Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 22:17:08 -0500, "Morris Dovey" wrote:

Mark & Juanita (in ) said:

| On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 11:08:00 -0500, "Morris Dovey"
| wrote:
|
|| Larry Blanchard (in ) said:
||
||| Morris Dovey wrote:
|||
|||| ...

Oh yes, I went to Sunday school and attended protestant worship
services every Friday. We called the services "Fellowship Services"
and the Saudis were aware when and where the services were held. The
RC "Fellowship Services" were held in the same place a half hour after
the protestant "Fellowship Services" ended.


You realize that it not the Saudis that we are fighting, right? Those
Saudis who flew the planes into the towers were not acting at the behest of
the Saudi government. The Saudis do contribute to the problem through
their support of Wahabbism, but they are careful not to do so within their
own boundaries.

I'm not clear on what you mean by "The Saudis do contribute to the
problem through their support of Wahabbism, but they are careful
not to do so within their own boundaries." The Saudi contribution
to the problem OUTSIDE of their boundaries (borders?) is exactly
the part of the problem that affects us the most.

It is 'a' Saudi who leads the second most dangerous clandestine
paramilitary organization (al Queda) though the most dangersous,
Hezbollah, is primarily supported by Iran. He is 'persona non grata'
In Saudia Arabia today, that may be what you mean.


Now, if you were a Saudi citizen, how would you have been treated had you
openly attended Sunday School or other "Fellowship Services"? Also, how
would the Saudis have treated you had you offered to share details of your
faith? Not in a pushy way, but just sharing?

An American would probably at worse be deported. A Saudi Sufi might
be in bigger trouble.


Indonesia has laws that prohibit Christians from openly evangelizing or
sharing their faith. The converse is not true.

Back to the point, it's not the Saudis, or the Kuwaities, or the UAE
citizens that are the issue and they aren't the ones openly and actively
pushing the concept of jihad on the west (they may be quietly supporting
and abetting, but that's a different issue).

FWIW:

http://www.altavista.com/web/results...&kgs=1&kls =0

And it is my understanding that North America's largest Iman has
denounced violent jihad in general. At least I read that on UseNet,
as far as I can tell the Mainstream Media (MSM--thanks) is not
particularly inclined to report such things.

They aren't the ones who are
going to be issuing the ultimatums --- it's those who are pursuing the
radical agenda that are going to be making those offers.


Yes, the rank and file of Muslims world-wide just want to get along.
Consider that if only one tenth of one person of Muslims were to
volunteer to fight pursuant to bin Laden's Fatwa he would
have a million man army. Instead, has never had more than,
what, a thousand or so?

As for the financial support, it appears that much of that is '
fraudulently obtained by misdirecting charitiable contributions or
outright fraud like credit card and demand draft fraud.

For nearly two millenia every major city of the Middle East
had its Jewish Quarter, not a ghetto where the local authorities
segregatted them, but peaceful and prosperous enclaves
voluntarily created by their inhabitants. Judaism and Islam
peacfully coexisted, along with the Coptic Christians
and, most of the time, the Orthodox as well.

It was not until the creation of the State of Israel, when there
was a new power in the civil political theater, that Muslim
leaders became openly anti-Jewish. It was a corruption of
religion, and a fostering of religious intollerance for purely
political purposes, just as we saw in Europe both befor
and after.

As Americans, we msut not allow our 'mullahs' and politicians
to do the same.


You are aware of the riots in France, the push for allowing various
communities in London and areas in Canada to be ruled by sharia? Those
folks aren't playing "good and happy people" nor are they assimilating into
the countries into which they have emigrated -- they are attempting to get
those countries to conform to *their* culture.

It was approximately a week into the riots in France when the
news services reported an grim development. Someone
had been killed the night before. As bad as any riot is, when
it comes to violence, the French Muslims don't hold a candle
to good old American Christians who killed more than 40 in
three days of rioting in Los Angeles.

I have heard on PRI, NPR, or C-Span that there is a movement in
Canada to allow the litigants in certain civil issues, like shild
custody and shild support, to voluntarily submit thier claims to
sharia court for legally binding arbitration. I do not know if
Canadian Law permits any other relgious organization to
act as arbiters in such matters, but if it does, then surely
sharia courts sould be considered as well.

Do you know of any movement to give original jurisdiction to
sharia courts anywhere in Canada or Europe? If so, please
let me know.

BTW, have you by any chance heard of "The Moral Majority" or
"The Christian Coalition"? Those are two lobbying organizations
that openly lobby to incorporate their own religious beliefs into
the civil and criminal laws of the United States of AMerica, where
they would be binding on everyone.


You have got to be kidding.

We have Time magazine fabricate a story about desecrating the Koran and
the muslims seethe, rage, riot and burn churches and kill people.

We have somebody draw cartoons and the muslim world seethes, burns
churches and kills people.

A pope makes a statement referencing an 13'th century pope's comments

13th century patriarch, actually

regarding how islam tends to be violent and we get muslims seething,
rioting, burning churches, and killing people. Then they make the
statement that anyone calling their religion violent should have their head
cut off.

Is rioting and burning a Korean-American grocery because a jury
with no Korean Americans on it aquitted four officers in the Rodney
King beating trial any better?

--

FF

Things, as they are in the Middle east, are not as complicated as they
appear at first sight.

G*d took The Promised Land away from the Israelis because they were
being punished. Somehow, a rich banker, who has crowned himself a jew,
has decided to use his banking influence to extract a homeland for
himself and his cohorts. he even donated the Israel Supreme Court
Building, built to his specifications. (The place is loaded with New
Age symbolism, btw)

G*d made it clear, He would allow them back when He decided...NOT when
some rich schmuck decided.

The current Middle Eastern situation is illegal, immoral, and certainly
against the same G*d Bush feigns to worship.

THAT is why I didn't 'OT' before...I can't....not frome here..all I can
do is reply...please forgive me?

Ohhh poop. i best label this OT, huh?

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
...
To even raise the issue of 'annihilation' is asinine.


It is not. In the early days of what would become WWII, the Left argued
as you have - "There's no serious threat to us. It's just asinine to
worry about it.

If, by "The Left" you mean the Republican Isolationists
who opposed any American involvment in the struggles
of Europe what does that make FDR who struggled to
get American involved, a reactionary?

" Fast forward 15 years. Hitler and Stalin are
responsible for something on the order of 100 *million* deaths in total.
History is full of other such examples of what happens when you
ignore evil.


By 1930 Stalin was the absolute dictator of the largest nation on
Earth, second largest by population, and the largest in Europe.
The Soviet Union had vast natural resources, a large industrial base
and an enormous Army.

Hitler was, or soon became the absolute dicatator of the second
largest nation in Europe, also a technologically sophisiticated one.

To compare either man to Saddam Hussein, or either nation to
Iraq in 2003 is asinine.

Iraq had failed to adequately prosecute its boreder war with the
technologically inferior, demoralized, and disorganzed Iranians,
and then had it's Air Force totally destroyed and its armed forces
in general grippled more than a decade befor and never rebuilt
either.

Iraq never reached the point where it was a threat outside of the
region and had waned to where it was no longer a threat in its
region.

If instead you make analogy between the totalitarian political
philosophies of the early 20th century with violent jihadis today,
the comparison is similarly asinine.

Islam has been around for a millenium and a half. The violent
jihadis today are the last vestiges of the ultra-conservatives
who reject secular government and civil authority. They are
pariahs in every Muslim nation, but Iran and even there only
one variety is tolerated. Perhaps Lebanon too, but steps
are being taken that, if carried to its logical conclusion, will
disarm the paramilitray wing of Hezbollah there.

Iran is a more logical choice should you want to draw an
analogy to pre-WWII Europe. Iran and Hezbollah have
been growing in power. But Iran is a stronghold of a
minority branch of Islam that is barely tolerated in
most of the rest of the Muslim world. Hezbollah and
the Iranians will not be able to build an empire in the
Middle East, let alone anywhere else.

As far as diffusion of Islam outside of the Middle East,
that is inevitable but the notion that Muslims will not
adapt to the secularism that is responsible for creating
the very societies they seek to join is reminiscent, of
the fears that Chinese Immigrants on the West Coast
or Catholics on the East would coopt American Society,
rather than vice versa.

--

FF

Note follow-ups

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...
And that really worries me, because "failing" in this context (and down
the line a few decades) could bring on a poisoning of the planet and
a level of human tragedy that has never heretofore been seen. Hopefully,
we'll all be smart enough to avoid that...
...

I find the null results from the SETI project to be profoundly
disturbing.
particularly when one considers Fermi's paradox.

Fermi realized that atomic power made insterstellar travel possible.
How to do it was simple a matter of engineering. So Fermi stated
the paradox as a question: "Where are they?" (or perhaps it was
"Where is everybody?") The point being that since atomic power
made interstellar travel possible, we should have received visitors
from other civilisations.

The SETI results to date tell us that civilizations like our own are
not
very common, or do not long survive after developing 20th century
technology. Supposing the first to be the case, is a lonely thought.
The alternative is ominous.

--

FF

In article .com,
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 22:17:08 -0500, "Morris Dovey" wrote:

Mark & Juanita (in ) said:

| On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 11:08:00 -0500, "Morris Dovey"
| wrote:
|
|| Larry Blanchard (in ) said:
||
||| Morris Dovey wrote:
|||
|||| ...

