dalem

Oh no, I didn't interpret your post as directed to me specifically. And I am aware of the efforts of some few voices and am happy they are there, but I am saying that it is not enough. It's easy:

1) Kick the Jihadists out of the mosques, publically.
2) Don't let them back in.

-dale

CMartel

I don't believe that its necessarily the "fundementalists" that we need to watch out for. Unless the fundementals of the religion are out of whack. I think the most peaceful people in the world would be those that are fundementalist Christians, because fundementally, that was Jesus's message.
Now American pop culture loves to gang up on who they call Fundementalist Christians. A lot of that is just a secular world striking out against what they don't understand or consider unsophisticate or downright stupid. Hatred, intolerance, bigotry, judgemental are some key words. Some of that is used to shout down "fundementalists" who just disagree with a culture that says abortion is fine, homosexuality is good and so on. But only when the fundementalist stray from what is fundementally Jesus's message do they deserve opposition. Jesus never said to go out and shoot an abortionist, or a homosexual, or a Jew, or a muslim.

On the other hand. What is fundementally the message of mohammed? What did he do during his life. Among other things, he was a warrior, a political leader, a killer. So a fundementalist muslim could quite easily use the tactics of jihadism, killing in the name of islam, without straying from mohammed's message.

gunnut

Sounds like most "liberals intellectuals" to me.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

astralis

gunnut,

no, just intellectuals in general. the neo-conservatives in 2003 waxed poetic about the ease by which the US would be able to install a democratic gov't in iraq, but as far as i know, no one from the Weekly Standard signed up for the cakewalk.

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Stan187

We did. But building simple infrastructure doesn't create jobs, which what gets insurgents off the streets, especially when those two dummies Rummy and Bremer disbanded a whole army of trained soldiers and then didn't pay them.

__________________
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

Stan187

I think the term neo-conservative is used too much as an umbrelly label. Its real meaning is becoming diluted.

steven lloyd

I’m sorry. With the challenges delivered my way on this board almost via the shotgun effect, I just haven’t had the time to keep up. I just don’t have the time to thoughtfully respond to every post that’s been directed my way. If there is a point you’d like me to respond to, I would respectfully ask that you send it my way once more and I will make a point of doing so. I would also ask that maybe we could deal with one point at a time so I don’t have to write some mini-essay in response. My apologies in advance if I’m asking you to repeat yourself, but again, I just haven’t had the time to keep up with the kafuffle I seemed to have caused.

steven lloyd

:Sighs: It was an expression of exclamation. It’s like when your kid comes home from school with the munchies (because unbeknownst to you he’s been smoking marijuana all day) and makes a sandwich, eats a box of crackers and then starts making popcorn, and then you say “Are you going to eat me out of house and home?” Of course you don’t literally mean that, but you’re trying to make a point (ie. using an expression of exclamation). You might also note that in an effort to avoid any misunderstanding, I was very careful to deliberately include the words “seems”, “almost” and “inference” so that readers with an understanding of the language would not mistakenly interpret my meaning to be literal. I can’ believe I’m actually having to explain this.

Instead of getting defensive and trying to rationalize how no one literally suggested we start putting Muslims in interment camps, why don’t you use this opportunity to start challenging the prejudicial assumptions that have been made on this board (and please don’t tell me you don’t recognize that they have been made) and ask yourself where this type of thinking is likely to lead us.

Getting defensive and rationalizing is only a strategy to deflect the issue and avoid the point being made (that prejudicial thinking feeds on itself, and unchecked, spreads leading to poor decision making). It’s kinda like this: A man beats the crap out of his wife and breaks her jaw. When the police come to arrest him says “Well at least I didn’t kill her.” He is able to justify his thinking but there is no accountability for where this thinking might have led.

steven lloyd

I’m really curious as to what you would suggest. Seriously. I live and work in a small town two days drive north of Vancouver (Canada). I just turned 50. Should I quit my job and re-enlist? (do you think they would take me back?) Should I paint myself a protest sign and march up and down in front of city hall during my lunch hour? Seriously Officer E. Give me some ideas. Tell me what you are doing besides posting on this board.

dalem

Gee SL, maybe you could, I don't know, go back and look at some of the posts I made in reply to YOUR posts and, I don't know, read them? And then reply?

