Morris Dovey wrote:
Tim Daneliuk (in ) said:
SNIP
| Intervention in the terms I described - when necessary to remediate
| threat against the democratic West - ought never to rarely to be
| a group grope. The nations under threat should act as unilaterally
| as
| they wish. The planet is not some Harvard debating society and
| feeling good about how we're all one happy planet is not the point.
Group grope? I'm not certain what you're trying to imply by that.
Acting unilaterally invites anyone and everyone who might have
objections to retalliate against the nation so acting, either
separately or in concert. The US actions in Afghanistan and Iraq would
have played very differently without the in-theater support of allies.
I would suggest you re-examine the information.
Sure they would have (though there was considerable more support
by our allies in the former as compared to the latter). But absent such
in-theater support should we just sit around and wait until we can
convince the rest of the world that we really are acting in our own
best interest and defense? The problem with multilateralism as a
single guiding policy is that it injects bureaucracy and politics
into a process exactly when swift action is needed. Not *every*
time, but often enough that it simply cannot be the sole or principal
guide as to how and when a nation acts to defend itself.
SNIP
|
| Sorry, I don't buy this kind of multiculturalist sentiment. The only
| thing the tribal savages of the Arab Penninsula and Africa have to
| teach us is that tribalism kills remorselessly and for no particular
| purpose.
My experience was very different. I lived on the Arab Peninsula (Saudi
Arabia, Al Hasa Province, Dhahran and Abqaiq) for a total of ten
years. Along with English and American History I studied Arabic,
French, and Middle Eastern history. I was an inquisitive lad; and
asked questions about everything I could imagine of everyone,
everywhere. I'm not an expert on the middle east; but I can assure you
that you're unbelievably wrong. Your ignorance can be understood. Your
I'm not remotely wrong. The events of the past 5 decades alone
(nevermind the previous 6 or so centuries) provide ample examples of the
foul malignancy that is Islamic tribalism as I will shortly demonstrate.
prejudice and slander is shameful.
And your resorting to the currently popular "If you criticize a group,
you must be a bigot" tactic is despicable. I have not now or ever liked
or disliked anyone based on their group membership, ethnicity, religion,
or any of the rest of your oh-so-tender litmus tests for sufficient PC
sensitivity. My judgment about other individuals and groups (and myself,
for that matter) is rooted in their *character* and *actions* alone.
When I see scumbag behavior, the perpetrator is a scumbag. When I see
someone condoning evil actions, they are evil. When I see virtuous
actions, the doer is a virtuous person. Most people are some complex
combination of virtue and vice. I have no question that *individual*
Islamic tribalists are very much the same way - certainly the ones
I've gotten to know personally are. But when Islamic tribalism acts
with a *group* voice, it has more and more turned into an ugly,
sadistic, depraved, and degenerate voice.
Moreover, I know how to observe Reality as it is. Let's examine just a
few of great moments of the Islamic hit parade from the general area of
Araby (though not all the people involved were Arab, all were Muslim)
from the past few decades:
- Pushing an old man in a wheelchair off a cruise ship to his death.
- Murdering a bunch of Israeli athletes in the 1970s.
- Weaponizing children and other civilians to deliver terrorist
attacks by suicide.
- Intentionally (as opposed to accidentally during time of war)
targeting civilians for slaughter.
- Bombing diplomats and embassies.
- Buying slaves from African Mauretania (and possibly Somalia).
- Running what is believed to be the largest white slavery
ring of young Western women anywhere in the world, pretty
much all of whom were kidnapped and are raped more-or-less
daily.
- In all the Arab/Israeli conflicts to date, something less than
100,000 people have died - military and civilian. In the same
period of time, approximately 3 *million* Muslims (you know,
The Religion Of "Peace") have killed *each other* ...
and then tried to pin the blame on the West, Israel,
or any other boogeyman they thought would stick.
- Precipitating wholesale slaughter of the Kurds.
- Persecution and even murder of Christians living in their lands.
- Brutal beheading of non-combatant Western civilians.
- Blowing up buildings and airplanes full of non-combatant civilians.
- Targeting the Pentagon (a legitimate target of war by our enemies)
using innocent civilians in the delivery of the weapons.
- Running rape rooms with government sanction to keep the populace
cowering.
- Severely restricting the rights of women up to, and including
giving men the legal right to beat and otherwise brutalize them.
... I could go on (and on, and on, and on ...) but why bother?
If we expand our view to global Islamic tribalism it
gets even more gruesome. Have a brief look at the
Muslims in the former Yugoslavia prior to it becoming
one nation - i.e. During WWII. "Horrific" doesn't
do justice in describing their actions (though, in fairness,
the Catholic Croats were as bad or worse).