Oh yes, I went to Sunday school and attended protestant worship
services every Friday. We called the services "Fellowship Services"
and the Saudis were aware when and where the services were held. The
RC "Fellowship Services" were held in the same place a half hour after
the protestant "Fellowship Services" ended.


You realize that it not the Saudis that we are fighting, right? Those
Saudis who flew the planes into the towers were not acting at the behest of
the Saudi government. The Saudis do contribute to the problem through
their support of Wahabbism, but they are careful not to do so within their
own boundaries.

I'm not clear on what you mean by "The Saudis do contribute to the
problem through their support of Wahabbism, but they are careful
not to do so within their own boundaries." The Saudi contribution
to the problem OUTSIDE of their boundaries (borders?) is exactly
the part of the problem that affects us the most.

It is 'a' Saudi who leads the second most dangerous clandestine
paramilitary organization (al Queda) though the most dangersous,
Hezbollah, is primarily supported by Iran. He is 'persona non grata'
In Saudia Arabia today, that may be what you mean.


Now, if you were a Saudi citizen, how would you have been treated had you
openly attended Sunday School or other "Fellowship Services"? Also, how
would the Saudis have treated you had you offered to share details of your
faith? Not in a pushy way, but just sharing?

An American would probably at worse be deported. A Saudi Sufi might
be in bigger trouble.


Indonesia has laws that prohibit Christians from openly evangelizing or
sharing their faith. The converse is not true.

Back to the point, it's not the Saudis, or the Kuwaities, or the UAE
citizens that are the issue and they aren't the ones openly and actively
pushing the concept of jihad on the west (they may be quietly supporting
and abetting, but that's a different issue).

FWIW:

http://www.altavista.com/web/results...&kgs=1&kls =0

And it is my understanding that North America's largest Iman has
denounced violent jihad in general. At least I read that on UseNet,
as far as I can tell the Mainstream Media (MSM--thanks) is not
particularly inclined to report such things.

They aren't the ones who are
going to be issuing the ultimatums --- it's those who are pursuing the
radical agenda that are going to be making those offers.


Yes, the rank and file of Muslims world-wide just want to get along.
Consider that if only one tenth of one person of Muslims were to
volunteer to fight pursuant to bin Laden's Fatwa he would
have a million man army. Instead, has never had more than,
what, a thousand or so?

As for the financial support, it appears that much of that is '
fraudulently obtained by misdirecting charitiable contributions or
outright fraud like credit card and demand draft fraud.

For nearly two millenia every major city of the Middle East
had its Jewish Quarter, not a ghetto where the local authorities
segregatted them, but peaceful and prosperous enclaves
voluntarily created by their inhabitants. Judaism and Islam
peacfully coexisted, along with the Coptic Christians
and, most of the time, the Orthodox as well.

It was not until the creation of the State of Israel, when there
was a new power in the civil political theater, that Muslim
leaders became openly anti-Jewish. It was a corruption of
religion, and a fostering of religious intollerance for purely
political purposes, just as we saw in Europe both befor
and after.

As Americans, we msut not allow our 'mullahs' and politicians
to do the same.


You are aware of the riots in France, the push for allowing various
communities in London and areas in Canada to be ruled by sharia? Those
folks aren't playing "good and happy people" nor are they assimilating into
the countries into which they have emigrated -- they are attempting to get
those countries to conform to *their* culture.

It was approximately a week into the riots in France when the
news services reported an grim development. Someone
had been killed the night before. As bad as any riot is, when
it comes to violence, the French Muslims don't hold a candle
to good old American Christians who killed more than 40 in
three days of rioting in Los Angeles.

I have heard on PRI, NPR, or C-Span that there is a movement in
Canada to allow the litigants in certain civil issues, like shild
custody and shild support, to voluntarily submit thier claims to
sharia court for legally binding arbitration. I do not know if
Canadian Law permits any other relgious organization to
act as arbiters in such matters, but if it does, then surely
sharia courts sould be considered as well.

Do you know of any movement to give original jurisdiction to
sharia courts anywhere in Canada or Europe? If so, please
let me know.

BTW, have you by any chance heard of "The Moral Majority" or
"The Christian Coalition"? Those are two lobbying organizations
that openly lobby to incorporate their own religious beliefs into
the civil and criminal laws of the United States of AMerica, where
they would be binding on everyone.


You have got to be kidding.

We have Time magazine fabricate a story about desecrating the Koran and
the muslims seethe, rage, riot and burn churches and kill people.

We have somebody draw cartoons and the muslim world seethes, burns
churches and kills people.

A pope makes a statement referencing an 13'th century pope's comments

13th century patriarch, actually

regarding how islam tends to be violent and we get muslims seething,
rioting, burning churches, and killing people. Then they make the
statement that anyone calling their religion violent should have their head
cut off.

Is rioting and burning a Korean-American grocery because a jury
with no Korean Americans on it aquitted four officers in the Rodney
King beating trial any better?

--

FF



--
No dumb questions, just dumb answers.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore, Maryland -

"Robatoy" wrote in news:1160603341.475465.13140
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

Things, as they are in the Middle east, are not as complicated as they
appear at first sight.

G*d took The Promised Land away from the Israelis because they were
being punished. Somehow, a rich banker, who has crowned himself a jew,
has decided to use his banking influence to extract a homeland for
himself and his cohorts. he even donated the Israel Supreme Court
Building, built to his specifications. (The place is loaded with New
Age symbolism, btw)
Who is this rich banker? Can a person crown himself a Jew? Please
explain. I didn't know that Jews were created by crowning. In my
ignorance I thought one was either born a Jew or became one by adopting
the Hebrew faith. What's 'New Age Symbolism' btw?

G*d made it clear, He would allow them back when He decided...NOT when
some rich schmuck decided.
Wow, a command of Yiddish. How do you know this G*d (whatever one you're
referring to) didn't decide to allow them back? I guess you speak to G*ds
and they speak back to you. None of them ever spoke to me.


The current Middle Eastern situation is illegal, immoral, and certainly
against the same G*d Bush feigns to worship.
Not being a Christian, Jew, or Muslim (I'm a Pagan) I don't understand
which G*d this is against. You've stated in previous articulate posts
your feelings about the President of the United States of America and
your feelings about the USA in general. You also stated that some of your
friends are Americans. Are some of your friends Jews?




THAT is why I didn't 'OT' before...I can't....not frome here..all I can
do is reply...please forgive me?

Ohhh poop. i best label this OT, huh?
Poop!!! After the fine and gentile wording of your previous posts;
poop?

Thanks for the advice you gave me awhile ago on using water based
contact cement versus solvent based contact cement when installing new
laminate over old. You and Robert were right on the money.
Regards,
Hank

PS. Glad to hear your sister is improving.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

Cuz W's grand-daddy was an active contributor to Nazi Germany.
Yes indeedie. Prescot Bush was actually forbidden, by the US Gov't to
continue backing Hitler, after he had done so for years.

This is baloney, as Todd has pointed out. Perhaps you're confusing him with
JFK's father, Joseph Kennedy, who really *was* a Nazi sympathizer and
supporter.

And it's a non-issue either way. Many of the elite back then were so
terrified of communism that they backed fascism as an alternative.


More to the point it's a non-issue because the elite from back then
are dead. Their children and grandchildren might exibit some of
their influence in some ways but ethnic bigotry or a fondness for
Nazis isn't likely to have carried over to the present generation.

--

FF

In article . com, wrote:

For the record, somebody screwed up the attributions.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

No I didn't. Robatoy wrote it.

Cuz W's grand-daddy was an active contributor to Nazi Germany.
Yes indeedie. Prescot Bush was actually forbidden, by the US Gov't to
continue backing Hitler, after he had done so for years.

I wrote this:

This is baloney, as Todd has pointed out. Perhaps you're confusing him with
JFK's father, Joseph Kennedy, who really *was* a Nazi sympathizer and
supporter.

Larry wrote this:

And it's a non-issue either way. Many of the elite back then were so
terrified of communism that they backed fascism as an alternative.


And Fred wrote this:

More to the point it's a non-issue because the elite from back then
are dead. Their children and grandchildren might exibit some of
their influence in some ways but ethnic bigotry or a fondness for
Nazis isn't likely to have carried over to the present generation.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article . com, wrote:

For the record, somebody screwed up the attributions.

I left unattributed text ("Cuz W's"...) at the top of the
article.The attributions were correct, from the botom
up, until reaching that unattributed text which
was written by Mr Robatoy. Attributions need to be
read from right to left, when parsing the "" stuff,
and bottom up when parsing the foo wrote, bar wrote
stuff.

Confusing perhaps, but that's the way UseNet works.

The text attributed to yourself was indeed that you
claim below.

E.g. we agree that OP was full of crap, albeit for
different reasons.



Larry Blanchard wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

No I didn't. Robatoy wrote it.

Cuz W's grand-daddy was an active contributor to Nazi Germany.
Yes indeedie. Prescot Bush was actually forbidden, by the US Gov't to
continue backing Hitler, after he had done so for years.

I wrote this:

This is baloney, as Todd has pointed out. Perhaps you're confusing him with
JFK's father, Joseph Kennedy, who really *was* a Nazi sympathizer and
supporter.

Larry wrote this:

And it's a non-issue either way. Many of the elite back then were so
terrified of communism that they backed fascism as an alternative.


