful idiots" have nothing on a good right-wing nutbar fueled by whatever it is they fuel themselves with. I really enjoyed that piece. I guess the best part of it is, no one will ever have to debate anything any more - - once you can source the idea to Soviet memetic warfare labs, that should settle any argument decisively in favour of the fascists, racists and militarists. Unless of course you can source their ideas to Zionist memetic warfare labs. Then it's a draw.
-
http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/06/from_the_kgb_playbook_demorali.php
-
Funny, I don't feel demoralized. I feel like there's a bunch of housecleaning to do starting with the White House and on down, but that's about it.
I'd love to meet the person who wrote that article and find out what his/her early background was.
I take it back: I do not want to meet the person, but I would like to know his background.
-
The source was Pyjamas Media. Victor Davis Hanson, Michael Ledeen, Ron Rosenbaum, somebody else. I didn't see an author's name on the piece. My guess would be: Michael Ledeen. Michael Ledeen advises Karl Rove. He's a member of Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. This is an extreme right-wing organization. Its primary interest is the security of the State of Israel. The biggest threat to the State of Israel are the Arabs and the Muslims. It would be a very good thing for Israel if the U.S.A. and the Muslims were perpetual enemies and a very bad thing for Israel if the U.S.A. became suddenly sympathetic to Muslim causes. For a guy like Michael Ledeen, it's elementary that Muslims and Arab must be demonized at every opportunity, but that anyone who thinks demonizing them is wrong should be thoroughly discredited. Hence the articles about Soviet meme warfare and similar crazy nonsense.
Ledeen is a big admirer of Italian Fascism (presumably because this was one kind of fascism that did not target the Jews.) In Ledeen's mind, fascism is OK, torture and murder of political opponents is OK, only it's not nice if shit like that is turned against the Jews. So although German fascism was bad, bad, bad, Italian fascism is OK.
The other members of Pyjamas Media are Zionists too, especially Victor Davis Hanson, a military historian and fairly knowledgeable guy who comes up with the same 100% backing of the Zionist line. If Ledeen didn't write that piece then it had to be Davis. Ron Rosenbaum wrote a good book on Hitler wherein he discusses various theories of what made the guy so evil (the theories were hilarious, he loved his mother and hated his father, he hated his mother and loved his father, the father was too strict, the father was never around . . . just goes on and on. One psychiatrist, one theory. But the incidental stories from Hitler's early life were really fascinating.) I really don't know much about Rosenbaum's committment to Zionism, but I'd expect it's pretty strong. He doesn't seem to think at the abstract level of that article, though.
-
The source was Pyjamas Media.
No . The source for the video clip was Pajamas Media.
The source for the blog entry was linked at the bottom of the article.Armed and Dangerous is the blog name. Unrelated except the video had the former KGB agent verifying the bloggers claims.
And both links came from Instapundit. I don't believe Glenn Reynolds is Jewish or Zionist.
Pajamas Media was the rights answer to The Huffington Post. Which i understand is chock full of jews too.
Not that i have anything against that.
-
Funny, I don't feel demoralized.
Well of course, ends justify the means.
-
* There is no truth, only competing agendas.
* All Western (and especially American) claims to moral superiority over Communism/Fascism/Islam are vitiated by the West’s history of racism and colonialism.
* There are no objective standards by which we may judge one culture to be better than another. Anyone who claims that there are such standards is an evil oppressor.
* The prosperity of the West is built on ruthless exploitation of the Third World; therefore Westerners actually deserve to be impoverished and miserable.
* Crime is the fault of society, not the individual criminal. Poor criminals are entitled to what they take. Submitting to criminal predation is more virtuous than resisting it.
* The poor are victims. Criminals are victims. And only victims are virtuous. Therefore only the poor and criminals are virtuous. (Rich people can borrow some virtue by identifying with poor people and criminals.)
* For a virtuous person, violence and war are never justified. It is always better to be a victim than to fight, or even to defend oneself. But ‘oppressed’ people are allowed to use violence anyway; they are merely reflecting the evil of their oppressors.
* When confronted with terror, the only moral course for a Westerner is to apologize for past sins, understand the terrorist’s point of view, and make concessions.
These ideas all existed before Stalinism and even linking them to Communist ideology, or some nefarious communist plot against the United States is really bizarre. In fact, if anyone has a revisionist plot here, it is the author of this post who is using anachronism to portray postmodernism as some sort of communist subterfuge.
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.
Joe McCarthy was a power hungry, spotlight-seeking, man of many words but of less than average intelligence. What he loved was being protected by Senate rules while simultaneously destroying people's lives without allowing them any due process (never faced their accusers, assumed guilty with no jury or judge, basically browbeat at questioning). Furthermore, if you really read the KGB records (Mitrokhin, for example) that were released, instead of simply talking about them, you'll find that the Soviets were not as all-powerful as this author would have us believe. In fact, they had a lot of difficulties in getting inside the United States. Moreover, in contrary to the author's thesis, it was not ideas with which the Soviets won over their best spies in America - it was with money, and the "excitement" of being a double agent.
The Soviets didn’t invent it, but they promoted it heavily in a deliberate — and appallingly successful — attempt to weaken the Lockean, individualist tradition that underlies classical liberalism and the U.S. Constitution.
OK...
If anything this shows the weakness of Locke. The fact of the matter is that Locke's notion of life under natural law is somewhat naive and many thinkers probably do see Locke as very idealistic. Note that something the author misses here is that you'll find champions of Locke on the left and right, you will also find attackers of Locke on the left and right, especially amongst those who deal in more of a realpolitik or a more Machiavellian point of view.
The author's view point that puts this view as a Soviet inspired tactic is simply an attempt to belittle opposing points of view.
The first step to recovery is understanding the problem. Knowing that suicidalist memes were launched at us as war weapons by the espionage apparatus of the most evil despotism in human history is in itself liberating. Liberating, too, it is to realize that the Noam Chomskys and Michael Moores and Robert Fisks of the world (and their thousands of lesser imitators in faculty lounges everywhere) are not brave transgressive forward-thinkers but pathetic memebots running the program of a dead tyrant.
ad hominem of the worst kind
Whether the eventual winners are Muslims or Mormons, the future is not going to look like the fuzzy multicultural ecotopia of modern left fantasy. The death of that dream is being written in European banlieus by angry Muslim youths under the light of burning cars.
Not sure where Mormons came into the discussion, but this is spoken by someone who watched a clip of the Bradford Riots, but has no understanding of what went on there. Just chalk it up to militant Islam...but that is bullshit.
But if the Islamists achieve their dream of nuking “crusader†cities, they’ll make crusaders out of the U.S., too.
I'll give the author credit, he got further than I expected before the nutter came out.
And this time, a West with a chauvinized America at its head would smite the Saracen with weapons that would destroy entire populations and fuse Mecca into glass. The horror of our victory would echo for a thousand years.
Someone's been reading Chanson de Roland
We have to eject postmodern leftism from our universities, transnational progressivism from our politics, and volk-Marxism from our media.
Now we get back to the standard right-wing crap fest, the evil universities and media - but now with fancy new adjectives! Better start ejecting now!
-
But if the Islamists achieve their dream of nuking “crusader†cities, they’ll make crusaders out of the U.S., too.
I'll give the author credit, he got further than I expected before the nutter came out.
Why is that a nutter statement?
-
It is a highly unlikely scenario, used in this context to scare the reader and lend credence to the comparison to Nazism and Stalinism.
-
Are you saying an Islamist nation would not use nukes if it had them?
If so, why develop them?
-
What Islamist nation?
Why would who develop them?
-
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.
<<Pajamas Media was the rights answer to The Huffington Post. Which i understand is chock full of jews too. >>
Yeah, but Hufpo has all the good Jews, Pyjamas Media has all the bad ones.
I'm glad the right feels threatened enough by Huffington Post to answer it by building an equivalent. Armed and Dangerous was certainly a sterling example of the type of attitude we can expect to see more and more of as America continues into her long and irreversible decline. An illustration of the dangers posed by a fading superpower as its right wing demands ever more violent and crazy behaviour in an attempt to mask the inevitable. I guess it's the natural fate of the conservative to be fighting a never-ending battle against reality, with unspeakable violence and brutality as his trump card, like Hitler never foreseeing the payback that looms as unavoidably as death itself.
-
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.
There are a lot of diffrences and only a few simularities , but the simularietys still do count.
I would add Communism to this catagory of dangerously misleading "isms" that all started small and grew on the misperception of injustice.
If you want to make a list of the differences between the ideologies of Communism , Stalinism , Facisism , Hitlerism , Islamo facasism and admiration for Osama Bin Laden , I am certain that you will be able to make an extremely long list , their stile of dress and choice of facial hair are dissimular , their theroys of economics are dissimular , their ideas on the afterlife are dissimular, etc ad infinitum.
But do they have a dissimularity between them that makes any of them a good freind of free men?
The short list of their simularitys include simularitys in style and capability and ambition that count.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
<<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?
-
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.
-
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? ???
-
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?
-
'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.
-
What Islamist nation?
Why would who develop them?
Pakistan for now, Iran when they get them.
-
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).
-
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
-
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.
-
You haven't answered my question Sirs. What is the price to be paid in truly over exagerrating the threat of Militant Islam?
Yes, I did...."That we're overdiligent in protecting our way of life. That we pay too much attention to others and their cultures". I'll even add that we add redundant enforcement measures to our pourous border
Now, care to answer mine?, since I couldn't help notice how it wasn't: What is the price to be paid for not taking the militant Islamic threat seriously?? What is the price to be paid for egregiously minimizing the threat militant Islam poses? 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? I'm asking a perfectly fair question myself. Pretend I'm right for a moment
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?
NO, Or more accurately, highly unlikely, since we're not targeting "Islam"
-
Most nations who have nuclear weapons have never used them (beyond testing).
========================================================
There is only ONE country that has ever used any nuclear weapons, other than testing. And they used them twice.
Observe that it was not Iran.
-
So Xo, care to speculate how many thousands upon thousands of lives dropping the bomb saved, by preventing the impending invasion of Japan that was surely coming to a head?? You seem to be implying that the dropping of the 2 nuclear bombs over Japan was some stunt to inflict maximum casualties, for no apparent reason. Notice how fast it brought the war to a conclusion, that wouldn't have otherwise occurred?
And you think that such a device in the hands of Iran would only be used in the same vane??
-
Quite the software genius, but not anybody of particular note in political circles. As the title says, take him for what he's worth.
From the Wikipedia page about ESR:
Other than his computing interests, Raymond is an avowed anarcho-capitalist and supporter of the Libertarian Party. He is known to have strong interests in science fiction and firearms, is an enthusiastic amateur musician, and has a black belt in "Moo Do, an eclectic martial art based on Tae Kwon Do". He is an advocate of the Second Amendment right to bear arms and supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Raymond identifies himself religiously as a neopagan, is an initiate witch and coven leader.
Raymond has a mild form of congenital cerebral palsy, a condition which motivated him to pursue a future in computing.
Eric S. Raymond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond)
-
OK, genius, why the second bomb?
-
OK, genius, why the second bomb?
Maybe because they didn't surrender after the first one?
-
Well, then, he should have played it up. Moreover, our targeting seems to have been amiss: there were military targets plentiful and ripe.
-
OK, genius, why the second bomb?
Care to make the query more civil?
-
No.
-
Then don't expect that which you wish not to facilitate
-
Well, then, he should have played it up. Moreover, our targeting seems to have been amiss: there were military targets plentiful and ripe.
Why is Hiroshima, a supply center for the military and the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters not a military target?
Why is Nagasaki, a Naval port and Imperial Navy shipbuilding yard not a military target?
-
Those uses were incidental. Both cities were inhabited by many pesky creatures called (non-military) people.
-
Those uses were incidental. Both cities were inhabited by many pesky creatures called (non-military) people.
and................? There were many a "non-military" folk that resided in and around Pearl Harbor, on Dec 7'th, 1941, not to mention the scores of civilians that live in and around nearly every military installation & outpost, as ami has alluded to.
-
Those uses were incidental. Both cities were inhabited by many pesky creatures called (non-military) people.
Nearly every US military base has civilians living in and around it. Does that mean they're not legitimate military targets?
Take the City of Baltimore, for example. Naval shipyards at the harbor, an Army Testing Range right next door, a National Guard depot facility just north of town, an Air National Guard base just northeast of town, NSA headquarters just south of town.
It's not a military target? You gotta be kidding yourself. I can guarantee that it had (probably still has) a number of nukes targetted at it by the Soviets / Russians.
Few and far between are military bases that are isolated from civilians and have no civilians living at them. Area 51 and the Crystal Palace are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head.
-
Few and far between are military bases that are isolated from civilians and have no civilians living at them. Area 51 and the Crystal Palace are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head.
I was just looking up Cheyenne Mountain to get a shot of the entrance to use in my post, and I discovered that even that facility has civilian neighbors. It shares the mountain with the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo and the Will Rogers Shrine of the Sun.