-dale

Ray

Stan,

A good point.

Raised earlier, but then people here were too fired up to realise the folly!

Even illustrations as to how the British used the Indians to control their Empire did not sit well with them!

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

steven lloyd

Pick a point dalem, and I’ll respond to it. Really - I sincerely do apologize but I’m just too freaking busy to go back over this whole thread. Pick a point (one point at a time please) and I will give a fair, respectful and thoughtful reply. Gotta go, back later.

Ray

[quote]A valid observation. Cannot be refuted.

You maybe right. But then, is it not time for the many Moslems wanting world peace to show their hand and take up the issue more vigourously? Even now, there is a Moslem cleric in UK (check the UK threads) who is baying for the British blood while enjoying British hospitality. And interestingly, he is getting a largish British Moslem audience!

That is worrisome since it threaten the very fabric of British society and British lives. Here, British means blacks, brown, whites and yellow since British society is indeed now very diverse. Don't you think that the Moslems of Britain should hound out this fiery British Moslem cleric? Why are the Moslems so silent and smug? Why are they not taking this cleric to task for the sake of world peace?

Obviously since the British Moslems are not making an issue of this seditious outpouring of this Islamic cleric, it does make it difficult to believe that there are many Moslems who want world peace. Even if they want, they are too silent to be counted! And too dashed smug!

Like you, there are many who turn a deaf ear to such bigotry and archaic thoughts!

Bush may have said anything, but the popular sentiment at that time was to sort out the 9/11 perpetrators. Hence, Bush's words may not have been material, what was material was the action that he proposed and acted upon!

The fact that Bush's Christian awakening was or is not material has been very emphatically addressed in the Republican reverses last elections.


It was perfect given the environment.

No we cannot allow them to runa riot.

Maybe 1:1 is not a very civilised a fashion of thinking and one should be more restrained.

You maybe right.

But then the situation in Iraq is only known as per the media projections. And media can be very biased on both sides. What was the truth, is the truth and will be the truth, none for sure knows.

Maybe a visit to Iraq would be in order for a first hand view.

There is food for thought that maybe the infrastructure got too much of attention over addressing of the local issues. There is no doubt that if the grassroots issues were addressed, the situation would have been better. It may not sound nice, but then the big money is in infrastructure and not grassroot problems.

Absolutely correct.

The mess caused must be cleared up.

Or else it will be taken that US can only destroy and not create. From an international interactivity point of view, that would be disastrous.

What worries me more is that now the US is no longer seen as 'invincible'.

That bodes greater dangers since another adventurist may suddenly pop up elsewhere and make the world go aflame in a tizzy!

I would like to believe it, but I can't.

BTW, I live in a high density Moslem population country!

CMartel

The infrastructure would probably be up and running if the security situation was where it should be.

But its hard to go out with a team to fix an electric plant while being fired upon. And once you fix the electric plant, its destroyed the next night by some faction or other.

And how do you develop an atmosphere of reconciliation and understanding with the likes of M. Sadr? Here we have a character whose father was supposedly this great and powerful religious leader in Iraq. Saddam kills his father. America takes out Saddam cleanly and with little loss of life with the promise (despite the histrionics of the world's press) of giving Iraq back to the people. Sadr Jr's response: attack the Americans. No doubt this is the perfect thing to do if one has the mind of an eastener, but to this western mind, it seems lunitic.

astralis

cmartel,

a ridiculous and inherently racist comment.

sadr jr's response is quite rational. notice his first attacks were against fellow clerics, as well as a mini-rebellion against sistani. THEN, when it became more clear that he had solidified his base and that the americans were growing progressively more unpopular, his attacks against the americans went up several notches, leading to the showdown in 2004.

sadr is not working off "gratefulness", he is working off of pure political calculation. he wants to be powerful, and the steps he's taken has indeed led to him accruing more power. quite logical, even if to our american senses, he is a SOB.