These actions took place not first because the people involved were
Muslim (though that is part of the problem). These actions took place
primarily because these people are *tribal* and were acting not first as
individuals, but as members of their collective. By analogy, I have no
doubt that many of the 3rd Reich's top officers were good dinner
companions, decent fathers, doting husbands, and kind to others. But
that doesn't make them anything other than what they we murderous
savages.
Your pandering defense of that tribalist mentality by attempting to
paint me as some sort of bigot is revolting. It is not prejudice or
intolerance to take note of historical fact and see the common
connective tissue. When people are persuaded to act with absolutely no
restraint in the name of their God and their tribe and target innocent
civilians by intent as a tactic of war, that makes them "savages". Your
defense of them in the face of this kind of inarguable evidence makes
you morally complicit with evil.
It makes no difference that individual Islamic tribesmen are often
decent, kind, tolerant and all the rest. Too often, when they speak
for their tribe/religion they justify all manner of horrors without
the blink of an eye.
It makes no difference that your childhood experiences were different -
Islamic tribalism is behaving savagely *today*.
The many rich Arab/Islamic cultural and intellectual traditions of which
we are all beneficiaries do not vitiate their current status as tribal
savages - these elevated traditions have not stopped their evil actions
in current times.
The fact that the savagery is only being acted out by a few people
changes very little. The loud silence from the *rest* of their
fellow tribalists and co-religionists is a strong indication that
the radical savages speak for the heart of a much, much larger community.
They will cease being "savages" only when they renounce violence
(military or otherwise) against non-combatants and this message is
proclaimed widely, regularly, and with complete authority by their
political and religious leaders.
That ain't "prejudice" Bubba, that's Reality Observed.
FWIW, those of us not busy trying to make excuses for evil and who see
things as they actually are, are not surprised. Every single
class of social/political "collectivism" (tribalism, theocracy,
monarchy, socialism, communism, nationalism) inevitably degrades into
widespread violence against the innocent. Tribalism is merely one
datapoint in a larger body of "do what's good for the group" thinking.
Every single one of those schools of thought is, or eventually becomes a
moral cesspool.
(N.B. That I've never argued for US or Western action in these matters
on the basis of nationalism ("My country, right or wrong because
We're better than They are") I have argued on the basis of self-defense
in the face of a gathering storm. That's because I consider blind
nationalism just as debauched as tribalism - they are just different
lesions from the same collectivist cancer. And *that* is a lesson the
Right needs to learn in this country.)
|| offer. We can be the kind of friend that no one wants to pick a
|| fight
|
| Please explain what reasonable/rational basis UBL and his followers
| had for picking a fight with us? We helped them fight the Soviets
| to get them out of Afghanistan. In the early 20th century, it was
| the
| West that provided the capital and know how to extract the oil
| from their stand that makes their nations so wealthy. It is sheer
| fantasy to believe that we can act in manner so nicely as to
| discourage evil people from acting against us. Evil has to be met
| with extreme prejudice and violence to be quelled. There are no
| counterexamples.
If you're really unaware of any rational basis, then you have a lot of
history to catch up on. I suggest skipping the crusades and fast
forewarding to the start of the twentieth century. If you decide that
you'd like to have an in-depth understanding, you'll need to back up
at least to the time of Moses.
I understand the *irrational* basis for it. The blind theocratic
and tribal hatred that the region fuels. I was asking for a
*rational* one ... and there isn't one. P.S. My undergrad
education included a rather lengthy sequence in Biblical studies
(Old and New Testament), exegesis, theology, and textual criticism.
I have a non-specialist's understanding of the history and mindset of
the region.
That's a lot of history - and most Americans just aren't much
interested. Yet it set the stage for things that're happening today.
You aren't likely aware; but it was a Persian king who was responsible
for freeing the Judeans from Babylon, for allowing them to return to
Judea, even for encouraging them to build the temple in Jerusalem.
When they bogged down and lost heart, it was another Persian king who
sent a priest/lawgiver who brought with him the beginning of the
Talmud. While this may be of little interest to many Americans, the
Persians were key to the development and survival of Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam. It is not my place to teach you history; but
if you intend to publicly spout value judgements, you should take the
trouble to know at least a little bit of the story. If you want to
understand them, then you need to understand that they never forgot
their contributions - and now that you have just that much of a
glimmer; I suggest a bit of reflection about how people who /do/ know
the whole history in detail might feel about how things are playing
today.
Oh yawn, more half-history. That was a long time ago, and one or two
things have changed since then in case you've not noticed. These
enlightened Persians of old fathered ... modern Iran, a nation whose
leaders foment race hatred, murder of Christians and Jews, who seek
weapons capabilities so as to wipe Israel off the map and leave a
smoldering nuclear slagpile in its place. (So much for giving the
"Palestinians" a homeland. After Iran gets done, they'll all be glowing
in the dark.) Before you peddle a world that hasn't exists for several
millenia, perhaps you should acquaint yourself with current affairs.