And Fred wrote this:

More to the point it's a non-issue because the elite from back then
are dead. Their children and grandchildren might exibit some of
their influence in some ways but ethnic bigotry or a fondness for
Nazis isn't likely to have carried over to the present generation.



--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...

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).



Let us consider some Christian actions, during the same period of
time:

- Chaining a man behind a truck and dragging him to his death.

- Planting an detonating bombs that indiscriminately killed civilian
men, women and children during sectarian warfare between
Christian sects in the British Islands.

- Raping and murdering Christian Nuns in el Salvador.

- 'Disapearing' 30,000 people in Argentina, sometimes murdering
parents so that their children could be adopted by childless
Christian elitists.

- Running a major white slavery ring in Eastern Europe primarily
preying on Ukraining women to supply brothels in other parts of
Eastern and Southern Europe.

- Murder and violence especially against Muslim Women in
Azherbeijan.

- Murder torture rape of both sexes and arbitrary imprisonment
of thousands of fellow Christians and Native Americans in Chile.

- Murder torture and arbitrary imprisonment
of thousands and seizure and destruction of land in an effort
to eradicate entire Native American ethnic groups in Guatamala.

- Mass murder of Muslim men and mass rape of Muslim women
in Bosnia.

- Assorted other crimes against humanity throughout the Yugoslav
civil wars.

Most of those actions above were ostensibly motived by
intollerance of Christians for other Christians (e.g. authoritians
vs liberation theologists), or non-Christians, or other sorts of
bigotry common to, though not by any means exclusive to, \
Christians

If you want to consider purely politically motivated wars by
Christians then:

- I'll not try to estimate how many Christians have killled people
in wars since the early 1970s, but if we go back to the start
of the 20th century it is a fair bet that Christians killed tens
times as many as have the Muslims since then.

- Don't you agree that the predominantly Lutheran and Catholic
Germans, who supported the Roman Catholic Austrian, Hitler,
and the Catholic Italians are primarily responsible for WWII in
Europe? If you 'credit' half the toll to the atheist Soviets,
that still leaves 20 million or so to blame on the Christians.

- Then there is WWI to consider.

OTOH, consider the actions of _some_ Christians, like the Amish
in Eastern PA who recently etablished a charitable fund to provide
assistance for the widow and daughters of the man who murdered
several of their own daughters.

Or the Sufis in general.

I would not make the mistake of assuming that religion is
inherently evil. But evil men may turn it to their desires as
easily as good men do.

--

FF

wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...

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).


Let us consider some Christian actions, during the same period of
time:

- Chaining a man behind a truck and dragging him to his death.

Condemned widely and loudly by both Christian laity AND clergy unlike
the deafening silence heard through the overwhelming part of the Islamic
world when their adherents behave badly.


- Planting an detonating bombs that indiscriminately killed civilian
men, women and children during sectarian warfare between
Christian sects in the British Islands.


Condemned widely and loudly by both Christian laity AND clergy unlike
the deafening silence heard through the overwhelming part of the Islamic
world when their adherents behave badly.


- Raping and murdering Christian Nuns in el Salvador.


Condemned widely and loudly by both Christian laity AND clergy unlike
the deafening silence heard through the overwhelming part of the Islamic
world when their adherents behave badly.


- 'Disapearing' 30,000 people in Argentina, sometimes murdering
parents so that their children could be adopted by childless
Christian elitists.


Condemned widely and loudly by pretty much everyone unlike
the deafening silence heard through the overwhelming part of the Islamic
world when their adherents behave badly.


- Running a major white slavery ring in Eastern Europe primarily
preying on Ukraining women to supply brothels in other parts of
Eastern and Southern Europe.

Horrible, and hardly noticed by the West generally (to our everlasting
shame). BUT ... not motivated by any obvious religiosity nor in the name
of any religion unlike ... well, You Know Who.


- Murder and violence especially against Muslim Women in
Azherbeijan.

Horrible, and hardly noticed by the West generally (to our everlasting
shame). BUT ... not motivated by any obvious religiosity nor in the name
of any religion unlike ... well, You Know Who.


- Murder torture rape of both sexes and arbitrary imprisonment
of thousands of fellow Christians and Native Americans in Chile.


Horrible, and hardly noticed by the West generally (to our everlasting
shame). BUT ... not motivated by any obvious religiosity nor in the name
of any religion unlike ... well, You Know Who.


- Murder torture and arbitrary imprisonment
of thousands and seizure and destruction of land in an effort
to eradicate entire Native American ethnic groups in Guatamala.


Horrible, and hardly noticed by the West generally (to our everlasting
shame). BUT ... not motivated by any obvious religiosity nor in the name
of any religion unlike ... well, You Know Who.


- Mass murder of Muslim men and mass rape of Muslim women
in Bosnia.

And just *who* sent the bulk of the troops in to stop this
and remediate the situation? Hint: The nominally Christian West.


- Assorted other crimes against humanity throughout the Yugoslav
civil wars.


And just *who* sent the bulk of the troops in to stop this
and remediate the situation? Hint: The nominally Christian West.


Most of those actions above were ostensibly motived by
intollerance of Christians for other Christians (e.g. authoritians
vs liberation theologists), or non-Christians, or other sorts of
bigotry common to, though not by any means exclusive to, \
Christians

Baloney. There were cases of this, but the horrors you described
were mostly irreligious in their motivation.


If you want to consider purely politically motivated wars by
Christians then:

- I'll not try to estimate how many Christians have killled people
in wars since the early 1970s, but if we go back to the start
of the 20th century it is a fair bet that Christians killed tens
times as many as have the Muslims since then.

But mostly *not* primarily in the name of a religious cause.


- Don't you agree that the predominantly Lutheran and Catholic
Germans, who supported the Roman Catholic Austrian, Hitler,
and the Catholic Italians are primarily responsible for WWII in
Europe? If you 'credit' half the toll to the atheist Soviets,
that still leaves 20 million or so to blame on the Christians.

Oh, it's likely higher than 20 million. But saying "Hitler was
Catholic" is not logically equivalent to "Hitler acted *because*
he was Catholic".


- Then there is WWI to consider.

Which, again, was not religiously motivated.

OTOH, consider the actions of _some_ Christians, like the Amish
in Eastern PA who recently etablished a charitable fund to provide
assistance for the widow and daughters of the man who murdered
several of their own daughters.

Or the Sufis in general.

I would not make the mistake of assuming that religion is
inherently evil. But evil men may turn it to their desires as
easily as good men do.

I do not assume any such thing. Humans have the capacity to inflict
unspeakable horror upon each other. And, yes, most all the religions
have acted badly at some point in history. But we are concerned here
with current events. In the current situation, the horrid acts of
the Muslim radical minority is met with deafening silence from the majority
and Islamic clergy. There are a few brave and noble voices there speaking,
but they are so few that they are mostly unheard. Moreover the 20th
century butchers like Tojo, Stalin, & Hitler were roundly and loudly
condemned from the pulpit and the street, and the West put their
blood and treasure on the line to stop these monsters. Where is the
Islamic equivalent of a WWII, Nuremberg Trials, Cold War or they
many related activities levied against their own monsters?

Yes, Islam will likely calm down over time and join the rest of the planet
in subjugating religious radicalism to secular democratic law. But in the
mean time, it is the threat of the moment and cannot be excused on the
ground that "we were naughty in the past, so we have no moral authority
to stop you". We *do* have the moral authority to do so, precisely because
we've (the West) has been there and done that and don't want to see that
particular movie again. It would be nice if the "holy men" of Islam would
help by acting loudly to condemn what is going on instead of throwing
gasoline on the fire ...


--

FF



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:

Let us consider some Christian actions, during the same period of
time:

- Chaining a man behind a truck and dragging him to his death.

Condemned widely and loudly by both Christian laity AND clergy unlike
the deafening silence heard through the overwhelming part of the Islamic
world when their adherents behave badly.


Do you read any newpapers or watch any television stations or listen
to any radio from predominantly Muslim nations? I do not, therefor
I do not know if what you say is true or not.


- Planting an detonating bombs that indiscriminately killed civilian
men, women and children during sectarian warfare between
Christian sects in the British Islands.


Condemned widely and loudly by both Christian laity AND clergy unlike
the deafening silence heard through the overwhelming part of the Islamic
world when their adherents behave badly.


So what did the world do?

Do you read any newpapers or watch any television stations or listen
to any radio from predominantly Muslim nations? I do not, therefor
I do not know if what you say is true or not.


- Raping and murdering Christian Nuns in el Salvador.


Condemned widely and loudly by both Christian laity AND clergy unlike
the deafening silence heard through the overwhelming part of the Islamic
world when their adherents behave badly.


And yet, what did we DO? As I recall, our Secretary of State
told us that the nuns were caught in a crossfire and accidently
killed (and accidently raped too, I suppose).

Do you read any newpapers or watch any television stations or listen
to any radio from predominantly Muslim nations? I do not, therefor
I do not know if what you say is true or not.


- 'Disapearing' 30,000 people in Argentina, sometimes murdering
parents so that their children could be adopted by childless
Christian elitists.


Condemned widely and loudly by pretty much everyone unlike
the deafening silence heard through the overwhelming part of the Islamic
world when their adherents behave badly.


Do you read any newpapers or watch any television stations or listen
to any radio from predominantly Muslim nations? I do not, therefor
I do not know if what you say is true or not.


- Running a major white slavery ring in Eastern Europe primarily
preying on Ukraining women to supply brothels in other parts of
Eastern and Southern Europe.