-
I haven't Wikipediaed the question, Ami, but according to the store of common knowledge I've acquired, the number of civilian deaths, and those long-term maimed, to die or not to die, literally dwarfed the military damage at either site. And I assert that there just had to be troop concentrations where the bomb(s) could "more acceptably" have been dropped. But what really muddies the waters (reflecting the thinking you identified by saying the US dropped the second bomb because the first did not cause surrender) is the clear and apparent attempt to induce surrender quickly in the wake of the bomb by striking a general fear in the ranks of both the military, but apparently crucially, also the civilians. By noting this latter set of facts, I don't cede without further discussion that the US had other (potent) options as to the use of the bomb, if it had to be used, that conceivably could have been played with equal military-political effect but without the comparable civilian devastation. And, as you tell, I don't use "military targets" in terms of degrading capability but rather in terms (and its horrible anyhow) as a matter of "propriety": combatants sign on to risk life and limb in a military conflict. This, of course, is basic, but our strategy clearly went beyond this to a spectacular and devastating civilian attack designed by its nature to compel capitulation.
-
From Wikipedia:
Choice of targets
The Target Committee at Los Alamos on May 10–11, 1945, recommended Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and the arsenal at Kokura as possible targets. The committee rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective because of the chance of missing a small target not surrounded by a larger urban area. The psychological effects on Japan were of great importance to the committee members. They also agreed that the initial use of the weapon should be sufficiently spectacular for its importance to be internationally recognized. The committee felt Kyoto, as an intellectual center of Japan, had a population "better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon." Hiroshima was chosen because of its large size, its being "an important army depot" and the potential that the bomb would cause greater destruction because the city was surrounded by hills which would have a "focusing effect".
Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson struck Kyoto from the list because of its cultural significance, over the objections of General Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project. According to Professor Edwin O. Reischauer, Stimson "had known and admired Kyoto ever since his honeymoon there several decades earlier." On July 25 General Carl Spaatz was ordered to bomb one of the targets: Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata, or Nagasaki as soon after August 3 as weather permitted and the remaining cities as additional weapons became available.
Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Choice_of_targets)
Further:
Events of August 7-9
After the Hiroshima bombing, President Truman announced, "If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth." On August 8, 1945, leaflets were dropped and warnings were given to Japan by Radio Saipan. (The area of Nagasaki did not receive warning leaflets until August 10, though the leaflet campaign covering the whole country was over a month into its operations.)
The Japanese government still did not react to the Potsdam Declaration. Emperor Hirohito, the government and the War council were considering four conditions for surrender : the preservation of the kokutai (Imperial institution and national polity), assumption by the Imperial Headquarters of responsibility for disarmament and demobilization, no occupation and delegation to the Japanese government of the punishment of war criminals.
The Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov informed Tokyo of the Soviet Union's unilateral abrogation of the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact on April 5. At two minutes past midnight on August 9, Tokyo time, Soviet infantry, armor, and air forces launched an invasion of Manchuria. Four hours later, word reached Tokyo that the Soviet Union had declared war on Japan. The senior leadership of the Japanese Army began preparations to impose martial law on the nation, with the support of Minister of War Anami, in order to stop anyone attempting to make peace.
Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Events_of_August_7-9)
-
<<Armed and Dangerous is actually Eric S. Raymond . . . >>
I checked out the link. Thank you. Very interesting. I have one of his books, as it happens, The New Hacker's Dictionary. I enjoyed it very much. I've read some of his stuff on the internet without really noting his name, and it was excellent. I've just never read any of his political stuff before.
Smart guy but he's way out to lunch. Seems to have a comic-book understanding of history, a very violent disposition and a talent for rationalization that enables him to concoct superficially convincing justifications on a "historical" basis for the unleashing of unprecedented violence and suffering on the world. Sounds like he's confused life with his favourite computer game. Probably very appealing to 14-year-old boys with inferiority complexes. Following this guy makes about as much sense as following Josef Goebbels.
-
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.
It is just that simple.
Fear-mongering and its current political efficacy by the Neocons seems to be on the wane, thanks to people like Pelosi, Edwards and others who actually refer to Neocon fear-mongering, though some people like the nonblinking, clueless imbibers of Fox propaganda, fascist bloggers like Eric, and push-button New Jersey barristers won't be waned, of course.
Some people simply cannot get beyond fear, and that manufactured by the Neocons and Libertarians is no exception. Some people simply seem to quicken and come alive when given the chance to be overwhelmed by bogus fear. It overshadows all the sins of omission, intellectual laziness, and any lack of creative application, and serves to obliterate any sensible controls over their emotions. People who are quick to patriotism are such people. It is just such people that the Neocons have depended upon to easily incinerate for their use.
It is much easier to be swept away by emotion than to think things through (which, let's face, causes angst and uncertainty--while strong, blind emotional commitment is easy, even reaffirming, and it gives the comfort of the crowd mentality, or mob reaction. There is no sterling self-righteousness extant to exceed that of the mob in frenzy. It usually takes a scapegoat to appease their inner need to end their emotional maelstrom.
It is specifically these sort--emotional mainliners--who patiently wait for some great operatic fear to come along, so that they can subscribe blindly and crazilly to full throttle emotional grip. It is the whaler's boat now pulled into a Nantucket sleighride. Justifies everything, and serves to intercept that pesky thing called ration. This serves well when these carnivores need to hide an essential item from the argument--the COMMON good.
Libertarians usually try to prop up their emotionally elite, fascist cultism by boring their critics with hip-shot references to economists of all kinds, pretending that this current American fascist corporation metasticism is all about scientifically (if cherry-picked) economic theory as inevitablitliy rather than fascist elimination of critical examination (liberals), and, of course, their unchecked greed.
-
And what is the price for exaggerating that threat ....
My estimate is that the price for exaggerateing the threat and the price for minimiseing it are equal.
-
<<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?
You provide a counterpoint to the actual history.
-
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).
Pakistan built theirs as a direct response to India.
In response to India doing what?
Do we ave this in the right order?
Plus it serves as an obvious deterrent for any invasion by the United States.
I thoght you would say it was the only legitamate reason to invade , how did I get this idea?
-
I haven't Wikipediaed the question, Ami, but according to the store of common knowledge I've acquired, the number of civilian deaths, and those long-term maimed, to die or not to die, literally dwarfed the military damage at either site. And I assert that there just had to be troop concentrations where the bomb(s) could "more acceptably" have been dropped. But what really muddies the waters (reflecting the thinking you identified by saying the US dropped the second bomb because the first did not cause surrender) is the clear and apparent attempt to induce surrender quickly in the wake of the bomb by striking a general fear in the ranks of both the military, but apparently crucially, also the civilians. By noting this latter set of facts, I don't cede without further discussion that the US had other (potent) options as to the use of the bomb, if it had to be used, that conceivably could have been played with equal military-political effect but without the comparable civilian devastation. And, as you tell, I don't use "military targets" in terms of degrading capability but rather in terms (and its horrible anyhow) as a matter of "propriety": combatants sign on to risk life and limb in a military conflict. This, of course, is basic, but our strategy clearly went beyond this to a spectacular and devastating civilian attack designed by its nature to compel capitulation.
I think you are wrong about this , Japan had no purely military target isolated from civilians and suitable for atomic bombing by your standard.
Unless here was one I don't know anything about , this is a possibility.
What was the target you had in mind?
I beleive that Heroshima had been preserved with very little bombing for the sake of the A-bomb , the choice was not sudden.
-
The last entry here by Sirs (#16) is dead-on accurate about the threat we face, though, aside from killing active terrorist cells, Sirs and I differ on many of the methods to be used to most effectively address this curse.
"For what it's worth", and at the risk of being labeled Domer-like in my plausible arrogance, let me express an opinion and perception on my part. I have great respect for anyone who can logically argue the reasons we shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq, who can substantively argue the merits of the bad decisions made during the war, most notably once Saddam was taken out. I admire Domer on these positions, noting how (most of the time) he has been able to argue logically the reasons such decisions made by Bush have been deemed by him not just wrong, but nearly imbecilic. I can respect that because he largely refrains from joining the pathetic & moronic Bush lied us into war bull crud crowd, and simply argues the merits of the decisions made in taking us into Iraq and in those decisions made post Saddam's demise.
Now, my perception about Domer appears to demonstrate that for him, diplomacy alone is all thats needed to deal with whatever military or global threats present themselves. That we should have reached a civilized level in the year 2007, that war and death of civilians should no longer be tolerated in any form. If an accurate perception, it's a very noble, albeit inaccurate sense of current reality. Our enemies are just as evil and diabolical today as they were decades, even hundreds of years ago. Evil itself is no different now than the dawn of man, simply more heavily armed, and even more willing to put innocent lives in front of them as shields. No amount of diplomacy, even from the almighty Domer can root out such a mindset, especially that which permeates Islamofascism within militant Islam.
Bush was right to take this war to them, vs waiting here on our shores until the next 911. Bush was right to take out the WMD threat that nearly everyone believed Iraq was in providing such to Terrorist cells. Yes, that's my opinion, and now, I'm likely in the minority if polled, yet my position has remained steadfast from the beginning, not swayed by polls, and based on the knowledge/intel we had at the time, and the grasp of the threat militant Islam poses that so many, even here, wish to bury their heads in the sand to. I'm glad domer's on board as to recognizing that same threat I do, and maybe someday we'll even have a concensus on how to deal with it
-
In response to India doing what?
Do we ave this in the right order?
India became a nuclear nation in 1974 with what became known as "Smiling Buddha" (a reference to a Buddhist image that represents good luck). The atomic weapon was exploded at Pokhran and estimated to range between two to twelve kilotons. To put that in perspective, the original atomic bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hioroshima were roughly around 20 kilotons.
Pakistan developed their nuclear weaponry mostly as a result of A.Q. Khan, who was working for URENCO at the time of India's test. Khan helped Pakistan develop the quicker Zippe type centrifuges and became the head of the Pakistani nuclear weapons program. Interestingly, he was apprehended by both Dutch intelligence and MI-6 on two separate occasions, but both times released at the request of the United States.
Regardless, Pakistan developed their nuclear program as a direct response to India's program, which scared the hell out of them. They made their first test in 1998 (twenty-four years after India) at Chagai Hills in Baluchistan. AQ Khan was awarded "Hero of the Nation" status.
By the way, the United States and Canada aided India's nuclear weapons development in 1974. Canada helped by supplying the reactor and we helped by supplying the heavy water.
Do you find the order to be correct now?
I thoght you would say it was the only legitamate reason to invade , how did I get this idea?
Point of view. We don't have the manpower to invade Iran, to be bluntly honest. Though it might make an interesting academic exercise to think about it. If they already have such a weapon developed, wouldn't massing troops somewhere be a rather idiotic mistake?
I was merely pointing out Iran's reasons for developing such a weapon. I was not justifying them doing so. Certainly I would much rather see an entire world without any nuclear weapons.
The problem is that we are dealing with a technology of the 1940's. Can we realistically prevent the rest of the world from obtaining it for time eternal? And if that is the goal, is brute force really the way to go about doing so?
-
Now, care to answer mine?, since I couldn't help notice how it wasn't: What is the price to be paid for not taking the militant Islamic threat seriously?? What is the price to be paid for egregiously minimizing the threat militant Islam poses? 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? I'm asking a perfectly fair question myself. Pretend I'm right for a moment
I think there is a difference in minimizing the threat and looking at it realistically. We should not minimize the threat of militant Islamic groups, certainly. I believe I answered this earlier as no one wishes a repeat of any of the tragic bombings that we've seen.
Yet, we have to look at it realistically as well. Can we stop any disgruntled nut from running into a building with semtex strapped to his or her chest? Probably not. Moreover, the different terrorist groups are not all linked together as one central evil with one singular agenda.
NO, Or more accurately, highly unlikely, since we're not targeting "Islam"
That is not what the author of this article suggests.
-
Pakistan developed their nuclear weaponry mostly as a result of A.Q. Khan, who was working for URENCO at the time of India's test. Khan helped Pakistan develop the quicker Zippe type centrifuges and became the head of the Pakistani nuclear weapons program.
Pakistan started working on their nuclear program in 1972.
Pakistan's nuclear weapons program was established in 1972 by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who founded the program while he was Minister for Fuel, Power and Natural Resources, and later became President and Prime Minister. Shortly after the loss of East Pakistan in the 1971 war with India, Bhutto initiated the program with a meeting of physicists and engineers at Multan in January 1972.
A Brief History of Pakistan's Nuclear Program (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/index.html)
-
Further note on Eric S. Raymond, author of the piece that kicked off this thread.
Eric S. Raymond is a very bright, very provocative thinker and an extremely entertaining writer. As I mentioned, I have a copy of his book, The New Hacker's Dictionary, and I'd recommend it to anyone with even a faint interest in hacker culture.
However, as I have just learned, Eric S. Raymond is also a person who has written that the reason why blacks commit more crimes than whites is that they are much less intelligent than whites. I was personally disappointed to learn of this.
Eric S. Taylor has bought into racist ideology lock, stock and barrel. This does't mean that his ideas on Muslims, the "clash of civilizations" or "terrorism" should be dismissed because of who he is. They still have to be addressed, analyzed and evaluated like any other idea put forward on this board. However, when it comes to Raymond's prescriptive ideas - - what SHOULD be done, where a moral choice is being proposed, I think it's important to know where that moral choice is coming from. Who it's coming from. Is it the moral choice of a decent human being, who values each and every other human being for what he or she actually is, or is it the moral choice of a white racial supremacist, a man whose take on another human being is determined first and foremost by the colour of his skin? And if it is, do we want to make the same moral choice that he did?
-
So Xo, care to speculate how many thousands upon thousands of lives dropping the bomb saved, by preventing the impending invasion of Japan that was surely coming to a head?? You seem to be implying that the dropping of the 2 nuclear bombs over Japan was some stunt to inflict maximum casualties, for no apparent reason. Notice how fast it brought the war to a conclusion, that wouldn't have otherwise occurred?