If you don't manage any more than just the first half of the twentieth
century, you'll have all the rational basis you might care to have.
How closely do you watch the news? Did you notice the types of
aircraft used to bomb Beirut, the UN outpost, and non-belligerent
targets? Are you so naive as to think that the civilians on the ground
hold only the Israeli pilots responsible?
The "people on the ground" chose to empower an organization that
is known to specifically target non-combatant civilians. This in the face
of demands by the West and even the useless UN to cease and desist
in so doing. The "people on the ground" demurred to do so. That makes
those "people on the ground" morally complicit with those who actually
intentionally target civilians. "The people on the ground" have no
moral case for complaint - they experienced the consequences of their
choices. (The UN outpost is an exception and is almost certainly
an accident of war.)
|| with. We can look back at our own recent history and notice that
|| power flowed to us most rapidly when we empowered others; and
|| drained away most rapidly when we attempted to use our power to
|| control others. We can do a lot better job of listening to both
|| friends and adversaries.
|
| You are under the evil spell of the popular culture that says we
| are someone trying to "control others". I don't see it that way.
| Had the Islamic radicals not made war on us, especially on our own
| soil, Bush and his advisors could *never* had made the case to
| invade Afghanistan, let alone Iraq. I don't think most Americans
| of any political persuasion want to "control" any other part of
| the planet. We do, however, want to be left alone.
No, I'm not under any such spell. I've been watching closely since the
beginning of the pre Iraq invasion build-up. Evidence in favor of
controlling the territory far, far outweighs any evidence in favor of
helping the Iraqis have any kind of better life.
Neither control or providing the Iraqis a better kind of life is
any of our business. Our business was the dismantling of a loathsome
state that had planned the assassination of a US President, oppressed
civilians, funded terrorist actions against civilians, and was (it
was believed at the time) on a trajectory to deliver more harm
*to us*.
I have a personal story involving USAID that strongly reinforces my
conclusion. I had good reason to believe that I could be of help in
restoring some parts of the Iraqi infrastructure on a volunteer basis.
In brief, USAID wasn't interested in helping rebuild Iraqi
infrastructure.
So what? Did you see any groundswell of foreign activity to come
help rebuild New Orleans? Not our problem except to the extent
that stabilizing the region would probably be in our own interest.
SNIP
Ever see Beirut before the first Israeli bombing? I have - and I
understand why it was called the "Paris of the Mediterranean". It was
'Ever see an Israeli child before it is gutted like the first deer of
hunting season by some apocalyptic Islamic tribal savage with Semtex
stuck up their rearend? We can go on like this for days but the simple
fact remains that Israel - in the main - does NOT intentionally target
civilians. The Islamic tribal savages do. More than that, they make
civilian populations the center of their *military* operations thereby
guaranteeing that reprisals will harm their own civilians. Beirut
was a victim of the Islamic tribal savages first and always. Lebanon
was well on it way to recovery once they kicked the Syrian slimeballs
out ... only to invite the Hezbollah slimeballs in. I have little
patience and no sympathy for self-inflicted wounds.
a beautiful city, bustling with tourists and business people from all
over the world. Seen it lately? How does it make you feel to know that
your tax dollars provided the foreign aid to purchase the weapons that
did the damage? Not very long ago (a year?) I read that we shipped the
Quite proud and hopeful that we can do it over and over and over and
over again until the tribal savages get the message that we will not
be trifled with.
Israelis 25 F-16 fighter planes. Do you have /any/ idea how much death
and destruction can be (or has been) inflicted with that many Vipers?
Not enough, so far, apparently, since the tribal savages continue to
operate far too widely.
If you and your family lived in Beirut, how "minor" a sin would you
have considered delivery of that capability into the hands of the
destroyers?
I'd suggest that committing lesser sins than someone else does not
make your sins go away, as you suggest - unless you have some insights
into the nature of sin that everyone else has missed.
It is not a "sin" to attempt to stop evil. It *is* a sin to make war
on civilians, to hide among them while doing so, to use your pregnant
women and your children as weapons delivery systems, to traffic in
slaves, to kidnap and rape young women, ad infinitum ad nauseum.
Your apologetic for the Islamic world is pathetic. Until and unless
Islam institutionally renounces these and the many other barbaric acts
attributed to it, it is not entitled to the slightest bit of consideration
or quarter. "Institutional renunciation" means that everyone at the
top of the political and ecclesiastical food chain sincerely and loudly
condemns such actions so as to move the heart of the majority population
away from them. (There will always be a wingnut minority in any
collective of humans - we have Al Gore, for example.) When we see the
leadership do this, the majority will follow. When that happens, then UBL
and his merry band of rectal warts will truly become a despised minority
within Islam. In the mean time, pray for peace and aim for killshots ...
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/