Horrible, and hardly noticed by the West generally (to our everlasting
shame). BUT ... not motivated by any obvious religiosity nor in the name
of any religion unlike ... well, You Know Who.


Do you read any newpapers or watch any television stations or listen
to any radio from predominantly Muslim nations? I do not, therefor
I do not know if what you say is true or not.


- Murder and violence especially against Muslim Women in
Azherbeijan.

Horrible, and hardly noticed by the West generally (to our everlasting
shame). BUT ... not motivated by any obvious religiosity nor in the name
of any religion unlike ... well, You Know Who.


The sectarian violence in Azherbeijan was largely along religous lines.

Do you read any newpapers or watch any television stations or listen
to any radio from predominantly Muslim nations? I do not, therefor
I do not know if what you say is true or not.


- Murder torture rape of both sexes and arbitrary imprisonment
of thousands of fellow Christians and Native Americans in Chile.


Horrible, and hardly noticed by the West generally (to our everlasting
shame). BUT ... not motivated by any obvious religiosity nor in the name
of any religion unlike ... well, You Know Who.


Perhaps you are not familiar with liberation theology.

Do you read any newpapers or watch any television stations or listen
to any radio from predominantly Muslim nations? I do not, therefor
I do not know if what you say is true or not.


- Murder torture and arbitrary imprisonment
of thousands and seizure and destruction of land in an effort
to eradicate entire Native American ethnic groups in Guatamala.


Horrible, and hardly noticed by the West generally (to our everlasting
shame). BUT ... not motivated by any obvious religiosity nor in the name
of any religion unlike ... well, You Know Who.


Perhaps you are not familiar with liberation theology. I'm not clear
on
what 'religiosity' means, but the Native Americans in queston were not
Christian, at least not of the same sort as their oppressors.

Do you read any newpapers or watch any television stations or listen
to any radio from predominantly Muslim nations? I do not, therefor
I do not know if what you say is true or not.


- Mass murder of Muslim men and mass rape of Muslim women
in Bosnia.

And just *who* sent the bulk of the troops in to stop this
and remediate the situation? Hint: The nominally Christian West.

After several years, yes. Then the Republican Party (dominated by
pseudo-Christians) attacked Clinton for intervening.



- Assorted other crimes against humanity throughout the Yugoslav
civil wars.


And just *who* sent the bulk of the troops in to stop this
and remediate the situation? Hint: The nominally Christian West.


After several years, yes. Then the Republican Party (dominated by
pseudo-Christians) attacked Clinton for intervening.


Most of those actions above were ostensibly motived by
intollerance of Christians for other Christians (e.g. authoritians
vs liberation theologists), or non-Christians, or other sorts of
bigotry common to, though not by any means exclusive to, \
Christians

Baloney. There were cases of this, but the horrors you described
were mostly irreligious in their motivation.

We disagree.



If you want to consider purely politically motivated wars by
Christians then:

- I'll not try to estimate how many Christians have killled people
in wars since the early 1970s, but if we go back to the start
of the 20th century it is a fair bet that Christians killed tens
times as many as have the Muslims since then.

But mostly *not* primarily in the name of a religious cause.

Yes, like the wars fought between Muslim nations that you
previously mentioned.



- Don't you agree that the predominantly Lutheran and Catholic
Germans, who supported the Roman Catholic Austrian, Hitler,
and the Catholic Italians are primarily responsible for WWII in
Europe? If you 'credit' half the toll to the atheist Soviets,
that still leaves 20 million or so to blame on the Christians.

Oh, it's likely higher than 20 million. But saying "Hitler was
Catholic" is not logically equivalent to "Hitler acted *because*
he was Catholic".

Indeed. The same is true with respect to the Iarq-Iran war for
instance, though not with respect to some of the Iranian tactics.



- Then there is WWI to consider.

Which, again, was not religiously motivated.

See above.


OTOH, consider the actions of _some_ Christians, like the Amish
in Eastern PA who recently etablished a charitable fund to provide
assistance for the widow and daughters of the man who murdered
several of their own daughters.

Or the Sufis in general.

I would not make the mistake of assuming that religion is
inherently evil. But evil men may turn it to their desires as
easily as good men do.

I do not assume any such thing. Humans have the capacity to inflict
unspeakable horror upon each other. And, yes, most all the religions
have acted badly at some point in history. But we are concerned here
with current events. In the current situation, the horrid acts of
the Muslim radical minority is met with deafening silence from the majority
and Islamic clergy.


Do you read any newpapers or watch any television stations or listen
to any radio from predominantly Muslim nations? I do not, therefor
I do not know if what you say is true or not. If you do not, then
neither do you.

You _may_ be right. But it looks to me like you are assuming from
a lack of reportage in the English (and whatever other languages you
read) media, and have not actually investigated the issue.

As I mentioned before, the condemnation of violent jihad by
the largest Iman in North American has been ignored in the
English -language media.and newspapers.


There are a few brave and noble voices there speaking,
but they are so few that they are mostly unheard. Moreover the 20th
century butchers like Tojo, Stalin, & Hitler were roundly and loudly
condemned from the pulpit and the street, and the West put their
blood and treasure on the line to stop these monsters. Where is the
Islamic equivalent of a WWII, Nuremberg Trials, Cold War or they
many related activities levied against their own monsters?

Well the Iranians did want to try the Shah, and the Iraqis are
trying Sadddam Hussein. We won't let Afghanistan try the
Taliban (yet). The rest of the monsters, like Musharrif,
Niyazov, the Sauds, even Kaddafi are our allies, we support
them so maybe we shouldn't be pointitng fingers elsewhere.

--

FF

Yeah, and most of those muslims don't even know what plywood is, or was.

Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...

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).


Let us consider some Christian actions, during the same period of
time:

- Chaining a man behind a truck and dragging him to his death.

Condemned widely and loudly by both Christian laity AND clergy unlike
the deafening silence heard through the overwhelming part of the
Islamic world when their adherents behave badly.


- Planting an detonating bombs that indiscriminately killed
civilian
men, women and children during sectarian warfare between
Christian sects in the British Islands.


Condemned widely and loudly by both Christian laity AND clergy unlike
the deafening silence heard through the overwhelming part of the
Islamic world when their adherents behave badly.


- Raping and murdering Christian Nuns in el Salvador.


Condemned widely and loudly by both Christian laity AND clergy unlike
the deafening silence heard through the overwhelming part of the
Islamic world when their adherents behave badly.


- 'Disapearing' 30,000 people in Argentina, sometimes murdering
parents so that their children could be adopted by childless
Christian elitists.


Condemned widely and loudly by pretty much everyone unlike
the deafening silence heard through the overwhelming part of the
Islamic world when their adherents behave badly.


- Running a major white slavery ring in Eastern Europe primarily
preying on Ukraining women to supply brothels in other parts of
Eastern and Southern Europe.

Horrible, and hardly noticed by the West generally (to our everlasting
shame). BUT ... not motivated by any obvious religiosity nor in the
name of any religion unlike ... well, You Know Who.


- Murder and violence especially against Muslim Women in
Azherbeijan.

Horrible, and hardly noticed by the West generally (to our everlasting
shame). BUT ... not motivated by any obvious religiosity nor in the
name of any religion unlike ... well, You Know Who.


- Murder torture rape of both sexes and arbitrary imprisonment
of thousands of fellow Christians and Native Americans in Chile.


Horrible, and hardly noticed by the West generally (to our everlasting
shame). BUT ... not motivated by any obvious religiosity nor in the
name of any religion unlike ... well, You Know Who.


- Murder torture and arbitrary imprisonment
of thousands and seizure and destruction of land in an effort
to eradicate entire Native American ethnic groups in Guatamala.


Horrible, and hardly noticed by the West generally (to our everlasting
shame). BUT ... not motivated by any obvious religiosity nor in the
name of any religion unlike ... well, You Know Who.


- Mass murder of Muslim men and mass rape of Muslim women
in Bosnia.

And just *who* sent the bulk of the troops in to stop this
and remediate the situation? Hint: The nominally Christian West.


- Assorted other crimes against humanity throughout the Yugoslav
civil wars.


And just *who* sent the bulk of the troops in to stop this
and remediate the situation? Hint: The nominally Christian West.


Most of those actions above were ostensibly motived by
intollerance of Christians for other Christians (e.g. authoritians
vs liberation theologists), or non-Christians, or other sorts of
bigotry common to, though not by any means exclusive to, \
Christians

Baloney. There were cases of this, but the horrors you described
were mostly irreligious in their motivation.


If you want to consider purely politically motivated wars by
Christians then:

- I'll not try to estimate how many Christians have killled people
in wars since the early 1970s, but if we go back to the start
of the 20th century it is a fair bet that Christians killed tens
times as many as have the Muslims since then.

But mostly *not* primarily in the name of a religious cause.


- Don't you agree that the predominantly Lutheran and Catholic
Germans, who supported the Roman Catholic Austrian, Hitler,
and the Catholic Italians are primarily responsible for WWII in
Europe? If you 'credit' half the toll to the atheist Soviets,
that still leaves 20 million or so to blame on the Christians.

Oh, it's likely higher than 20 million. But saying "Hitler was
Catholic" is not logically equivalent to "Hitler acted *because*
he was Catholic".


- Then there is WWI to consider.

Which, again, was not religiously motivated.