And you think that such a device in the hands of Iran would only be used in the same vane??
=======================================================================
I was not seeming to imply anything. I just stated that the USA is the ONLY country that has ever used atomic weapons. True, they were not entirely aware of the consequences to the civilian population.
I reject the idea that there was any need to invade Japan. One bomb would surely have sufficed to cause the Japanese to surrender.
Most historians have agreed that there was a communications breakdown between the US and Japan.
Observe that Japan's surrender did noit need to be unconditional, and it wasn't. The Japanese were permitted to keep the monarchy as well as the monarch.
And I do not think that Iran would use the bomb for any reason other than deterrence.
-
I reject the idea that there was any need to invade Japan. One bomb would surely have sufficed to cause the Japanese to surrender.
Most historians have agreed that there was a communications breakdown between the US and Japan.
The Soviets and the actions of the Japanese government at the time seem to disagree with you.
-
Pakistan developed their nuclear weaponry mostly as a result of A.Q. Khan, who was working for URENCO at the time of India's test. Khan helped Pakistan develop the quicker Zippe type centrifuges and became the head of the Pakistani nuclear weapons program.
Pakistan started working on their nuclear program in 1972.
Pakistan's nuclear weapons program was established in 1972 by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who founded the program while he was Minister for Fuel, Power and Natural Resources, and later became President and Prime Minister. Shortly after the loss of East Pakistan in the 1971 war with India, Bhutto initiated the program with a meeting of physicists and engineers at Multan in January 1972.
A Brief History of Pakistan's Nuclear Program (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/index.html)
And when did they discover that India was working on theirs? BARC was begun in 1957.
-
And when did they discover that India was working on theirs? BARC was begun in 1957.
Well, since BARC was originaly started as civilian power generation - and the Indians even signed agreements to this - it's not likely that Pakistan was aware of it until they exploded their first test weapon.
Unless you're implying that Indians are incapable of keeping secrets?
Besides, the Germans were selling the Pakistanies illegal supplies for their nuclear program. And the research actually started in the mid-60s in Pakistan, though not officially. It's unknown when the Indians actually broke their agreements and started weapons research.
-
And when did they discover that India was working on theirs? BARC was begun in 1957.
Well, since BARC was originaly started as civilian power generation - and the Indians even signed agreements to this - it's not likely that Pakistan was aware of it until they exploded their first test weapon.
Unless you're implying that Indians are incapable of keeping secrets?
Besides, the Germans were selling the Pakistanies illegal supplies for their nuclear program. And the research actually started in the mid-60s in Pakistan, though not officially. It's unknown when the Indians actually broke their agreements and started weapons research.
Yes, I'm implying that Indians cannot keep secrets. <eyeroll>
Everything I have read indicates that Pakistan's program did not gain traction until India exploded their bomb in 1974. That includes a couple of excellent programs on AQ Khan and on Indian/Pakistani relations.
What is certain is that India exploded their first atomic weapon twenty-four years prior to Pakistan's first atomic weapons test. Both states have joined North Korea and Israel and non-major powers to have nuclear weapons.
-
Everything I have read indicates that Pakistan's program did not gain traction until India exploded their bomb in 1974. That includes a couple of excellent programs on AQ Khan and on Indian/Pakistani relations.
Yeah, but Pakistan had "already tested plans" from China which India did not. Testing was not as much of an issue for Pakistan. It's even possible that China did some of Pakistan's testing for them.
And the testing for true thermonuclear weapons (triple-bang weapons with fission-fusion-fission cycles) for both countries was done nearly simultaneously (the "24 years later" that you mention). India's 1974 test was just boosted fission, with no fusion component.
-
From what I've seen, much of the Pakistan-China connection was exaggerated, primarily by the United States. At one time there was even a working theory that China was the chief nation responsible for Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, but that was simply an underestimation of the abilities of Khan and any small nation to develop such a program without it being dominated by another major nuclear power. (Plus the fact that US intelligence had completely, or purposefully bungled the Khan assignment).
Regardless, to come back from way out on a tangent. And I will concede for sure that Ami may well be right and let's say Pakistan started exploring this option early on. Hell, there are far more Indians than Pakistanis and their war began in '48.
What does it matter if Pakistan began the process before India? I'm not really sure I see that as being a "better" situation. Let's not forget that there are Hindu extremists as well (and Sikh extremists).
So let's say India created theirs to counter Pakistan and China, which they've had border conflicts with many times (though I still think the Pakistan part doesn't jive with history, we can assume it for now). How does that change the fundamental issue at hand?
-
So let's say India created theirs to counter Pakistan and China, which they've had border conflicts with many times (though I still think the Pakistan part doesn't jive with history, we can assume it for now). How does that change the fundamental issue at hand?
That religious extremists will attempt to get their hands on nuclear weapons? Don't think it changes it at all.
-
Now, care to answer mine?, since I couldn't help notice how it wasn't: What is the price to be paid for not taking the militant Islamic threat seriously?? What is the price to be paid for egregiously minimizing the threat militant Islam poses? 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? I'm asking a perfectly fair question myself. Pretend I'm right for a moment
I think there is a difference in minimizing the threat and looking at it realistically. We should not minimize the threat of militant Islamic groups, certainly. I believe I answered this earlier as no one wishes a repeat of any of the tragic bombings that we've seen.
Yet, you answer by precisely minimizing the threat. I am looking at this realistically, and practically, and most notably, historically. I suggested you pretend "I'm right" on this one to try answering the question, yet you managed to do the same thing, and never did even attempt to qualify the price. You say we should not minimize the "threat of militant Islamic groups", yet completely avoid the point I, and Domer were making......minimizing that threat. Could you try one more time to answer my question?
NO, Or more accurately, highly unlikely, since we're not targeting "Islam"
That is not what the author of this article suggests.
That is precisely what the author suggests, the targeting of MILITANT Islam, the targeting of those elements of Islam that have mutated the message of the Koran to justify the slaughter of any and all who are not Muslim, and/or who chose not to be sujugated by it. Or perhaps I'm not reading in proper perspective. Where specifically does the author indicate our need to target the religion of Islam, in general, and not those elements that have hijacked the religion for their purposes?
-
Yet, you answer by precisely minimizing the threat. I am looking at this realistically, and practically, and most notably, historically. I suggested you pretend "I'm right" on this one to try answering the question, yet you managed to do the same thing, and never did even attempt to qualify the price. You say we should not minimize the "threat of militant Islamic groups", yet completely avoid the point I, and Domer were making......minimizing that threat. Could you try one more time to answer my question?
You and Domer are looking at this "historically" and "practically" by agreeing to a comparison of Militant Islam to Nazism and Stalinism? No. I completely disagree with that assessment. Moreover, you cannot simply consider my disagreement with that odd view as being "minimalizing."
If you and Domer wish to prove that viewing Militant Islam in terms of Nazism and Stalinism is both "practical" and "historical" then you will both have to provide persuasive proof to that end. Simply characterising me as dangerously minimizing the threat is avoiding the burden to demonstrate how your view is possibly close to realistic.
That is precisely what the author suggests, the targeting of MILITANT Islam, the targeting of those elements of Islam that have mutated the message of the Koran to justify the slaughter of any and all who are not Muslim, and/or who chose not to be sujugated by it. Or perhaps I'm not reading in proper perspective. Where specifically does the author indicate our need to target the religion of Islam, in general, and not those elements that have hijacked the religion for their purposes?
No, you are incorrect. The author makes very little remarks about targeting militant Islam, or Islam at all. He makes specific remarks about targeting people he claims are dangerous lefitsts. It is that stance which you seem to find agreeable.
-
You're starting to piss me off in a major way, choirboy. At no time, ever, have I drawn a historical parallel between Soviet Communism or Nazism and the radical Islamic fundamentalism that bedevils us today. What I am saying in very clear terms is that the golobal threat of Islamic radicals is significant and simply cannot be brushed aside. In my conception, this palpable threat is a novel one; in the farther reaches of its development -- so many exploded cities later -- it is conceivable that its successes, if any, could draw in enough followers to give a state's or states' face(s) to the movement.
-
Gipper may not want to compare the absolutists of the past with those of the present , perhaps he doesn't think it a usefull comparison.
We may need a scorecard to keep up with who is takeing what position.
I think the comparison is fair , although it is not hard to show a long list of differences , the short list of simularitys include things that are important .
Al Queda starts with a small circle of militants , adresses an aggrieved and insulted population , promises the world .
Is there no pattern there?
-
You and Domer are looking at this "historically" and "practically" by agreeing to a comparison of Militant Islam to Nazism and Stalinism? No. I completely disagree with that assessment. Moreover, you cannot simply consider my disagreement with that odd view as being "minimalizing."
Yes, I absolutely can. when one takes a threat that I perceive as a grave threat to our liberties and way of life, and you turn around and claim how it just ain't so, is by definition minimizing the threat. The fact you refuse to answer my question, in what price do we pay for doing just that, reinfornces how you are indeed minimizing the threat. So don't keep referring to the sky is blue, and tell me later you really said the sky was green.
If you and Domer wish to prove that viewing Militant Islam in terms of Nazism and Stalinism is both "practical" and "historical" then you will both have to provide persuasive proof to that end. Simply characterising me as dangerously minimizing the threat is avoiding the burden to demonstrate how your view is possibly close to realistic.
Close to realisitic is taking the leaders of such a movement at their word, and more so, their actions. Usama and his general have been on record indicating thier ultimate ideal of a Muslim led world. They have made it painfully clear how they'd run such a world.....convert, be subjugated, or die. Their followers believe to have Allah on their side, in bringing this to fruition, and have no problem blowing children up, in the name of Allah, with the U.S. as the great satan. This is REAL. This is what they have said, this is what they have been doing. No amount of sticking your head in the sand is going to make that go away.
The author makes very little remarks about targeting militant Islam, or Islam at all. He makes specific remarks about targeting people he claims are dangerous lefitsts. It is that stance which you seem to find agreeable.
Leftists who want to derail our efforts at taking out the threat of militant Islam, absolutely. And "targeting" in that realm is simply highlighting precisely that tactic. Just incase you were getting terrorists and leftists confused. The author isn't, and neither have I
-
You're starting to piss me off in a major way, choirboy. At no time, ever, have I drawn a historical parallel between Soviet Communism or Nazism and the radical Islamic fundamentalism that bedevils us today. What I am saying in very clear terms is that the golobal threat of Islamic radicals is significant and simply cannot be brushed aside. In my conception, this palpable threat is a novel one; in the farther reaches of its development -- so many exploded cities later -- it is conceivable that its successes, if any, could draw in enough followers to give a state's or states' face(s) to the movement.
Well, heathen, you agreed with Sirs and that is something he stated (and has stated) before. I apologise for the guilt by association.
The problem is that what happened on 9/11 is not the same as what happened on July 7. Yes, you may loosely define it as Militant Islam, but it was not likely an Al-Qaeda attack. My point is that it is very easy to go overboard with just how "successful" these Islamists really are. I think we agree Domer, that a reasonable response is appropriate, but dut surely it is not to the extent of suspending due process or torture.
-
Yes, I absolutely can. when one takes a threat that I perceive as a grave threat to our liberties and way of life, and you turn around and claim how it just ain't so, is by definition minimizing the threat. The fact you refuse to answer my question, in what price do we pay for doing just that, reinfornces how you are indeed minimizing the threat. So don't keep referring to the sky is blue, and tell me later you really said the sky was green.
How? Persuade me that Militant Islam is a "grave threat to our liberties and way of life." I'm not closed-minded Sirs. I'll listen to a logically presented argument.
Close to realisitic is taking the leaders of such a movement at their word, and more so, their actions. Usama and his general have been on record indicating thier ultimate ideal of a Muslim led world. They have made it painfully clear how they'd run such a world.....convert, be subjugated, or die. Their followers believe to have Allah on their side, in bringing this to fruition, and have no problem blowing children up, in the name of Allah, with the U.S. as the great satan. This is REAL. This is what they have said, this is what they have been doing. No amount of sticking your head in the sand is going to make that go away.
People and groups have thought similar things for years. They believe they have God on their side? So what? That just includes them with 75% of the other nutcases out there. They hate the United States? Again, that isn't exactly an uncommon view. I never said this wasn't real. I was here on 9/11. Yet, what you need to understand is that terrorism has been here far longer than 9/11 and far longer than the USS Cole or the embassy attacks. In many ways we simply joined the rest of the world on an extremely tragic day.
So how is this different?
Leftists who want to derail our efforts at taking out the threat of militant Islam, absolutely. And "targeting" in that realm is simply highlighting precisely that tactic. Just incase you were getting terrorists and leftists confused. The author isn't, and neither have I
Right...
-
Yes, I absolutely can. when one takes a threat that I perceive as a grave threat to our liberties and way of life, and you turn around and claim how it just ain't so, is by definition minimizing the threat. The fact you refuse to answer my question, in what price do we pay for doing just that, reinfornces how you are indeed minimizing the threat. So don't keep referring to the sky is blue, and tell me later you really said the sky was green.
How? Persuade me that Militant Islam is a "grave threat to our liberties and way of life." I'm not closed-minded Sirs. I'll listen to a logically presented argument.
You have a leader, like Usama, and his minions all across the globe listening to his words, as if he's the Muslim version of Jesus Christ. You have Usama and his generals making it public record as to the goals of their agenda, a literal new caliphate. Under this new world order, members are to either be Islam, be subjugated to Islam, or die. You have these same leaders and many of their followers proclaiming the U.S. as the Great Satan. Allah is their justification for killing. And this mentality appears to be growing thru-out the muslim world, noted by the overt lack of any widespread condemnation by moderate Muslims and those countries run by supposed moderate muslims. You have made many attempts to rationalize why they really can't, which kind of validates my position all the more. You have muslim populations growing thru-out the world (What's the % now in France?) So yea, we won't be able to stop every single terrorist that straps a bomb to their back and blows up a busload of children. But that # willing to perform such acts are growing. And when they can start doing it with WMD strapped to their backs, then a new chapter will begin. The grave threat is to our liberties (being made to be subjugated to Islam) and our way of life (death), IF we don't take this threat seriously, as you apparently are doing
Close to realisitic is taking the leaders of such a movement at their word, and more so, their actions. Usama and his general have been on record indicating thier ultimate ideal of a Muslim led world. They have made it painfully clear how they'd run such a world.....convert, be subjugated, or die. Their followers believe to have Allah on their side, in bringing this to fruition, and have no problem blowing children up, in the name of Allah, with the U.S. as the great satan. This is REAL. This is what they have said, this is what they have been doing. No amount of sticking your head in the sand is going to make that go away.
People and groups have thought similar things for years. They believe they have God on their side? So what?
SO WHAT?? So what is that they actually have a growing following. So what is they actually have the belief that Allah will support their efforts. So what is that there's no way of placating or "talking" this mindset out, if it's already made up. So what is precisely the same mindset Chamberlain likely had as Hitler built up his NWO agenda from scrap.
Yet, what you need to understand is that terrorism has been here far longer than 9/11 and far longer than the USS Cole or the embassy attacks. In many ways we simply joined the rest of the world on an extremely tragic day. So how is this different?
Well....d'uh it's been here longer than 911. The point is this threat is a GROWING threat. The point is we are the Great Satan. The point is the threat you keep wishing to minimize
Leftists who want to derail our efforts at taking out the threat of militant Islam, absolutely. And "targeting" in that realm is simply highlighting precisely that tactic. Just incase you were getting terrorists and leftists confused. The author isn't, and neither have I
Right...
Oh, so now I'm lying? Ok
-
You have a leader, like Usama, and his minions all across the globe listening to his words, as if he's the Muslim version of Jesus Christ. You have Usama and his generals making it public record as to the goals of their agenda, a literal new caliphate. Under this new world order, members are to either be Islam, be subjugated to Islam, or die. You have these same leaders and many of their followers proclaiming the U.S. as the Great Satan. Allah is their justification for killing. And this mentality appears to be growing thru-out the muslim world, noted by the overt lack of any widespread condemnation by moderate Muslims and those countries run by supposed moderate muslims. You have made many attempts to rationalize why they really can't, which kind of validates my position all the more. You have muslim populations growing thru-out the world (What's the % now in France?) So yea, we won't be able to stop every single terrorist that straps a bomb to their back and blows up a busload of children. But that # willing to perform such acts are growing. And when they can start doing it with WMD strapped to their backs, then a new chapter will begin. The grave threat is to our liberties (being made to be subjugated to Islam) and our way of life (death), IF we don't take this threat seriously, as you apparently are doing
OK, there seems to be something to work with here. Let's separate the facts from the rhetoric. Like any discussion on implementing any policy, we should have more than just rhetoric, but honest fact on which to base decisions.
1. Who views Osama bin Laden in a messianic context? How many such people hold this view?
2. What evidence do you have that Al-Qaeda's goal is some sort of new Caliphate? What percentage of Muslims would like to see this new Caliphate?
3. You say this mentality seems to be growing thru-out the muslim world, yet you offer no proof other than lack of condemnation, which is not evidence of a growing extremist view. What percentages followed this extremist Al-Qaeda held convert-or-die view in 1980, 1990, 2000, and today? Is it growing? Or not?
4. Growing Muslim populations do not prove anything related to your point and neither do the demographics of France. I think we can agree that these statements are irrelevant.
5. Is their evidence of Islamist terrorists using WMD in an attack?
SO WHAT?? So what is that they actually have a growing following. So what is they actually have the belief that Allah will support their efforts. So what is that there's no way of placating or "talking" this mindset out, if it's already made up. So what is precisely the same mindset Chamberlain likely had as Hitler built up his NWO agenda from scrap.
There are Americans who are convinced that we have God on our side as well. That does not prevent us from using diplomacy with other nations.
You don't know enough about Chamberlain and the Munich accords to understand them in their own historical context, let alone to apply them elsewhere. This is standard fare to demonise Chamberlain and then apply it as a universal law to diplomacy.
Oh, so now I'm lying? Ok
I never said you were lying. I just find it interesting that you agree with the authors nastiness towards opposing opinions.
-
911 Js
And you know what's striking is how you claimed I (& others like domer) were "exaggerating" the threat, even demanding at what price do we pay for doing such. I then answer it, and in turn ask of you to pretend I'm right, requested what price do we pay for minimizing the threat. Instead of answering that, you've been tiptoeing all around how A) you're not minimizing it and B) you don't believe in the validity of the threat (minimizing it), all the while avoiding answering my question. I think I know why, because if I & Domer are right, the price for largely turning a blind eye to the threat is a repeat of history, with a multitude of new 911's, and perhaps this time with WMD. Best if we don't even consider that, right? :-\
Oh, BTW, I'm confident you'll be able to produce ducumented %'s of those that were either fighting for or supportive of Hitler's 3rd Reich & Nazi regime. I mean, they have to be right next to those #'s that supposedly quntify what % of the Muslim population supports and advocates the agenda of militant Islam. And the evidence of a new Caliphate are the words spoken by Usama and his generals. one of many references (http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ladin.htm) BUT, I'm sure you'll come up with some rationale to minize their rhetoric....hey, it's just words, right?
-
So basically you do not have evidence to support your claims of this "growing" threat?
I can certainly find percentages of support for Fascists and fascist candidates in select countries during the rise of Mussolini and Hitler if you wish. I'm willing to bet they will far exceed the percentages of Muslims who believe in the view of Militant Islam as you have alleged.
So you won't support any of your statements?
1. Who views Osama bin Laden in a messianic context? How many such people hold this view?
2. What evidence do you have that Al-Qaeda's goal is some sort of new Caliphate? What percentage of Muslims would like to see this new Caliphate?
3. You say this mentality seems to be growing thru-out the muslim world, yet you offer no proof other than lack of condemnation, which is not evidence of a growing extremist view. What percentages followed this extremist Al-Qaeda held convert-or-die view in 1980, 1990, 2000, and today? Is it growing? Or not?
4. Growing Muslim populations do not prove anything related to your point and neither do the demographics of France. I think we can agree that these statements are irrelevant.
5. Is their evidence of Islamist terrorists using WMD in an attack?
You're just going to say "9/11" huh?
The website you sent me to was not bad at all. Yet, it did not defend anything you claimed, just gave some details, nothing spectacular.
-
Fine don't answer it. 3+ times I've asked, and despite my having answered your question immediately regarding the price of exaggerating the threat, you just can't (or unwilling) to believe you might just be wrong, and provide an answer to the price for minimizint the threat. Because to think that......well, just can't :-\
-
So you cannot provide any evidence that this is even a "growing threat." You have no support to back up the claims you have made to just how dangerous and grave this threat is. All that you've said is what? 9/11 hysteria?
Fine, I'll answer your question (though I have already): in your scenario it would be dangerous to minimize the threat of Militant Islam.
The problem Sirs, is that just like Domer's torture scenario, the reality of the world we are living in does not seem to match the hypothetical world you've set up. Neither you or Domer have illustrated with any evidence or even a clear set of logic as to why this threat is so palpable.
I'm not suggesting simply forgetting it ever happened. Obviously we need to keep vigilant at airport security and with FBI, MI5, and other internal security matters. Yet, engaging in foreign wars and making up statements such as "growing threat" and giving credence to the idea that Muslims passively agree to Militant terrorists is exaggeration of the worst kind and it is telling that you have no real data to support these statements.
-
Fine, I'll answer your question (though I have already): in your scenario it would be dangerous to minimize the threat of Militant Islam.
That's it? "Dangerous"?? I'm not sure why I'm even engaged in this thread at this time. It's like when i get a referral for Physical therapy from a Physcian with a dx of "back pain", and that's it. What kind of back pain? Is it skeletal? Is it structural? Is it neural? Are there any precautions, in case there are any compression fx's. Should they be wearing a brace?
Define "dangerous" please. In what context are you applying it, in the event of the risk in minimizing the threat from militant Islam? It's amazing how you proclaim how terrible it is for me to be "exaggerating" the threat, yet can't understand how I see you doing precisely the same in minimizing it. ???
And "palpable" was the wake up call we all got on 911
-
Presently, though sporadically, preparing the case for a client serving a 60-year term on some serious charges, and thus without the time (or ever the inclination) to prepare an "internet-worthy" defense of the actuality of the threat to us, their region and thereby globally of violent, radical Islam, I nonetheless need go no farther than pointing you to the 9-11 Commission Report, a bipartisan product, and to what seems like a countless parade of popular and scholarly works of the same basic orientation. This does not invite overreaction; rather, it invites (requires, to me) proper reaction.
-
"...statements such as "growing threat" and giving credence to the idea that Muslims passively agree to Militant terrorists is exaggeration of the worst kind ..."
Muslims are active in their opposition to terrorism?
They must be quiet ones.
-
That's it? "Dangerous"?? I'm not sure why I'm even engaged in this thread at this time. It's like when i get a referral for Physical therapy from a Physcian with a dx of "back pain", and that's it. What kind of back pain? Is it skeletal? Is it structural? Is it neural? Are there any precautions, in case there are any compression fx's. Should they be wearing a brace?
Define "dangerous" please. In what context are you applying it, in the event of the risk in minimizing the threat from militant Islam? It's amazing how you proclaim how terrible it is for me to be "exaggerating" the threat, yet can't understand how I see you doing precisely the same in minimizing it. ???
And "palpable" was the wake up call we all got on 911
Can you defend the statements you made?
-
Presently, though sporadically, preparing the case for a client serving a 60-year term on some serious charges, and thus without the time (or ever the inclination) to prepare an "internet-worthy" defense of the actuality of the threat to us, their region and thereby globally of violent, radical Islam, I nonetheless need go no farther than pointing you to the 9-11 Commission Report, a bipartisan product, and to what seems like a countless parade of popular and scholarly works of the same basic orientation. This does not invite overreaction; rather, it invites (requires, to me) proper reaction.
"internet-worthy" defense
Hehehehehee
tongue firmly in cheek
are you commenting on quality ?
-
"...statements such as "growing threat" and giving credence to the idea that Muslims passively agree to Militant terrorists is exaggeration of the worst kind ..."
Muslims are active in their opposition to terrorism?
They must be quiet ones.
Are the quiet, or does no one listen?
Pew Poll (http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=248)
Free Muslims (http://www.freemuslims.org/)
Is it possible that supporters of terrorists simply make the most noise?
-
That's it? "Dangerous"?? I'm not sure why I'm even engaged in this thread at this time. It's like when i get a referral for Physical therapy from a Physcian with a dx of "back pain", and that's it. What kind of back pain? Is it skeletal? Is it structural? Is it neural? Are there any precautions, in case there are any compression fx's. Should they be wearing a brace?
Define "dangerous" please. In what context are you applying it, in the event of the risk in minimizing the threat from militant Islam? It's amazing how you proclaim how terrible it is for me to be "exaggerating" the threat, yet can't understand how I see you doing precisely the same in minimizing it. ???
And "palpable" was the wake up call we all got on 911
Can you defend the statements you made?
Been doing so. You're the one pfffting them, and demanding specific #'s, vs the verbal proclaimaitions made by the leaders of militant Islam, to back up said claims, or else the claims can not be accepted. Just crazy people making crazy talk apparently :-\
-
Pew Poll
At the same time, most Muslim publics are expressing less support for terrorism than in the past. Confidence in Osama bin Laden has declined markedly in some countries and fewer believe suicide bombings that target civilians are justified in the defense of Islam.
The Bush plan is working!
The polling also finds that in most majority-Muslim countries surveyed, support for suicide bombings and other acts of violence in defense of Islam has declined significantly. In Turkey, Morocco and Indonesia, 15% or fewer now say such actions are justifiable. In Pakistan, only one-in-four now take that view (25%), a sharp drop from 41% in March 2004. In Lebanon, 39% now regard acts of terrorism as often or sometimes justified, again a sharp drop from the 73% who shared that view in 2002. A notable exception to this trend is Jordan, where a majority (57%) now says suicide bombings and other violent actions are justifiable in defense of Islam.
The Bush plan is working!
As in past Global Attitudes surveys, publics in predominantly Muslim countries believe that democracy can work in their countries. Large and growing majorities in Morocco (83%), Lebanon (83%), Jordan (80%) and Indonesia (77%) – as well as pluralities in Turkey (48%) and Pakistan (43%) – say democracy can work well and is not just for the West.
The Bush plan can work!
In most of Europe as well as North America, majorities or pluralities judge some religions as more prone to violence than others, and those that do mostly have Islam in mind. Similarly, in India, among the 39% who see some religions as more violent than others, nearly three-in-four (73%) point to Islam, while 17% designate Hinduism. In predominantly Muslim countries, many agree that some religions are more prone to violence than others, but those who think this mostly have Judaism in mind. In Turkey, a plurality sees Christianity as the most violent.