OTOH, consider the actions of _some_ Christians, like the Amish
in Eastern PA who recently etablished a charitable fund to provide
assistance for the widow and daughters of the man who murdered
several of their own daughters.

Or the Sufis in general.

I would not make the mistake of assuming that religion is
inherently evil. But evil men may turn it to their desires as
easily as good men do.

I do not assume any such thing. Humans have the capacity to inflict
unspeakable horror upon each other. And, yes, most all the religions
have acted badly at some point in history. But we are concerned here
with current events. In the current situation, the horrid acts of
the Muslim radical minority is met with deafening silence from the
majority and Islamic clergy. There are a few brave and noble voices
there speaking, but they are so few that they are mostly unheard.
Moreover the 20th century butchers like Tojo, Stalin, & Hitler were
roundly and loudly condemned from the pulpit and the street, and the
West put their blood and treasure on the line to stop these monsters.
Where is the Islamic equivalent of a WWII, Nuremberg Trials, Cold War
or they many related activities levied against their own monsters?

Yes, Islam will likely calm down over time and join the rest of the
planet in subjugating religious radicalism to secular democratic law.
But in the mean time, it is the threat of the moment and cannot be
excused on the ground that "we were naughty in the past, so we have no
moral authority to stop you". We *do* have the moral authority to do
so, precisely because we've (the West) has been there and done that
and don't want to see that particular movie again. It would be nice
if the "holy men" of Islam would help by acting loudly to condemn what
is going on instead of throwing gasoline on the fire ...


--

FF




Tim, give it up. It's like ****ing in the wind. It's going to come back
to you from a different direction, but still smell the same.
Regards,
Hank

wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:

Let us consider some Christian actions, during the same period of
time:

- Chaining a man behind a truck and dragging him to his death.
Condemned widely and loudly by both Christian laity AND clergy unlike
the deafening silence heard through the overwhelming part of the Islamic
world when their adherents behave badly.


Do you read any newpapers or watch any television stations or listen
to any radio from predominantly Muslim nations? I do not, therefor
I do not know if what you say is true or not.

Yes, several ... weekly when possible, see below.


- Planting an detonating bombs that indiscriminately killed civilian
men, women and children during sectarian warfare between
Christian sects in the British Islands.

Condemned widely and loudly by both Christian laity AND clergy unlike
the deafening silence heard through the overwhelming part of the Islamic
world when their adherents behave badly.


So what did the world do?

Maintained pressure on the participants until they reached an understanding.
If you're arguing that no one magically made the problem disappear,
then I agree. Then again, people of your political bent tend to believe
in magic whereas I do not. I never believed the current issues with Islam
have some simple solution, merely that it's reasonable to hold the Islamic
leaders - both secular and religious - accountable for what they do.


Do you read any newpapers or watch any television stations or listen
to any radio from predominantly Muslim nations? I do not, therefor
I do not know if what you say is true or not.

Yes, several ... weekly when possible, see below.


- Raping and murdering Christian Nuns in el Salvador.

Condemned widely and loudly by both Christian laity AND clergy unlike
the deafening silence heard through the overwhelming part of the Islamic
world when their adherents behave badly.


And yet, what did we DO? As I recall, our Secretary of State
told us that the nuns were caught in a crossfire and accidently
killed (and accidently raped too, I suppose).

I do not recall all the particulars.


Do you read any newpapers or watch any television stations or listen
to any radio from predominantly Muslim nations? I do not, therefor
I do not know if what you say is true or not.

Yes, several ... weekly when possible, see below.


- 'Disapearing' 30,000 people in Argentina, sometimes murdering
parents so that their children could be adopted by childless
Christian elitists.

Condemned widely and loudly by pretty much everyone unlike
the deafening silence heard through the overwhelming part of the Islamic
world when their adherents behave badly.


Do you read any newpapers or watch any television stations or listen
to any radio from predominantly Muslim nations? I do not, therefor
I do not know if what you say is true or not.

Yes, several ... weekly when possible, see below.


- Running a major white slavery ring in Eastern Europe primarily
preying on Ukraining women to supply brothels in other parts of
Eastern and Southern Europe.
Horrible, and hardly noticed by the West generally (to our everlasting
shame). BUT ... not motivated by any obvious religiosity nor in the name
of any religion unlike ... well, You Know Who.


Do you read any newpapers or watch any television stations or listen
to any radio from predominantly Muslim nations? I do not, therefor
I do not know if what you say is true or not.

Yes, several ... weekly when possible, see below.


- Murder and violence especially against Muslim Women in
Azherbeijan.
Horrible, and hardly noticed by the West generally (to our everlasting
shame). BUT ... not motivated by any obvious religiosity nor in the name
of any religion unlike ... well, You Know Who.


The sectarian violence in Azherbeijan was largely along religous lines.

Do you read any newpapers or watch any television stations or listen
to any radio from predominantly Muslim nations? I do not, therefor
I do not know if what you say is true or not.v

Yes, several ... weekly when possible, see below.


- Murder torture rape of both sexes and arbitrary imprisonment
of thousands of fellow Christians and Native Americans in Chile.

Horrible, and hardly noticed by the West generally (to our everlasting
shame). BUT ... not motivated by any obvious religiosity nor in the name
of any religion unlike ... well, You Know Who.


Perhaps you are not familiar with liberation theology.

I am painfully aware of it. It is essentially collectivism in religious drag.


Do you read any newpapers or watch any television stations or listen
to any radio from predominantly Muslim nations? I do not, therefor
I do not know if what you say is true or not.

Yes, several ... weekly when possible, see below.


- Murder torture and arbitrary imprisonment
of thousands and seizure and destruction of land in an effort
to eradicate entire Native American ethnic groups in Guatamala.

Horrible, and hardly noticed by the West generally (to our everlasting
shame). BUT ... not motivated by any obvious religiosity nor in the name
of any religion unlike ... well, You Know Who.


Perhaps you are not familiar with liberation theology. I'm not clear
on
what 'religiosity' means, but the Native Americans in queston were not
Christian, at least not of the same sort as their oppressors.

Do you read any newpapers or watch any television stations or listen
to any radio from predominantly Muslim nations? I do not, therefor
I do not know if what you say is true or not.


Yes, several ... weekly when possible, see below.

SNIP


I would not make the mistake of assuming that religion is
inherently evil. But evil men may turn it to their desires as
easily as good men do.
I do not assume any such thing. Humans have the capacity to inflict
unspeakable horror upon each other. And, yes, most all the religions
have acted badly at some point in history. But we are concerned here
with current events. In the current situation, the horrid acts of
the Muslim radical minority is met with deafening silence from the majority
and Islamic clergy.


Do you read any newpapers or watch any television stations or listen
to any radio from predominantly Muslim nations? I do not, therefor
I do not know if what you say is true or not. If you do not, then
neither do you.

But I do. I try to get to Middle Eastern news (via the web) at
least a couple times a week. The silence about the excesses of
the radicals is thunderous.

You too can join the fun:

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/index.htm
http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage
http://www.debka.com/
http://www.jpost.com
http://www.tehrantimes.com/
http://www.memri.org/


You _may_ be right. But it looks to me like you are assuming from
a lack of reportage in the English (and whatever other languages you
read) media, and have not actually investigated the issue.

As always, your need to defend your ideology allows you to presume
things that are completely false. I'm no expert on the region, but
I'm reasonably well read on the matter (or at least I try to be).


As I mentioned before, the condemnation of violent jihad by
the largest Iman in North American has been ignored in the
English -language media.and newspapers.

Actually it wasn't - it just wasn't all that important. Radical
Islam was not born in, nor is it largely being incubated within
North America. The Muslims of Detroit are unlikely to rise up
in Jihad anytime soon. The clerics that need to be speaking up -
and are essentially mute or busy pouring gasoline on the fire -
are the clerics in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia (especially Mecca
and Medina), etc.



There are a few brave and noble voices there speaking,
but they are so few that they are mostly unheard. Moreover the 20th
century butchers like Tojo, Stalin, & Hitler were roundly and loudly
condemned from the pulpit and the street, and the West put their
blood and treasure on the line to stop these monsters. Where is the
Islamic equivalent of a WWII, Nuremberg Trials, Cold War or they
many related activities levied against their own monsters?

Well the Iranians did want to try the Shah, and the Iraqis are
trying Sadddam Hussein. We won't let Afghanistan try the
Taliban (yet). The rest of the monsters, like Musharrif,
Niyazov, the Sauds, even Kaddafi are our allies, we support
them so maybe we shouldn't be pointitng fingers elsewhere.


Your analysis is puerile. The world is an imperfect place. It is not our
job to make everyone else perfect, nor can we afford to work with only
people who suit our sense of propriety. And, yes, sometimes that means
doing business with unsavory characters. The purpose of government -
something you and your ilk seem never to grasp - is to keep us *free*,
not to remediate the moral failings of other people. Therein the Left
and Right think the same way: You all want to use the force of
government to inflict your "morality" on everyone else ... at the point
of a gun.

Our interdiction in Iran historically, and more recently Afghanistan and
Iraq, is all about what is good for us (arguably). Part of the reason
this entire topic is so ridiculous is that both the Left and Right keep
arguing for some high-minded morality when doing what they do. The Right
wants to inflict some kind of democracy at the point of a gun, the Left
soils itself waiting for some version of "perfection" to arrive. But the
willingness to use military force should be limited to that necessary to
lower the threat to our liberty to an acceptable level. We can argue
about whether that was the case or not in Iraq, or whether it will be in
Iran/Syria/ Saudi Arabia et all, but the principle remains: Never go to
war to inflict your worldview upon others. Only go when there is an
issue of your own liberty at stake. Bush argued Sadaam was such a threat
- I agree. But he then went further to say it was the West's job to
create and environment where democracy could flourish - I disagree.
That's a job for the indigenous peoples of the region.