What is wrong with those Turks?
While support for suicide bombings and other terrorist acts has fallen in most Muslim-majority nations surveyed, so too has confidence in Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. In Lebanon, just 2% report some or a lot of confidence in bin Laden, and in Turkey only 7% do so.
In Morocco, just 26% of the public now say they have a lot or some confidence in bin Laden, down sharply from 49% in May 2003. In Indonesia, the public is now about evenly split, with 35% saying they place at least some confidence in bin Laden and 37% saying they have little or none; that represents a major shift since 2003, when 58% expressed confidence in bin Laden.
The Bush plan is working!
In Pakistan, however, a narrow majority (51%) places some measure of confidence in bin Laden, a slight increase from 45% in 2003. And in Jordan, support for the Al Qaeda leader has risen over the last two years from 55% to a current 60%, including 25% who say they have a lot of confidence in him. Unsurprisingly, support for bin Laden in non-Muslim countries is measured in the small single digits.
Hmmmmm....
Needs more Bush plan application.
Declining support for terror in a number of the Muslim countries surveyed tracks with previously reported dramatic increases in favorable views of the United States in Indonesia and Morocco. Favorable opinions of the U.S. surged most among younger people in Morocco, but were equally evident among both the young and old in Indonesia. The polling also found that in most Muslim countries women were less likely to express an opinion of the U.S. than were men, but when they did, they held a somewhat more positive view.
The Bush plan is working!
-
Been doing so. You're the one pfffting them, and demanding specific #'s, vs the verbal proclaimaitions made by the leaders of militant Islam, to back up said claims, or else the claims can not be accepted. Just crazy people making crazy talk apparently :-\
No. You said that these views were "growing", indicating that they were finding a more receptive audience among Muslims. That requires more than some al-Qaeda leaders words, that requires some real evidence.
You say they view bin Laden as a Messianic figure, but have offered no proof.
You said their goal is to create a new Caliphate. Again, no proof.
All you have given is that the population of Muslims is growing (which means nothing) and some comment on the demographics of France (which hints at something, but you won't say what).
So you have no evidence for what you say?
You think that I don't know that Islamists hate America? Is that something new? Am I supposed to change my behavior or outlook on life based on that? No. They've hated America for decades and will continue to for decades. That doesn't show me anything.
Now, can you actually back your statements with evidence, or not?
-
Reason Two: Oddly enough, economics. Bin Laden shares with much of the rest of the world a lack of understanding of the meaning of wealth. He does not know that wealth is a property, not a thing. To the extent he and his followers think about such things at all, they do not know that money is an action, not an object. They do not know that value is an opinion and that price is knowledge; these are not objective qualities inherent in a thing. And that makes a difference.
In this world view, during the Caliphate, Arabs and Muslims owned a disproportionately large share of the wealth in the world, which is as it should be. Then came the Crusades – which still continue today, by the way – and the armies of the West came and stole the wealth belonging to its rightful owners, Arabs and Muslims. This, and this alone, is the reason that the West, including America (which didn’t exist when the Crusades began, but never mind), is now wealthy and prosperous, and the people of the Middle East are poor and powerless. Al-Qaida’s campaign, then, is meant both to kill unbelievers and to restore their stolen wealth to its rightful owners, defined naturally enough as Al-Qaida’s members and cooperating groups, who are the only true believers in the One True God.
All that is clear from, again, the fatwa, which explains:
“The Arabian Peninsula has never--since God made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas--been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies now spreading in it like locusts, consuming its riches and destroying its plantations. All this is happening at a time when nations are attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food.â€
This claim is made even more difficult to accept, as I have said, coming from a Saudi, the beneficiary of so much American money poured into the Kingdom to pay for its oil. But if you believe that wealth is fixed, then it is clear that the West can only be more prosperous than others because it is extracting their wealth without giving a fair return. Bin Laden has written, “As a result of the policy imposed on the country, especially in the field of oil industry where production is restricted or expanded and prices are fixed to suit the American economy ignoring the economy of the country.†He truly believes that all the billions of dollars pumped into Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States were an underpayment for the true value of the oil. After all, most people in those countries are still underprivileged and poor, and most people in America and the West, according to his standards, live in wealth and decadence.
The idea that wealth is created by human action, by the workings of a free market, is not only inconceivable to these people, it is blasphemy. It implies that humans can create something, when their faith insists that only Allah can create.
Put in the terms I have used, it seems absurd to believe that the wealth of the world is a fixed sum. Yet precisely that belief is the basis of the economic policies of many countries. For instance, the confiscatory tariffs and restrictive investment policies in Asian countries like India are based on the belief that making a profit on an investment is stealing wealth from the host country. It is the same idea as that of the presidential campaign of H. Ross Perot, who said that any job created in Mexico by the Free Trade Agreement was a job lost in America.
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1917
-
That radical Islam is losing its popular appeal (taking the statitistical trend you are describing as true, but with a big caveat as to both the accuracy of the tallies but much more importantly what that means for future behavior, what I'll call the "radicalizing potential) is an approach and a result I have inveighed for since Saddam was in a palace. Not only does it promote neighborly relations, a good of its own, but it makes the conditions for radicalism less prevalent and the nurturance of radicals (in the broad sense) dry up, starving their lifeblood. This is good.
Yet as a vanguard, or even as a renegade band drawing mostly on the disaffected (but they don't; a lot of university-educated are among the ranks of the bad boys), radical Isslam poses a palpable threat, for these reasons: this is the age of WMD and their proliferation; trends change, and there seems to be an inherent tropism -- for the right people undeer the right cirumstances -- to gravitate to a defiant, agressive stance; and there is the potential (Egypt?) that radicals can take a foothold and screww with the seats of governmental power (see also, Algeria nowadays).
-
You said that these views were "growing", indicating that they were finding a more receptive audience among Muslims. That requires more than some al-Qaeda leaders words, that requires some real evidence.
So in other words, Js needs to see a whole hell of alot more death and maiming at the hands of Islamofascist terrorists, before he'll take note. Got it
You say they view bin Laden as a Messianic figure, but have offered no proof.
Yea, all those videos of thousands upon thousands of Muslims, jumping up and down with pictures of Usama each time the U.S. is attacked in some way, is purely my imagination. Got it
You said their goal is to create a new Caliphate. Again, no proof.
Wrong, I have provided you references to Bin Laden's top aides, making precisely that goal
Now, can you actually back your statements with evidence, or not?
Been there, done that. Feel free to keep that head firmly afixed to the sand
All you have given is that the population of Muslims is growing (which means nothing) and some comment on the demographics of France (which hints at something, but you won't say what).
Well, since you are completely misrepresenting my reference, best stop here, before I get a migraine
-
Quotes from Osama bin Laden:
"We should fully understand our religion. Fighting is a part of our religion and our Sharia [an Islamic legal code]. Those who love God and his Prophet and this religion cannot deny that. Whoever denies even a minor tenet of our religion commits the gravest sin in Islam."
"Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God . . . . I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America. Time Magazine
"The pieces of the bodies of infidels were flying like dust particles. If you would have seen it with your own eyes, you would have been very pleased, and your heart would have been filled with joy." -- At the wedding of his son in southern Kandahar about the 17 sailors who died suicide bombing of the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen
"Every American man is an enemy to us." -- Independent.
" . . . It is far better for anyone to kill a single American soldier than to squander his efforts on other activities." -- May 1998
"We--with God's help--call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson." Feb. 1998 - Bin Laden edict
Responding to the question "are you trying to acquire chemical and nuclear weapons?"
"Acquiring weapons for the defense of Muslims is a religious duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then I thank God for enabling me to do so. And if I seek to acquire these weapons, I am carrying out a duty. It would be a sin for Muslims not to try to possess the weapons that would prevent the infidels from inflicting harm on Muslims." Time Magazine Dec 1998
http://www.usvetdsp.com/osam_qts.htm
In a never-published interview with a French journalist, Osama bin Laden says that his decision to fight alongside Afghan mujahedeen dated from "the time when the Americans decided to help the Afghans fight the Russians."
"To counter these atheist Russians, the Saudis chose me as their representative in Afghanistan... I did not fight against the communist threat while forgetting the peril from the West."
"For us, the idea was not to get involved more than necessary in the fight against the Russians, which was the business of the Americans, but rather to show our solidarity with our Islamist brothers. I discovered that it was not enough to fight in Afghanistan, but that we had to fight on all fronts against communist or Western oppression. The urgent thing was communism, but the next target was America... This is an open war up to the end, until victory."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/edicts.html
We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal, whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation of the Prophet's Night Travel Land [Palestine].
Osama bin Laden
CNN interview 1997
http://www.allgreatquotes.com/osama_binladen_quotes2.shtml
“America is a great power possessed of tremendous military might and a wide-ranging economy, but all this is built on an unstable foundation which can be targeted, with special attention to its obvious weak spots. If America is hit in one hundredth of these weak spots, God willing, it will stumble, wither away and relinquish world leadership.â€
Osama bin Laden quote
“We love death. The US loves life. That is the difference between us two.â€
nathanbanks Osama bin Laden quote
“The insistence of the Danish government to refrain from apologizing and its refusal to punish the criminals and take action to prevent this crime from being repeated... shows that the notions of freedom of speech have no roots, especially when it comes to Muslims.â€
Osama bin Laden quote
“We had patience in our fighting with the Soviet Union with simple weapons for 10 years. We exhausted their economy, so they disappeared. We will not abandon our fight until the weapons run out.â€
Osama bin Laden quote
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/osama_bin_laden/
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/01/31/gen.binladen.interview/
-
That radical Islam is losing its popular appeal (taking the statistical trend you are describing as true, but with a big caveat as to both the accuracy of the tallies but much more importantly what that means for future behavior, what I'll call the "radicalizing potential) is an approach and a result I have inveighed for since Saddam was in a palace. Not only does it promote neighborly relations, a good of its own, but it makes the conditions for radicalism less prevalent and the nurturance of radicals (in the broad sense) dry up, starving their lifeblood. This is good.
Yet as a vanguard, or even as a renegade band drawing mostly on the disaffected (but they don't; a lot of university-educated are among the ranks of the bad boys), radical Isslam poses a palpable threat, for these reasons: this is the age of WMD and their proliferation; trends change, and there seems to be an inherent tropism -- for the right people under the right circumstances -- to gravitate to a defiant, aggressive stance; and there is the potential (Egypt?) that radicals can take a foothold and screww with the seats of governmental power (see also, Algeria nowadays).
I hope the Pew Poll is right , popularity translates in to recruits, resources , money and hiding places .
It would be nice if our own popularity would grow while the Al Queda popularity shrinks , but without a lot of effort this is not necessarily going to happen.
-
I don't have the time at this moment Plane, but if you get a chance to google (It was either Zarkawi or Zahari or one of the other prominent Usama leaders) who actually referred to their goal of a Caliphate, it'd be appreciated. If you come across it, please feel free to post it. Otherwise, I'll take a gander sometime this evening, when I have more time
-
<<"The pieces of the bodies of infidels were flying like dust particles. If you would have seen it with your own eyes, you would have been very pleased, and your heart would have been filled with joy." -- At the wedding of his son in southern Kandahar about the 17 sailors who died suicide bombing of the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many a carcase they left to be carrion,
Many a livid one, many a sallow-skin--
Left for the white-tail'd eagle to tear it, and
Left for the horny-nibb'd raven to rend it, and
Gave to the garbaging war-hawk to gorge it, and
That gray beast, the wolf of the weald.
Never had huger
Slaughter of heroes
Slain by the sword edge--
Such as old writers
Have writ of in histories--
Hapt in this isle, since
Up from the East hither
Saxon and Angle from
Over the broad billow
Broke into Britain with
Haughty war-workers who
Harried the Welshman, when
Earls that were lured by the
Hunger of glory gat
Hold of the land.
-
http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/tennyson/brunanburh/brun.html
Michael, I'd never read that. Thanks.
-
You're welcome, Lanya.
This kind of poetry - - exulting in gory detail over the deaths of your enemies in battle - - is a whole sub-genre unto itself. The Battle of Agincourt is another English one: "Arms were from shoulders sent/Scalps to the teeth were rent/Down the French peasants went . . . " There is similar stuff in the Iliad. There are Old Testament versions as well, one very powerful one I can't recall in detail, but told from the point of view of the womenfolk waiting for their men to return victorious with tons of loot, and wondering what's keeping them, gradually coming to the realization that instead of them fucking up the Hebrews, it was instead the Hebrews who fucked them up. The modern equivalent I guess would be rap music or video games.
These are pretty basic, albeit primitive, human emotions. Universal in their scope and appeal. However, I guess when expressed by Arabs, they become some kind of proof positive of a basic lack of humanity and decency.
-
You're welcome, Lanya.
This kind of poetry - - exulting in gory detail over the deaths of your enemies in battle - - is a whole sub-genre unto itself. The Battle of Agincourt is another English one: "Arms were from shoulders sent/Scalps to the teeth were rent/Down the French peasants went . . . " There is similar stuff in the Iliad. There are Old Testament versions as well, one very powerful one I can't recall in detail, but told from the point of view of the womenfolk waiting for their men to return victorious with tons of loot, and wondering what's keeping them, gradually coming to the realization that instead of them fucking up the Hebrews, it was instead the Hebrews who fucked them up. The modern equivalent I guess would be rap music or video games.
These are pretty basic, albeit primitive, human emotions. Universal in their scope and appeal. However, I guess when expressed by Arabs, they become some kind of proof positive of a basic lack of humanity and decency.