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Henry St.Pierre wrote:
SNIP


Tim, give it up. It's like ****ing in the wind. It's going to come back
to you from a different direction, but still smell the same.
Regards,
Hank


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 20:07:59 -0700, Robatoy wrote:

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets,
and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were
possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

And this is relevant how?

Bill wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 20:07:59 -0700, Robatoy wrote:


Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets,
and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were
possible, they shall deceive the very elect.


And this is relevant how?
Rush is toast. D&R.
love conquers awl,
jo4hn
;-)

wrote:
SNIP

So what did the world do?
Maintained pressure on the participants until they reached an understanding.
If you're arguing that no one magically made the problem disappear,
then I agree. Then again, people of your political bent tend to believe
in magic whereas I do not. I never believed the current issues with Islam
have some simple solution, merely that it's reasonable to hold the Islamic
leaders - both secular and religious - accountable for what they do.

I don't recall the world putting ANY pressure on the participants.
Did the Britidh government disarm the Protestant militias? No.
Did the Pope excomunicate the IRA leaders? No.

The Brits tried to, but this was difficult because: a) The combatants
in question wore plainclothes and hid in civilian homes and b) The
Drooling Equivocators in the West tended to portray the IRA as
"Freedom Fighters" when they were, in fact, evil scoundrels ...
not unlike the excused today's Left makes for Islamic excesses.

SNIP



Do you read any newpapers or watch any television stations or listen
to any radio from predominantly Muslim nations? I do not, therefor
I do not know if what you say is true or not. If you do not, then
neither do you.
But I do. I try to get to Middle Eastern news (via the web) at
least a couple times a week. The silence about the excesses of
the radicals is thunderous.

You too can join the fun:

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/index.htm
http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage
http://www.debka.com/
http://www.jpost.com
http://www.tehrantimes.com/
http://www.memri.org/

Those are all ENglish language websites. Surely you are not
suggesting that they are representative of journalism in
predominantly Muslim countries.

So I conclude that you do NOT read any newpapers
or watch any television stations or listen
to any radio from predominantly Muslim nations.
I do not, therefor I do not know if what you say is
true or not.

But it is becoming clearer that you do not know if
it is true or not.

Let's deconstruct your logic above to expose it for the foolishness
it is. From your comments above it follows that:

1) Anything other than the native tongue is not "representative"
of the worldview of the speaker in question.

2) We cannot reliably know things translated from and by the people
of a given region who *intended* for us to read/hear/see these
things in *our* native tongue.

3) In fact, this problem is so bad, that even when reading a
breadth of perspectives translated into English - perspectives
ranging from hardcore Islamist to hardcore Zionist to something
in between - we *still* can't know anything ... because they're
not being read in their native tongues. (P.S and big hint, MEMRI,
in particular was specifically created to make speeches and writings
in Arabic available in English by means of high-quality translations.)

Therefo

4) You are hereby prohibited from expressing any opinion about France,
Italy, Norway, Russia, China, et al unless you are a native speaker
reader of their respective languages. So, unless you have mastery
of many languages as a minimum cost of entry, you have no place
ever discussing geopolitics again.

5) (And here's the real genius of your argument): I argued that there
was a "deafening silence" when reading the arguments of the Arab
world to the English speaking world. Your conclusion is that the
English translations are not "reliable" and that we "don't know"
whether there is widespread pressure by Islamic "moderates" upon their
radical brethren. So, (using your impeccable logic), we're left
with two possibilities:

i) The "moderate" Islamists are *not* putting pressure on their
radical brethern in any large way.

ii) The "moderate" Islamists *are* putting pressure on their
radical brethren but they are also purposely keeping
it a secret from their English speaking readership by
intentionally not letting us know about it.

Your argument is absurd on its face.

All this leads one to speculate just *why* you cling to such obvious and
patently ridiculous lines of thought. The truth is that you and your ilk
never found a Western Democracy perfect enough to support with any real
enthusiasm, but you jump right in with sympathy and big lefty tears for
every tin pot dictator, despot, murderer, and lunatic that spews forth
from the various sewers around the world. After all we need to
"understand" their reasons for doing as they do, since clearly "Good"
and "Evil" are anachronisms you threw out at the same time you were busy
denying the importance and role of religious faith. Your ilk (and
probably you as well) were busy being very quiet when Hussein was
savaging his own people and his sons busily pushing people into
industrial shredders just to be able to hear them scream a bit longer.
On these kinds of horrors our fine Left has not much to say, but when it
comes to Bush and Blair ... oh wait, let's have you speak for yourself:


Plainly, this administration wants conflict.

Right. Sadaam & Son's butcher the innocent by the thousands, but it's
*Bush's* fault there is conflict in the region. It's the democratic West
that sacrifices blood and treasure to try and make the world just
slightly better and *we're* the problem, not the Hussein family, not the
beheading Islamic butchers of Al Queda, not the slave traders of
Mauretania, not vile savages of the Darfur, and certainly not the
various intellectual elites that advise us on our required degree of
Multicultural Tolerance (tm). It's *us*, the West that is always at
fault because were just not perfect enough for you and the rest of the
self-anointed elites.

In actual fact, the truth about you and your fellow travelers is much
simpler than this. In the words of David Pryce-Jones, you regularly
commit "Treasons Of The Heart". You would do well to read this:


http://www.newcriterion.com/archives...-of-the-heart/

It's worth the few dollars it costs. You would do well to read this
precisely because maybe, just maybe, you'll look into a moral mirror and
realize how foul, corruptive, and ultimately evil your ideas are.




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
SNIP

So what did the world do?
Maintained pressure on the participants until they reached an understanding.
If you're arguing that no one magically made the problem disappear,
then I agree. Then again, people of your political bent tend to believe
in magic whereas I do not. I never believed the current issues with Islam
have some simple solution, merely that it's reasonable to hold the Islamic
leaders - both secular and religious - accountable for what they do.

I don't recall the world putting ANY pressure on the
participants.
Did the Britidh government disarm the Protestant militias? No.
Did the Pope excomunicate the IRA leaders? No.

The Brits tried to, but this was difficult because: a) The combatants
in question wore plainclothes and hid in civilian homes and b) The
Drooling Equivocators in the West tended to portray the IRA as
"Freedom Fighters" when they were, in fact, evil scoundrels ...
not unlike the excused today's Left makes for Islamic excesses.

Bull****.

On holidays the Protestant militias marched down the middle of
the streets displaying theiir arms openly.



SNIP



Do you read any newpapers or watch any television stations or listen
to any radio from predominantly Muslim nations? I do not, therefor
I do not know if what you say is true or not. If you do not, then
neither do you.
But I do. I try to get to Middle Eastern news (via the web) at
least a couple times a week. The silence about the excesses of
the radicals is thunderous.

You too can join the fun:

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/index.htm
http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage
http://www.debka.com/
http://www.jpost.com
http://www.tehrantimes.com/
http://www.memri.org/

Those are all ENglish language websites. Surely you are not
suggesting that they are representative of journalism in
predominantly Muslim countries.

So I conclude that you do NOT read any newpapers
or watch any television stations or listen
to any radio from predominantly Muslim nations.
I do not, therefor I do not know if what you say is
true or not.

But it is becoming clearer that you do not know if
it is true or not.

Let's deconstruct your logic above to expose it for the foolishness
it is. From your comments above it follows that:

1) Anything other than the native tongue is not "representative"
of the worldview of the speaker in question.

Non Sequitor.

That does not follow from my conclusion that it is
prudent to suppose that English-Language webpages
are written specifically to cater to the putative
'world view' of native speakers of English.


2) We cannot reliably know things translated from and by the people
of a given region who *intended* for us to read/hear/see these
things in *our* native tongue.

Non-Sequitor

That does not follow from my conclusion that we
(meaning you or I) do not know that the webages
are translations of anything that was published
in any other languages, or representative thereof.


3) In fact, this problem is so bad, that even when reading a
breadth of perspectives translated into English - perspectives
ranging from hardcore Islamist to hardcore Zionist to something
in between - we *still* can't know anything ... because they're
not being read in their native tongues. (P.S and big hint, MEMRI,
in particular was specifically created to make speeches and writings
in Arabic available in English by means of high-quality translations.)


Non-Sequitor

That does not follow from my conclusion that we
(meaning you or I) do not know that the webages
are translations of anything that was published
in any other language.

A broad spectrum of writing published for native speakers
of English and catering to their 'world-view' is STILL
writtne for native speakers fo English and STILL caters
to their 'world-view' .

Therefo

4) You are hereby prohibited from expressing any opinion about France,
Italy, Norway, Russia, China, et al unless you are a native speaker
reader of their respective languages. So, unless you have mastery
of many languages as a minimum cost of entry, you have no place
ever discussing geopolitics again.


As is usual with your type you have decided, _a priori_
on your conclusions and then go out to look for evidence
to support it. Upon finding little or no such evidence
you than take non-evidence and falsely claim that it
suports your conclusion.

Then you assert a (God-given, one supposes) right to
direct others to cease and desist from challenging you.
..
5) (And here's the real genius of your argument): I argued that there
was a "deafening silence" when reading the arguments of the Arab
world to the English speaking world. Your conclusion is that the
English translations are not "reliable" and that we "don't know"
whether there is widespread pressure by Islamic "moderates" upon their
radical brethren. So, (using your impeccable logic), we're left
with two possibilities:

Oh, here is another tactic popular with your type.
Realizing that your argument is being exposed
as the crap it is, you are now changing it to
another argument, substantively different from
what you earlier asserted. Now you are restricting
that 'deafening silence' to "FROM the Arab world
TO the English speaking world" (emphacis mine).
Previously you referred to "the deafening silence
heard through the overwhelming part of the Islamic
world"

*I* have heard heard Muslims condemning senseless
violence, specifically in response to the rioting that
followed the Danish cartoons. Maybe that is because
I listen to PRI, NPR, and C-Span.

E.g. one Pakistani, when asked if he found the cartoons
offensive replied, "Yes, I am offended by the cartoons.
But I am more offended by the violent reaction to the
cartoons. Burning a church does not restore my
dignity. Killing a Christian does not restore my dignity."
and so on.


It took me all of thirty seconds to find these examples
of that deafening silence using just one of your
references:

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD133206

"There is a difference between an investor and
a destroyer, a bomber and a constructor, between
those who respect human rights and preserve human
integrity, and those who kill innocent people
cold-bloodedly, spreading fear, panic and poverty
among human beings, causing people to lose
sleep, and destroying their lands."

"...what Osama bin Laden does... planning how to
blow up, destroy and kill; he has introduced the
idea of suicide bombers, has founded a terrorist
organization, and he does not differentiate between
killing a child, a widow, or an elderly."

"Pure Islam and the real Prophet's message are
represented by what is implemented by Yunus and
Adu Latif Jameel, and not by bin Laden, al-Zawahiri
and those like them,.."

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD133306

Abu Qatada Al-Falastini: The Pursuit of Religious
Knowledge is More Important Than Jihad

On October 22, 2006, an Islamist website posted an
old fatwa by the U.K.-based Muslim scholar Abu
Qatada Al-Falastini, a key Al-Qaeda operative
currently in prison. The fatwa states that "the
pursuit of [religious] knowledge (talab al-'ilm) is
more important than [waging] jihad in the path
of Allah..." and that "the state of [moral] decay
[among Muslims today] stems from the fact that
the mujahideen and other Muslims lack [sufficient
religious] knowledge."

The posting sparked a fierce debate among the
forum members. ...

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD133506

Al-Riyadh: "Today, do you feel that you were wrong
to set out [to Afghanistan], obeying some irresponsible
fatwas?"

Al-Bidna: "Of course. I [now] understand that I was wrong.
I should have asked the leaders for permission to set out
[and wage jihad], or religious scholars known for their
knowledge and piety, of which there are many in our country..."

It would seem that either you don't read the sources you cite,
or you don't allow what you read there to change your conclusions.


i) The "moderate" Islamists are *not* putting pressure on their
radical brethern in any large way.

ii) The "moderate" Islamists *are* putting pressure on their
radical brethren but they are also purposely keeping
it a secret from their English speaking readership by
intentionally not letting us know about it.

Your argument is absurd on its face.

That's not my argument. It is your own maliciously
constructed straw man that you falsely attribute to
me. Yet another tactic popular with your ilk.

*My* argument was that we (you and I as individuals)
had insuficient information with which to reach your
conclusion. The idea that one should accept the
uncertainty of a proposition unless and until properly
researching it so as to arrive upon a probable truth is,
evidently, alien to you. In the alternative, you DID
realize that was my argument but went on to
deliberately mistrepresent it.

I generally fault our education system which has long
taught students to do 'research' in precisely your manner.
That is to choose a proposition and then to find evidence
and argument to support it. While there is _some_ value
to that process as a purely intellectual exercise it is
worse than useless as a modus operandi for the
aquisition of knowledge. What has been under-emphasised,
if not conspiculously absent from our education system,
has been the teaching what some call 'critical thinking'
or any process whereby the student judiciously
avoids reaching a conclusion and investigates the veracity
of a proposition, respecting always the potential that
the best conclusion may be an acceptance of ambiguity
or uncertaintly.

However, as you claim to have been educated outside
of the US, I cannot put the blame, in the instant case,
on our education system.


All this leads one to speculate just *why* you cling to such obvious and
patently ridiculous lines of thought.

Oh, now you move from your false conclusion to 'speculation'
as to _my_ motivation for that false conclusion. How high will
you stack your house of cards?

The truth is that you and your ilk
never found a Western Democracy perfect enough to support with any real
enthusiasm, but you jump right in with sympathy and big lefty tears for
every tin pot dictator, despot, murderer, and lunatic that spews forth
from the various sewers around the world. After all we need to
"understand" their reasons for doing as they do, since clearly "Good"
and "Evil" are anachronisms you threw out at the same time you were busy
denying the importance and role of religious faith. Your ilk (and
probably you as well) were busy being very quiet when Hussein was
savaging his own people and his sons busily pushing people into
industrial shredders just to be able to hear them scream a bit longer.
On these kinds of horrors our fine Left has not much to say, but when it
comes to Bush and Blair ... oh wait, let's have you speak for yourself:

Thank you for such a clear example of your intellectually
dishonest approach to debate. After misrepresenting my
present opinions, and having no knowledge of my past
opinions, you present a false proposition about those past
opinions, conclude, without evidence, that it is true, and
then build your straw man upon that foundation. The usual
responce when this is pointed out, would be to accuse
me of lying to hide a secret agenda. The "he's lying"
argument is ever the fallback position of the intellectually
bankrupt as it eliminates reliance on reason, and rests
on faith in the speaker instead.

Before you came along, I really didn't know just how high
bull**** could be stacked.



Plainly, this administration wants conflict.

Right. Sadaam & Son's butcher the innocent by the thousands, but it's
*Bush's* fault there is conflict in the region. It's the democratic West
that sacrifices blood and treasure to try and make the world just
slightly better and *we're* the problem, not the Hussein family, not the
beheading Islamic butchers of Al Queda, not the slave traders of
Mauretania, not vile savages of the Darfur, and certainly not the
various intellectual elites that advise us on our required degree of
Multicultural Tolerance (tm). It's *us*, the West that is always at
fault because were just not perfect enough for you and the rest of the
self-anointed elites.

I disagree.

In Darfur, the present policy is basicly the same as it was
with Saddam Hussein in the Reagan era. Bashir is the
new Saddam Hussein. The present administratino thinks
he serves some marginally useful purpose (e.g. supressing
Islamic extremists). While he hasn't been getting the support
that Hussein did, we are standing in the way of any meaningful
action against him. The idea that the solution to the problem
must be an African solution, the troops to enforce it must
be African Union troops assures inadequacy. The fact is
that where African Union troops are present in Darfur, the
Sudanese Air Force and Janjaweed militia do not attack.
But the AU does not have enough troops to provide adequate
coverage. If the UN were allowed to send in peace keepers
in sufficient numbers, with AU personell as liasons with the
locals. Bashir would not dare to continue his pogrom.
If he does, then a no-fly zone over Darfur could be enforced
from the French air bases in Chad.

In North Korea, direct talks between the US and N. Korea
resulted in shutting down their PU production, with cameras
installed to assure compliance. NK DID continue a
clandstine Uranium-enrichment program.

Here,
some technical knowledge is necessary to undertand
why that was not a complete failure of the agreement.
Keep in mind that Uranium enrichment per se is not a
volation ofthe NPT. It was the clandestine nature of the
program, that was in bad faith. Uranium must be highly
enriched (exactly how high is classified at least 65%)
to be used for a bomb but 3% is fine for reactor fuel.
NK has not made any bombs with U-235, and probably
never intended to, given that a U-235 bomb would be
an inefficient use of resources. It is far more efficient
to use the low-enriched Uranium in a reactor to convert
the abundant U-238 to PU.

When we (justifiably) pulled out of the agreement,
they reopened their reactor and went on to make
PU bombs.

Maybe it was always their intention to do so. At
the very least, when we caught them reneging
on the agreement, we should have made it clear
that we would _consider_ a resumption of our
side if NK would accept further safeguards on their
Uranium program. This is not because the despotic
North Korean regime deserved another chance.
This is because when millions of innocent lives
hang in the balance, the only ideology that is
morally acceptable is one that respects that
fact.

The US insistance on six-party talks
has effectively prevented any meaningful negotions.
The object of which, seems to be to wait for NK to
take miltary action that would justify retaliation that
could bring about a much needed regime change.

With the assistance of the South Koreans eager for
reunification, the end result might be a lot better than
the present debacle in Iraq. But the cost will be
hundreds of thousands of human lives.

I suppose you'll use these criticisms of policy
to (falsely) conclude that I'm arguing that these
policies created the problems in the first place.

Now I'll speculate just a bit as to your motivations.
Most of your arguments and certainly your topic
du jour follow closely along the lines laid our here
in Washington DC on Wednsday afternoons when
the Heritage Foundation and various other 'think
tanks' meet with Republican Strategists. I am not
about to speculate if you are a willing servant or a
hapless shill, nor does it really matter.

--

FF

wrote:
SNIP

So I conclude that you do NOT read any newpapers
or watch any television stations or listen
to any radio from predominantly Muslim nations.
I do not, therefor I do not know if what you say is
true or not.