It is no indicator of freindship.
-
<<It is no indicator of freindship.>>
That's a laugh. How much friendship did America ever show them?
-
<<It is no indicator of freindship.>>
That's a laugh. How much friendship did America ever show them?
We made them weathy ,taught them in our univeritys , sold them food at prices below any in history untill their numbers were trippled.
They shoud be so unfreindly to us.
-
<<We made them weathy . . . >>
No, you MADE some of them wealthy and enriched yourselves at the same time with their natural resources.
<<taught them in our univeritys >>
to keep the leadership on your side
<<, sold them food at prices below any in history>>
Where did you get that from? I wouldn't think their food came from the U.S. when Europe is so much closer.
I don't think any of those actions were as described or were motivated by anything other than greed and self-interest. The "wealth" you created was drawn from their own natural resources. They probably could have sold it on the world market for much more than American companies paid for it, but by subverting their leadership, you got a corrupted segment of it to conclude sweetheart deals with American companies and when the local leadership wouldn't play ball, you destroyed it and substituted merciless tyrants who ruled through torture and terror to ensure the permanence of your oil concessions.
The sale of food stuff sounds like pure fantasy to me. Not even plausible.
-
<<We made them weathy . . . >>
No, you MADE some of them wealthy and enriched yourselves at the same time with their natural resources.
<<taught them in our univeritys >>
to keep the leadership on your side
<<, sold them food at prices below any in history>>
Where did you get that from? I wouldn't think their food came from the U.S. when Europe is so much closer.
I don't think any of those actions were as described or were motivated by anything other than greed and self-interest. The "wealth" you created was drawn from their own natural resources. They probably could have sold it on the world market for much more than American companies paid for it, but by subverting their leadership, you got a corrupted segment of it to conclude sweetheart deals with American companies and when the local leadership wouldn't play ball, you destroyed it and substituted merciless tyrants who ruled through torture and terror to ensure the permanence of your oil concessions.
The sale of food stuff sounds like pure fantasy to me. Not even plausible.
You don't even know ?
Were you not paying attention as the price of basic foods was driven down by American farmers?
Cannadians also produced proddigious grain crops , it was hardly worthwile for Soviet Communes to plant.
I say again they should treat us in the manner we have treated them, then there would be three times as many Americans in fourty years and we would have our standad of liveing increased a lot as well.
-
I don't know what the Arabs ate or where it came from. I just doubt very much that they were "fed" by the U.S.A. or if they were, that they didn't pay fair market value or more for every forkful or handful that went into their mouths.
-
Islam's Imperial Dreams
Muslim political ambitions aren't a reaction to Western encroachments.
BY EFRAIM KARSH
Tuesday, April 4, 2006
When satirical depictions of the prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper sparked a worldwide wave of Muslim violence early this year, observers naturally focused on the wanton destruction of Western embassies, businesses, and other institutions. Less attention was paid to the words that often accompanied the riots--words with ominous historical echoes. "Hurry up and apologize to our nation, because if you do not, you will regret it," declared Khaled Mash'al, the leader of Hamas, fresh from the Islamist group's sweeping victory in the Palestinian elections:
This is because our nation is progressing and is victorious. . . . By Allah, you will be defeated. . . . Tomorrow, our nation will sit on the throne of the world. This is not a figment of the imagination but a fact. Tomorrow we will lead the world, Allah willing. Apologize today, before remorse will do you no good.
Among Islamic radicals, such gloating about the prowess and imminent triumph of their "nation" is as commonplace as recitals of the long and bitter catalog of grievances related to the loss of historical Muslim dominion. Osama bin Laden has repeatedly alluded to the collapse of Ottoman power at the end of World War I and, with it, the abolition of the Ottoman caliphate. "What America is tasting now," he declared in the immediate wake of 9/11, "is only a copy of what we have tasted. Our Islamic nation has been tasting the same for more than 80 years, of humiliation and disgrace, its sons killed and their blood spilled, its sanctities desecrated." Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's top deputy, has pointed still farther into the past, lamenting "the tragedy of al-Andalus"--that is, the end of Islamic rule in Spain in 1492.
These historical claims are in turn frequently dismissed by Westerners as delusional, a species of mere self-aggrandizement or propaganda. But the Islamists are perfectly serious, and know what they are doing. Their rhetoric has a millennial warrant, both in doctrine and in fact, and taps into a deep undercurrent that has characterized the political culture of Islam from the beginning. Though tempered and qualified in different places and at different times, the Islamic longing for unfettered suzerainty has never disappeared, and has resurfaced in our own day with a vengeance. It goes by the name of empire.
"I was ordered to fight all men until they say, 'There is no god but Allah.' " With these farewell words, the prophet Muhammad summed up the international vision of the faith he brought to the world. As a universal religion, Islam envisages a global political order in which all humankind will live under Muslim rule as either believers or subject communities. In order to achieve this goal, it is incumbent on all free, male, adult Muslims to carry out an uncompromising "struggle in the path of Allah," or jihad. As the 14th-century historian and philosopher Abdel Rahman ibn Khaldun wrote, "In the Muslim community, the jihad is a religious duty because of the universalism of the Islamic mission and the obligation [to convert] everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force."
As a historical matter, the birth of Islam was inextricably linked with empire. Unlike Christianity and the Christian kingdoms that once existed under or alongside it, Islam has never distinguished between temporal and religious powers, which were combined in the person of Muhammad. Having fled from his hometown of Mecca to Medina in 622 c.e. to become a political and military leader rather than a private preacher, Muhammad spent the last ten years of his life fighting to unify Arabia under his rule. Indeed, he devised the concept of jihad shortly after his migration to Medina as a means of enticing his local followers to raid Meccan caravans. Had it not been for his sudden death, he probably would have expanded his reign well beyond the peninsula.
The Qur'anic revelations during Muhammad's Medina years abound with verses extolling the virtues of jihad, as do the countless sayings and traditions (hadith) attributed to the prophet. Those who participate in this holy pursuit are to be generously rewarded, both in this life and in the afterworld, where they will reside in shaded and ever-green gardens, indulged by pure women. Accordingly, those killed while waging jihad should not be mourned: "Allah has bought from the believers their soul and their possessions against the gift of Paradise; they fight in the path of Allah; they kill and are killed. . . . So rejoice in the bargain you have made with Him; that is the mighty triumph."
But the doctrine's appeal was not just otherworldly. By forbidding fighting and raiding within the community of believers (the umma), Muhammad had deprived the Arabian tribes of a traditional source of livelihood. For a time, the prophet could rely on booty from non-Muslims as a substitute for the lost war spoils, which is why he never went out of his way to convert all of the tribes seeking a place in his Pax Islamica. Yet given his belief in the supremacy of Islam and his relentless commitment to its widest possible dissemination, he could hardly deny conversion to those wishing to undertake it. Once the whole of Arabia had become Muslim, a new source of wealth and an alternative outlet would have to be found for the aggressive energies of the Arabian tribes, and it was, in the Fertile Crescent and the Levant.
Within twelve years of Muhammad's death, a Middle Eastern empire, stretching from Iran to Egypt and from Yemen to northern Syria, had come into being under the banner of Islam. By the early 8th century, the Muslims had hugely extended their grip to Central Asia and much of the Indian subcontinent, had laid siege to the Byzantine capital of Constantinople, and had overrun North Africa and Spain. Had they not been contained in 732 at the famous battle of Poitiers in west central France, they might well have swept deep into northern Europe.
Though sectarianism and civil war divided the Muslim world in the generations after Muhammad, the basic dynamic of Islam remained expansionist. The short-lived Umayyad dynasty (661-750) gave way to the ostensibly more pious Abbasid caliphs, whose readiness to accept non-Arabs solidified Islam's hold on its far-flung possessions. From their imperial capital of Baghdad, the Abbasids ruled, with waning authority, until the Mongol invasion of 1258. The most powerful of their successors would emerge in Anatolia, among the Ottoman Turks who invaded Europe in the mid-14th century and would conquer Constantinople in 1453, destroying the Byzantine empire and laying claim to virtually all of the Balkan peninsula and the eastern Mediterranean.
Like their Arab predecessors, the Ottomans were energetic empire-builders in the name of jihad. By the early 16th century, they had conquered Syria and Egypt from the Mamluks, the formidable slave soldiers who had contained the Mongols and destroyed the Crusader kingdoms. Under Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent, they soon turned northward. By the middle of the 17th century they seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe, only to be turned back in fierce fighting at the gates of Vienna in 1683--on September 11, of all dates. Though already on the defensive by the early 18th century, the Ottoman empire--the proverbial "sick man of Europe"--would endure another 200 years. Its demise at the hands of the victorious European powers of World War I, to say nothing of the work of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the father of modern Turkish nationalism, finally brought an end both to the Ottoman caliphate itself and to Islam's centuries-long imperial reach.
To Islamic historians, the chronicles of Muslim empire represent a model of shining religious zeal and selfless exertion in the cause of Allah. Many Western historians, for their part, have been inclined to marvel at the perceived sophistication and tolerance of Islamic rule, praising the caliphs' cultivation of the arts and sciences and their apparent willingness to accommodate ethnic and religious minorities. There is some truth in both views, but neither captures the deeper and often more callous impulses at work in the expanding umma set in motion by Muhammad. For successive generations of Islamic rulers, imperial dominion was dictated not by universalistic religious principles but by their prophet's vision of conquest and his summons to fight and subjugate unbelievers.
That the worldly aims of Islam might conflict with its moral and spiritual demands was evident from the start of the caliphate. Though the Umayyad monarchs portrayed their constant wars of expansion as "jihad in the path of Allah," this was largely a façade, concealing an increasingly secular and absolutist rule. Lax in their attitude toward Islamic practices and mores, they were said to have set aside special days for drinking alcohol--specifically forbidden by the prophet--and showed little inhibition about appearing nude before their boon companions and female singers.
The coup staged by the Abbasids in 747-49 was intended to restore Islam's true ways and undo the godless practices of their predecessors; but they too, like the Umayyads, were first and foremost imperial monarchs. For the Abbasids, Islam was a means to consolidating their jurisdiction and enjoying the fruits of conquest. They complied with the stipulations of the nascent religious law (shari'a) only to the extent that it served their needs, and indulged in the same vices--wine, singing girls, and sexual license--that had ruined the reputation of the Umayyads.
Of particular importance to the Abbasids was material splendor. On the occasion of his nephew's coronation as the first Abbasid caliph, Dawud ibn Ali had proclaimed, "We did not rebel in order to grow rich in silver and in gold." Yet it was precisely the ever-increasing pomp of the royal court that would underpin Abbasid prestige. The gem-studded dishes of the caliph's table, the gilded curtains of the palace, the golden tree and ruby-eyed golden elephant that adorned the royal courtyard were a few of the opulent possessions that bore witness to this extravagance.
The riches of the empire, moreover, were concentrated in the hands of the few at the expense of the many. While the caliph might bestow thousands of dirhams on a favorite poet for reciting a few lines, ordinary laborers in Baghdad carried home a dirham or two a month. As for the empire's more distant subjects, the caliphs showed little interest in their conversion to the faith, preferring instead to colonize their lands and expropriate their wealth and labor. Not until the third Islamic century did the bulk of these populations embrace the religion of their imperial masters, and this was a process emanating from below--an effort by non-Arabs to escape paying tribute and to remove social barriers to their advancement. To make matters worse, the metropolis plundered the resources of the provinces, a practice inaugurated at the time of Muhammad and reaching its apogee under the Abbasids. Combined with the government's weakening control of the periphery, this shameless exploitation triggered numerous rebellions throughout the empire.
Tension between the center and the periphery was, indeed, to become the hallmark of Islam's imperial experience. Even in its early days, under the Umayyads, the empire was hopelessly overextended, largely because of inadequate means of communication and control. Under the Abbasids, a growing number of provinces fell under the sway of local dynasties. With no effective metropolis, the empire was reduced to an agglomeration of entities united only by the overarching factors of language and religion. Though the Ottomans temporarily reversed the trend, their own imperial ambitions were likewise eventually thwarted by internal fragmentation.
In the long history of Islamic empire, the wide gap between delusions of grandeur and the centrifugal forces of localism would be bridged time and again by force of arms, making violence a key element of Islamic political culture. No sooner had Muhammad died than his successor, Abu Bakr, had to suppress a widespread revolt among the Arabian tribes. Twenty-three years later, the head of the umma, the caliph Uthman ibn Affan, was murdered by disgruntled rebels; his successor, Ali ibn Abi Talib, was confronted for most of his reign with armed insurrections, most notably by the governor of Syria, Mu'awiya ibn Abi Sufian, who went on to establish the Umayyad dynasty after Ali's assassination. Mu'awiya's successors managed to hang on to power mainly by relying on physical force, and were consumed for most of their reign with preventing or quelling revolts in the diverse corners of their empire. The same was true for the Abbasids during the long centuries of their sovereignty.
Western academics often hold up the Ottoman empire as an exception to this earlier pattern. In fact the caliphate did deal relatively gently with its vast non-Muslim subject populations--provided that they acquiesced in their legal and institutional inferiority in the Islamic order of things. When these groups dared to question their subordinate status, however, let alone attempt to break free from the Ottoman yoke, they were viciously put down. In the century or so between Napoleon's conquests in the Middle East and World War I, the Ottomans embarked on an orgy of bloodletting in response to the nationalist aspirations of their European subjects. The Greek war of independence of the 1820's, the Danubian uprisings of 1848 and the attendant Crimean war, the Balkan explosion of the 1870's, the Greco-Ottoman war of 1897--all were painful reminders of the costs of resisting Islamic imperial rule.
Nor was such violence confined to Ottoman Europe. Turkey's Afro-Asiatic provinces, though far less infected with the nationalist virus, were also scenes of mayhem and destruction. The Ottoman army or its surrogates brought force to bear against Wahhabi uprisings in Mesopotamia and the Levant in the early 19th century, against civil strife in Lebanon in the 1840's (culminating in the 1860 massacres in Mount Lebanon and Damascus), and against a string of Kurdish rebellions. In response to the national awakening of the Armenians in the 1890's, Constantinople killed tens of thousands--a taste of the horrors that lay ahead for the Armenians during World War I.
The legacy of this imperial experience is not difficult to discern in today's Islamic world. Physical force has remained the main if not the sole instrument of political discourse in the Middle East. Throughout the region, absolute leaders still supersede political institutions, and citizenship is largely synonymous with submission; power is often concentrated in the hands of small, oppressive minorities; religious, ethnic, and tribal conflicts abound; and the overriding preoccupation of sovereigns is with their own survival.
At the domestic level, these circumstances have resulted in the world's most illiberal polities. Political dissent is dealt with by repression, and ethnic and religious differences are settled by internecine strife and murder. One need only mention, among many instances, Syria's massacre of 20,000 of its Muslim activists in the early 1980's, or the brutal treatment of Iraq's Shiite and Kurdish communities until the 2003 war, or the genocidal campaign now being conducted in Darfur by the government of Sudan and its allied militias. As for foreign policy in the Middle East, it too has been pursued by means of crude force, ranging from terrorism and subversion to outright aggression, with examples too numerous and familiar to cite.
Reinforcing these habits is the fact that, to this day, Islam has retained its imperial ambitions. The last great Muslim empire may have been destroyed and the caliphate left vacant, but the dream of regional and world domination has remained very much alive. Even the ostensibly secular doctrine of pan-Arabism has been effectively Islamic in its ethos, worldview, and imperialist vision. In the words of Nuri Said, longtime prime minister of Iraq and a prominent early champion of this doctrine: "Although Arabs are naturally attached to their native land, their nationalism is not confined by boundaries. It is an aspiration to restore the great tolerant civilization of the early caliphate."
That this "great tolerant civilization" reached well beyond today's Middle East is not lost on those who hope for its restoration. Like the leaders of al Qaeda, many Muslims and Arabs unabashedly pine for the reconquest of Spain and consider their 1492 expulsion from the country a grave historical injustice waiting to be undone. Indeed, as immigration and higher rates of childbirth have greatly increased the number of Muslims within Europe itself over the past several decades, countries that were never ruled by the caliphate have become targets of Muslim imperial ambition. Since the late 1980's, Islamists have looked upon the growing population of French Muslims as proof that France, too, has become a part of the House of Islam. In Britain, even the more moderate elements of the Muslim community are candid in setting out their aims. As the late Zaki Badawi, a doyen of interfaith dialogue in the UK, put it, "Islam is a universal religion. It aims to bring its message to all corners of the earth. It hopes that one day the whole of humanity will be one Muslim community."
Whether in its militant or its more benign version, this world-conquering agenda continues to meet with condescension and denial on the part of many educated Westerners. To intellectuals, foreign-policy experts, and politicians alike, "empire" and "imperialism" are categories that apply exclusively to the European powers and, more recently, to the United States. In this view of things, Muslims, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere, are merely objects--the long-suffering victims of the aggressive encroachments of others. Lacking an internal, autonomous dynamic of its own, their history is rather a function of their unhappy interaction with the West, whose obligation it is to make amends. This perspective dominated the widespread explanation of the 9/11 attacks as only a response to America's (allegedly) arrogant and self-serving foreign policy, particularly with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
As we have seen, however, Islamic history has been anything but reactive. From Muhammad to the Ottomans, the story of Islam has been the story of the rise and fall of an often astonishing imperial aggressiveness and, no less important, of never quiescent imperial dreams. Even as these dreams have repeatedly frustrated any possibility for the peaceful social and political development of the Arab-Muslim world, they have given rise to no less repeated fantasies of revenge and restoration and to murderous efforts to transform fantasy into fact. If, today, America is reviled in the Muslim world, it is not because of its specific policies but because, as the preeminent world power, it blocks the final realization of this same age-old dream of regaining, in Zawahiri's words, the "lost glory" of the caliphate.
Nor is the vision confined to a tiny extremist fringe. This we saw in the overwhelming support for the 9/11 attacks throughout the Arab and Islamic worlds, in the admiring evocations of bin Laden's murderous acts during the crisis over the Danish cartoons, and in such recent findings as the poll indicating significant reservoirs of sympathy among Muslims in Britain for the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July. In the historical imagination of many Muslims and Arabs, bin Laden represents nothing short of the new incarnation of Saladin, defeater of the Crusaders and conqueror of Jerusalem. In this sense, the House of Islam's war for world mastery is a traditional, indeed venerable, quest that is far from over.
To the contrary, now that this war has itself met with a so far determined counterattack by the United States and others, and with a Western intervention in the heart of the House of Islam, it has escalated to a new stage of virulence. In many Middle Eastern countries, Islamist movements, and movements appealing to traditionalist Muslims, are now jockeying fiercely for positions of power, both against the Americans and against secular parties. For the Islamists, the stakes are very high indeed, for if the political elites of the Middle East and elsewhere were ever to reconcile themselves to the reality that there is no Arab or Islamic "nation," but only modern Muslim states with destinies and domestic responsibilities of their own, the imperialist dream would die.
It is in recognition of this state of affairs that Zawahiri wrote his now famous letter to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of al Qaeda in Iraq, in July 2005. If, Zawahiri instructed his lieutenant, al Qaeda's strategy for Iraq and elsewhere were to succeed, it would have to take into account the growing thirst among many Arabs for democracy and a normal life, and strive not to alienate popular opinion through such polarizing deeds as suicide attacks on fellow Muslims. Only by harnessing popular support, Zawahiri concluded, would it be possible to come to power by means of democracy itself, thereby to establish jihadist rule in Iraq, and then to move onward to conquer still larger and more distant realms and impose the writ of Islam far and wide.
Something of the same logic clearly underlies the carefully plotted rise of Hamas in the Palestinian Authority, the (temporarily thwarted) attempt by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to exploit the demand for free elections there, and the accession of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran. Indeed, as reported by Mark MacKinnon in the Toronto Globe & Mail, some analysts now see a new "axis of Islam" arising in the Middle East, uniting Hizballah, Hamas, Iran, Syria, the Muslim Brotherhood, elements of Iraq's Shiites, and others in an anti-American, anti-Israel alliance backed by Russia.
Whether or not any such structure exists or can be forged, the fact is that the fuel of Islamic imperialism remains as volatile as ever, and is very far from having burned itself out. To deny its force is the height of folly, and to imagine that it can be appeased or deflected is to play into its hands. Only when it is defeated, and when the faith of Islam is no longer a tool of Islamic political ambition, will the inhabitants of Muslim lands, and the rest of the world, be able to look forward to a future less burdened by Saladins and their gory dreams.
Article (http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110008181)
Also of interest:
Al-Qaida letter details plan for caliphate (http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=13122)
-
Where did you get that from? I wouldn't think their food came from the U.S. when Europe is so much closer.
Don't see why the rest of the middle east is further away than Egypt, Taiwan, and South Korea.
The United States ran a significant trade surplus in raw grain with foreign partners in 1999, totaling $9.4 billion. Major export markets included Japan, Mexico, South Korea, Egypt, Taiwan, and the European Union.
U.S. GRAIN SECTOR FACED VOLATILE WORLD MARKETS IN LATE 1990s, REPORTS ITC (http://www.usitc.gov/ext_relations/news_release/2000/ER0922X1.HTM)
-
So in other words, Js needs to see a whole hell of alot more death and maiming at the hands of Islamofascist terrorists, before he'll take note. Got it
That is not what I said at all. This is not worth discussing if you wish to use such tactics. If you use hyperbole in your speech, then get called on it, don't get hyper-defensive Sirs. The evidence would consist of some sresearch indicating that al-Qaeda's views are becoming more acceptable to the mainstream of Islam. You know this of course, but instead you choose to write this filth about me.
Yea, all those videos of thousands upon thousands of Muslims, jumping up and down with pictures of Usama each time the U.S. is attacked in some way, is purely my imagination. Got it
Again you made an exaggerated statement and cannot back it up with evidence. So what is your response? Emotional attack. Unimpressive Sirs. I will give you credit that most of what I've seen from the very extremist side of the war on terror (interesting acronym) is emotional.
Wrong, I have provided you references to Bin Laden's top aides, making precisely that goal
There has been some proof, you're correct and I apologise.
been there, done that. Feel free to keep that head firmly afixed to the sand
No there has not. Other than some nutters who believe in restoring a caliphate that never really existed the way they believe it did. You have yet to show that more Muslims are adopting these beliefs. You have yet to show that they view Osama as a messianic figure. Mostly you've shown a highly emotionally charged litany of hyperbole, mixed with one kernal of truth.
Well, since you are completely misrepresenting my reference, best stop here, before I get a migraine
Then by all means explain why the growth of Islam as a religion and France's demographics make a difference in terrorism. If I have misrepresented your argument, then I apologise.
-
<<Don't see why the rest of the middle east is further away than Egypt, Taiwan, and South Korea.>>
This is bullshit. Unless you can demonstrate that most of the Arabs' food came from the U.S. at substantially below market prices, plane's comment about "feeding them" is just total nonsense. Makes about as much sense as them claiming to have fuelled most of the world's motor transport.
-
This is bullshit. Unless you can demonstrate that most of the Arabs' food came from the U.S. at substantially below market prices, plane's comment about "feeding them" is just total nonsense. Makes about as much sense as them claiming to have fuelled most of the world's motor transport.
Actually, Plane made no comments about "feeding them". He said that we sold them food below market cost, which is a true statement. Now you're adding conditions when I proved that we do indeed sell food to the middle east after your claim that they wouldn't buy from us, they'd go to the Europeans.
Egypt's grain supply is 40% import (so nearly half of their staples are imported). The US Government subsidizes those grain shipments, so they are sold at below market value. The US is Egypt's major supplier for grain shipments, which doesn't mean that they don't buy elsewhere, only that they buy more from us than anyone else.
-
Egypt's a special case. The U.S. gives them $3 billion a year, basically paying their dictator to torture and kill all opposition and toe the U.S. line on foreign policy. Only you and plane could interpret this as an act of "friendship."
-
Egypt's a special case.
We subsidize grain shipments (and other ag products, such as poultry, etc) throughout the middle east. Egypt is our largest customer in the region, but it's not the only one. Egypt is also one of the larger (in terms of population) countries in the region, which is why it's a large customer.
Egypt's not "special", though I would understand why you would want to think so.
-
I don't have the time at this moment Plane, but if you get a chance to google (It was either Zarkawi or Zahari or one of the other prominent Usama leaders) who actually referred to their goal of a Caliphate, it'd be appreciated. If you come across it, please feel free to post it. Otherwise, I'll take a gander sometime this evening, when I have more time
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/be/Qutb.jpg/180px-Qutb.jpg)
Check out a web search on the term "Qutbe". On the sites I could find where Musli were discussiongth Philosophy of Osama Bin Laden , they were prone to identify him as a "Qutbe" or a person who agrees with the philosopher Sayyid Qutb. Some Whahabbi are insulted to have Osama described as Whahabbi.
To me this seems like a case of a militant philosopy baseing its success on its appeal and its appeal on its success.
http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/qutb2.htm
""And it was in this period that the books of the martyr, Sayyid Qutb appeared, the books that represented his final thoughts (in ideology, before his death). Those which justified the takfir (excommunication) of (whole) societies… the breaking of all sentimental attachments to society, breaking off ties with others, and the announcement of a destructive jihad against the whole of mankind."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutbism
Qutbism (also Kotebism, Qutbiyya, or Qutbiyyah) is the radical strain of Islamic ideology and activism, based on the thought and writings of Sayyid Qutb, a celebrated Islamist and former leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood who was executed in 1966. Qutbee or Qutbi (also Qutbists) are followers of these ideals. These terms originated from, and are mainly used by opponents of the Muslim Brotherhood in general and Qutb in particular, and by Muslims who seek to distance themselves from the activities of militant groups based on or influenced by Qutbism.
Qutbism has gained notoriety from its association with jihadi extremists like Osama bin Laden. According to some observers, jihadi extremists “cite Sayyid Qutb repeatedly and consider themselves his intellectual descendants
The main tenet of Qutbist ideology is that the Muslim community (or the Muslim community outside of a vanguard fighting to reestablish it) "has been extinct for a few centuries" [2] having reverted to Godless ignorance (Jahiliyya), and must be re-conquered for Islam.
Qutb outlined his ideas in his book Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq (aka Milestones). Other important principles of Qutbism include
adherence to Sharia as sacred law accessible to humans, without which Islam cannot exist
adherence to Sharia as a complete way of life that will bring not only justice, but complete freedom from servitude, peace, personal serenity, scientific discovery and other benefits;
avoidance of Western and non-Islamic "evil and corruption," including socialism and nationalism;
vigilance against Western and Jewish conspiracies against Islam
a two-pronged attack of 1) preaching to convert and 2) jihad to forcibly eliminate the "structures" of Jahiliyya.
the importance of offensive Jihad to eliminate Jahiliyya not only from the Islamic homeland but from the face of the earth.
Some, such as Dale C. Eikmeier, a strategic planner at the US Army War College, give a broader definition of Qutbism. Eikmeier calls it "a fusion of puritanical and intolerant Islamic orientations," that includes not only Qutb's ideas but those of Abul Ala Maududi, Hassan al Banna, and even Shia elements,
"to justify armed jihad in the advance of Islam, and other violent methods utilized by twentieth century militants. ... Qutbism advocates violence and justifies terrorism against non-Muslims and apostates in an effort to bring about the reign of God. Others, i.e., Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Abdullah Azzam, and Osama bin Laden built terrorist organizations based on the principles of Qutbism and turned the ideology of Islamic-Fascism into a global action plan."[3]
-
<<Egypt's not "special", though I would understand why you would want to think so.>>
So then you understand $3 billion, eh? I thought you would. EVERYBODY understands three billion dollars. Yearly.
-
So then you understand $3 billion, eh? I thought you would. EVERYBODY understands three billion dollars. Yearly.
I also understand the $3billion is a drop in the bucket.
Doesn't contradict the statement that Plane made; the US sells large amounts of food to nearly every Arab country, and at below market rates.
-
$3 billion a year is about 1% of Egyptian GDP.
http://www.airninja.com/worldfacts/countries/Egypt/gdp.htm
I'm sure they find a way to put the "drop" to good use. Whatever the U.S. does with its wheat I'm sure owes a lot more to domestic U.S. politics in the farm belt than to any genuine desire to help the Arab masses.
And a vague statement that "the US sells large amounts of food to nearly every Arab country, and at below market rates" is virtually meaningless without specifics. I'm sure that whatever they did doesnt' even begin to compensate for the billions stolen in oil revenues through sweetheart deals with corrupt puppet governments and I'm just as certain that few if any Arabs are taken in by the type of sophistry that you and plane are trying to pull off.
-
And a vague statement that "the US sells large amounts of food to nearly every Arab country, and at below market rates" is virtually meaningless without specifics.
Hey, you're vague all the time.
Even Iran imports 40% of it's grains, and a big chunk of that comes from the US. They import rice from the US, for cryin' out loud. Jordan imports >90% of it's grains, much of that from America. Most of the rest of the middle east imports between 30% and 60% of it's grains, and a large chunk of each country's imports come from the US, and another large chunk comes from Canada.
Between the US and Canada, North America pretty much feeds the world. I think something like 35-40% of the world's supply of grains are grown in North America. We export to regions in Asia that are considered breadbaskets. Our exports are dropping as we convert more of our surplus into alcohol and biodiesel, but we still got a lot of land that could be cultivated, with even more becoming available (mostly in Canada) due to global warming.
The current US subsidies to many countries on wheat amount to about $50 / ton, with similar numbers for corn and other grains. This number offsets the market price, so US farmers sell a ton of wheat to Egypt for $50 below market.
-
So in other words, Js needs to see a whole hell of alot more death and maiming at the hands of Islamofascist terrorists, before he'll take note. Got it
That is not what I said at all. This is not worth discussing if you wish to use such tactics. If you use hyperbole in your speech, then get called on it, don't get hyper-defensive Sirs. The evidence would consist of some sresearch indicating that al-Qaeda's views are becoming more acceptable to the mainstream of Islam. You know this of course, but instead you choose to write this filth about me.
Missing the point and the "evidence" once again. This is not about you personally Js. Talk about getting defensive. This is about the mindset you (and like minds) appear to have adopted that basically will require such an increase in death in order to come around to to the threat militant Islam is becoming.
Yea, all those videos of thousands upon thousands of Muslims, jumping up and down with pictures of Usama each time the U.S. is attacked in some way, is purely my imagination. Got it
Again you made an exaggerated statement and cannot back it up with evidence. So what is your response? Emotional attack. Unimpressive Sirs.
And yet again, dismissing the overwhelming video evidence, as simply my emotions run amuck.
Other than some nutters who believe in restoring a caliphate that never really existed the way they believe it did. You have yet to show that more Muslims are adopting these beliefs. You have yet to show that they view Osama as a messianic figure. Mostly you've shown a highly emotionally charged litany of hyperbole, mixed with one kernal of truth.
Other than some nutters?? See, this is precisely my point. These are the leaders of a global organization. Yea, they're nutcases, but they have a massive following. You yourself, and MIss Henny have gone out of your way, numerous times to rationalize why moderate Muslims, and leaders of Muslim countries can't come out and openly denounce such "nutters". What I've referenced is what everyone has had a chance to see for themselves, widespread jubilation following 911, and other attacks on the U.S., with precisious little condemnation by the Muslim community. You can keep calling video evidence as simple "hyperbole", and at this point I have no expectation that you'll ever come to grips with the threat militant Islam is.....until of course we have a few more 911's. At which time I'll likely see some more rationalization efforts of just more nutters, or worse, that the U.S. brought this on themselves, with their egregious posture towards Muslims. In any case, you keep that head planted, I'll endeavor to keep my that much more diligent to cover for you
Well, since you are completely misrepresenting my reference, best stop here, before I get a migraine
Then by all means explain why the growth of Islam as a religion and France's demographics make a difference in terrorism. If I have misrepresented your argument, then I apologise.
A) it's not specific to France, and B) it's simple #'s, since militant Islam has a religious foundation to its followers. Growth of Islam produces a larger pool of those that could gravitate towards the mutated message militant Islam inspires. ESPECIALLY when it's not being denounced or condemned by moderate Muslims or those same Muslim leaders refererenced earlier
-
<<The current US subsidies to many countries on wheat amount to about $50 / ton, with similar numbers for corn and other grains. This number offsets the market price, so US farmers sell a ton of wheat to Egypt for $50 below market.>>
I believe this all can be explained by domestic politics and economics. The U.S. government probaby subsidizes its farmers in the same general kind of way that Canada subsidizes its farmers. They all sell their wheat to a Wheat Board - - a government wheat-buying monopoly and then the government makes contracts with foreign countries. I'm guessing they don't get their money back, i.e. they pay the farmers more for the wheat than they'll net on the sale of it. But that keeps the farm bloc happy - -family farms stay in business, uneconomical as it may be, and nobody turns the wheatfields into subdivisions, so we stay self-sufficient in food. If they sell wheat to some country of dirt-poor schleppers for less than world market prices, they do it to get some kind of advantage out of them, for example, mining concessions or maybe just domestic votes from people who immigrated here from the country that's getting the under-priced wheat. And in some cases, maybe it's just pure charity - - a country may be so poor and fucked up that it's practically criminal to ask for their money in return for food.
My only point that this bullshit about "we feed 'em" taken as some sign of benevolence is pretty far-fetched. It's hard to attribute such benevolence to a country which makes war at the drop of a hat, killing over half a million people in its latest criminal venture (and two million in Viet Nam.) If you want to explain "feeding" other countries, I'd say that disinterested benevolence is the LEAST likely explanation for it.
-
Regardless of your opinion on the motives, Plane's comment continues to stand: the US sells Arab countries food at below market prices.
Plane ascribed no motive to it.
-
<<Regardless of your opinion on the motives, Plane's comment continues to stand: the US sells Arab countries food at below market prices.>>
Sure. It's a factoid.
<<Plane ascribed no motive to it.>>
He certainly did. That remark wasn't made in a vacuum. Put in context, it was an answer to a previous statement that the U.S. was hated for its misdeeds in the Arab world. In context, plane was saying, "But they're wrong to hate us. Look at the good we do for them."
-
In context, plane was saying, "But they're wrong to hate us. Look at the good we do for them."
Actually, he said that he would like the Arabs to treat us the same way.
-
<<Actually, he said that he would like the Arabs to treat us the same way.>>
Same thing. He's imputing a benevolence to it that just isn't there.
Obviously, by asking to be treated "the same way," he did't mean, "Give us some cheap throwaway that you produce in overabundance and can afford to sell us at a loss, and then in return for such "benevolence," force a government of crooks and sell-outs down our throats so you can rip off our natural resources."
-
Same thing. He's imputing a benevolence to it that just isn't there.
I've long advocated that the US stop throwing away money on charitable works in other nations.
Instead of sending $24 billion a year to other countries in the form of aid, that money should just be spent within our borders.
You realize that 40% of the total of charitable aid to other countries comes from the US government? The whole rest of the world together - plus US private contributions - account for the other 60%?
-
<<I've long advocated that the US stop throwing away money on charitable works in other nations.>>
Well, I'd certainly differentiate between hand-outs to repressive dictatorships (including Israel for its dictatorial rule over the West Bank) and charitable works to end disease and poverty in the Third World. It's the right thing to do, in the first place, and we all know that unchecked diseases in Africa don't stay in Africa forever.
<<Instead of sending $24 billion a year to other countries in the form of aid, that money should just be spent within our borders.>>
There were studies that show that most of the "foreign aid" the U.S. gives is in fact spent in the U.S.A. As a matter of fact, I think there might be legislation mandating that a minimum percentage of foreign aid given be spent in the U.S.
<<You realize that 40% of the total of charitable aid to other countries comes from the US government? The whole rest of the world together - plus US private contributions - account for the other 60%?>>
Yeah but in most cases of foreign aid to the Third World, the U.S. has probably ripped off more than 40% of whatever was ripped off from those countries by First World exploitation. I really think Americans should stop patting themselves on the back for their "foreign aid." It's a drop in the bucket compared to the devastation and rip-offs they've committed against Third World countries and the focus should really be set on the actual poverty and misery that exists, not on how "wonderful" America has been. Somebody should start to ask the hard questions, IF America really has been so consistently wonderful and beneficient to those poor countries, how come they keep sinking deeper and deeper into the shit?
-
There were studies that show that most of the "foreign aid" the U.S. gives is in fact spent in the U.S.A. As a matter of fact, I think there might be legislation mandating that a minimum percentage of foreign aid given be spent in the U.S.
Needless to say, you make vague claims and then don't bother to provide more detailed information. Weren't you complaining about this type of argument just yesterday or the day before?
-
<<Needless to say, you make vague claims and then don't bother to provide more detailed information.>>
Admittedly my information was vague, but I gave out as much as I know. Anyone's free to contradict with his or her own opinion, or, even better, with facts that run counter to what I just said. This isn't a scientific research foundation, it's a forum for the exchange of opinions. If I offer an opinion that won't stand up, feel free to shoot it down, hopefully with facts.
<< Weren't you complaining about this type of argument just yesterday or the day before?>>
Possibly, but in what context? My complaint was probably justifiable in context. Otherwise I wouldn't have made it.
-
<< Weren't you complaining about this type of argument just yesterday or the day before?>>
Possibly, but in what context? My complaint was probably justifiable in context. Otherwise I wouldn't have made it.
It was in this thread, IIRC. I said something, and you claimed it was an invalid point because it was vague and included no hard data backing it up.
Pretty much the same situation you just created.
-
<<It was in this thread, IIRC. I said something, and you claimed it was an invalid point because it was vague and included no hard data backing it up.>>
Yeah, but I mean specifically in what context? For example, was my position backed with facts and yours devoid of facts? Or were we both arguing without any real supporting facts? Or should it have been relatively easy for you to find supporting facts that were missing from your argument?
Normally, I wouldn't criticize a post for vagueness unless some justifying factor were present.
-
Yeah, but I mean specifically in what context? For example, was my position backed with facts and yours devoid of facts? Or were we both arguing without any real supporting facts? Or should it have been relatively easy for you to find supporting facts that were missing from your argument?
Actually, I had presented SOME facts, and you had presented none. I made a post which didn't include any facts, and you made your "zinger".
-
<<Actually, I had presented SOME facts, and you had presented none. I made a post which didn't include any facts, and you made your "zinger".>>
Yeah, you cited some facts like the percentage of its food that Egypt imports and that "most" of the imports were from the U.S.A. and nothing on prices other than "below" or "substantially below" market. The amount of the cut that the U.S. took was never defined.
I don't believe I delivered any zinger on this one, merely that I disagreed with your take and plane's take on the benevolence of the U.S.A. based on its food shipments to the Middle East. Or even disagreed on the extent of the alleged benevolence.
If I have specific facts to back an argument, I'll put 'em in. If I don't, I've made a weaker argument. Where is it written that every argument I make has to be of uniform strength? If I couldn't make a strong argument about the U.S. not selling food at bargain basement prices, how could that possibly affect the strength of another of my arguments where I do produce facts in support of an opinion on a totally different subject? Conversely, how does my failure to produce facts in an argument about food prices affect the validity of my complaint that facts are lacking in a totally different topic?
You would be correct in pointing out a weakness in my post on food prices charged by the U.S. to Egypt and I would still be correct in pointing out the weakness in a piece which quotes Zoellick's opinion without any supporting facts.
You are taking nit-picking to ridiculous extremes. I feel like I've just written a treatise on logic for three-year-olds. What I've taken the trouble to set down shouldn't even require explanation to any thinking adult.
-
You are taking nit-picking to ridiculous extremes. I feel like I've just written a treatise on logic for three-year-olds. What I've taken the trouble to set down shouldn't even require explanation to any thinking adult.
Sorry if you feel that my quoting your comments back to you requires a treatise on logic for three-year-olds.
Perhaps you should think that through.
-
It's a dead horse, Ami. Flog it as long as you like. It's not worth another second and a half of my time.