But it is becoming clearer that you do not know if
it is true or not.
Let's deconstruct your logic above to expose it for the foolishness
it is. From your comments above it follows that:

1) Anything other than the native tongue is not "representative"
of the worldview of the speaker in question.

Non Sequitor.

That does not follow from my conclusion that it is
prudent to suppose that English-Language webpages
are written specifically to cater to the putative
'world view' of native speakers of English.

2) We cannot reliably know things translated from and by the people
of a given region who *intended* for us to read/hear/see these
things in *our* native tongue.

Non-Sequitor

That does not follow from my conclusion that we
(meaning you or I) do not know that the webages
are translations of anything that was published
in any other languages, or representative thereof.


Baloney - you are tap dancing to avoid the (obvious) conclusion
that there is a dearth of condemnation worldwide from Islamic
leadership and clergy as regards to Islamic extremism. Your
argument comes down to "You don't read Arabic (or the other
native languages in question) so you can't know what's going on."
It's absurdity after absurdity to prop up an worldview predicated
on absurdity.


3) In fact, this problem is so bad, that even when reading a
breadth of perspectives translated into English - perspectives
ranging from hardcore Islamist to hardcore Zionist to something
in between - we *still* can't know anything ... because they're
not being read in their native tongues. (P.S and big hint, MEMRI,
in particular was specifically created to make speeches and writings
in Arabic available in English by means of high-quality translations.)


Non-Sequitor

That does not follow from my conclusion that we
(meaning you or I) do not know that the webages
are translations of anything that was published
in any other language.

That isn't remotely what you said originally, but this
paragraph, at least, is true as written. But it's a
tautology. You can never know exactly what you haven't
read or don't know... this is self-evident. But when
we listen carefully to key opinion leaders in the
Islamic world: The clerics in Mecca & Medinah, the leadership
of key nations like Iran and Syria - what do we hear?
Anti-Israeli hatred, Anti-Western hatred, calls for jihad,
and absolute silence on the actions of the radicals.
Oh, I forgot, they actually *are* condemning them in Arabic,
but keeping it a secret from the English speaking world.

A broad spectrum of writing published for native speakers
of English and catering to their 'world-view' is STILL
writtne for native speakers fo English and STILL caters
to their 'world-view

Therefo

4) You are hereby prohibited from expressing any opinion about France,
Italy, Norway, Russia, China, et al unless you are a native speaker
reader of their respective languages. So, unless you have mastery
of many languages as a minimum cost of entry, you have no place
ever discussing geopolitics again.


As is usual with your type you have decided, _a priori_
on your conclusions and then go out to look for evidence
to support it. Upon finding little or no such evidence
you than take non-evidence and falsely claim that it
suports your conclusion.


Then you assert a (God-given, one supposes) right to
direct others to cease and desist from challenging you.

No, I derived my conclusions from *your* predicates. The fact
that the conclusions are stupid are a direct consequence of
similarly stupid predicates. You've got a degenerate
worldview and it leads to degenerate conclusions - that's all
I was demonstrating. I don't actually *think* you should not
comment on geopolitics. I merely was demonstrating that this
is the natural conclusion of following *your* assumptions.

.
5) (And here's the real genius of your argument): I argued that there
was a "deafening silence" when reading the arguments of the Arab
world to the English speaking world. Your conclusion is that the
English translations are not "reliable" and that we "don't know"
whether there is widespread pressure by Islamic "moderates" upon their
radical brethren. So, (using your impeccable logic), we're left
with two possibilities:

Oh, here is another tactic popular with your type.
Realizing that your argument is being exposed
as the crap it is, you are now changing it to
another argument, substantively different from
what you earlier asserted. Now you are restricting
that 'deafening silence' to "FROM the Arab world
TO the English speaking world" (emphacis mine).

Sorry Sparky, you changed the context of the debate, not
me. I assert and reaffirm that there is largely silence
around the Islamic world from its leaders and clerics
as regards to radical activities within its community.
*You* are the one who wandered into the "but we don't
read Arabic so we cannot know this" desert. I believe
that a breadth of reportage' - in English - from the
regions in question can give us a pretty meaningful
perspective on what is going on there. You are clinging
to the last hope you have of propping up your silly
worldview by retreating to a ridiculous linguistic
argument.

Previously you referred to "the deafening silence
heard through the overwhelming part of the Islamic
world"

*I* have heard heard Muslims condemning senseless
violence, specifically in response to the rioting that
followed the Danish cartoons. Maybe that is because
I listen to PRI, NPR, and C-Span.

E.g. one Pakistani, when asked if he found the cartoons
offensive replied, "Yes, I am offended by the cartoons.
But I am more offended by the violent reaction to the
cartoons. Burning a church does not restore my
dignity. Killing a Christian does not restore my dignity."
and so on.


It took me all of thirty seconds to find these examples
of that deafening silence using just one of your
references:

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD133206

SNIP

It would seem that either you don't read the sources you cite,
or you don't allow what you read there to change your conclusions.

I do not hold, nor have I ever said, that there is *no* counterpoint in
the Islamic world. For example, there was a recent convocation of about
250 Islamic Sharia scholars who spoke pretty firmly against radical
jihjad. But we are talking about 1.5 Billion people here (more or less),
and a few hundred voices speaking against what's gone on, if not
"silence", is at best a "whisper". I'll believe that there is mainstream
opposition against the radical within Islam when I hear it preached from
the clerics in Mecca. So, yes, there are a few brave souls here and
there that are making the case against the radicals, but, no, they're
not remotely the mainstream of Islam, at least as expressed thus far.



i) The "moderate" Islamists are *not* putting pressure on their
radical brethern in any large way.

ii) The "moderate" Islamists *are* putting pressure on their
radical brethren but they are also purposely keeping
it a secret from their English speaking readership by
intentionally not letting us know about it.

Your argument is absurd on its face.

That's not my argument. It is your own maliciously
constructed straw man that you falsely attribute to
me. Yet another tactic popular with your ilk.

It's not your argument per se. It is the natural consequence
and outcome of starting with your argument. You can run,
but you cannot hide.


*My* argument was that we (you and I as individuals)
had insuficient information with which to reach your
conclusion. The idea that one should accept the
uncertainty of a proposition unless and until properly
researching it so as to arrive upon a probable truth is,
evidently, alien to you. In the alternative, you DID
realize that was my argument but went on to
deliberately mistrepresent it.

Then why are you not consistent? Why do you not remain
still on the subject? If you don't know and cannot, your
position on any related matter is irrelevant and you
should have the good manners to be silent therefore.
Of course, you don't actually *believe* any of this.
You are using the "we can't know" argument as a
rhetorical device because you're on the losing side
of a debate, nothing more. You *do* believe you know
something about these matters, else you wouldn't have
resurrected a thread that's been dead for days.


I generally fault our education system which has long
taught students to do 'research' in precisely your manner.

I'm not doing research. I'm combating a ridiculous worldview
held by silly and naive' pedants. I don't have to have
all the answers to be able to illuminate the fact that your
perspective is ridiculous on its face.

SNIP


Oh, now you move from your false conclusion to 'speculation'
as to _my_ motivation for that false conclusion. How high will
you stack your house of cards?

You built the foundation - I just showed you where your endpoints
lay. If you don't like it, pick better starting propositions.


The truth is that you and your ilk
never found a Western Democracy perfect enough to support with any real
enthusiasm, but you jump right in with sympathy and big lefty tears for
every tin pot dictator, despot, murderer, and lunatic that spews forth
from the various sewers around the world. After all we need to
"understand" their reasons for doing as they do, since clearly "Good"
and "Evil" are anachronisms you threw out at the same time you were busy
denying the importance and role of religious faith. Your ilk (and
probably you as well) were busy being very quiet when Hussein was
savaging his own people and his sons busily pushing people into
industrial shredders just to be able to hear them scream a bit longer.
On these kinds of horrors our fine Left has not much to say, but when it
comes to Bush and Blair ... oh wait, let's have you speak for yourself:

Thank you for such a clear example of your intellectually
dishonest approach to debate. After misrepresenting my
present opinions, and having no knowledge of my past

I didn't misrepresent a thing - I just took you to the logical
outcomes of your starting points. You then squeal an squirm
because you like your predicates, but you don't like their
consquences. Too bad. Lousy starting points yield lousy
conclusions.

opinions, you present a false proposition about those past
opinions, conclude, without evidence, that it is true, and
then build your straw man upon that foundation. The usual
responce when this is pointed out, would be to accuse
me of lying to hide a secret agenda. The "he's lying"
argument is ever the fallback position of the intellectually
bankrupt as it eliminates reliance on reason, and rests
on faith in the speaker instead.

1) Your agenda is clearly not "secret". It is trumpeted
regularly by the various factions of democracy haters,
appeasement monkeys, apologists for evil and all of the
rest of the effluvium that make up the middenheap we know
as the intellectual "Left".

2) I don't think you're lying. I think you have fantasies
about reality upon which you predicate you beliefs. When
confronted with the conclusions of these fantastic predicates
you get your tender feeling hurt. Too bad - you picked the
bad starting points, not me.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/http:/...e=source&hl=en

--

FF

wrote:

OK - I'll leave it at this: You're right, I'm wrong.

We English speakers can know little or nothing about what is going on in
the rest of the world based on their witness to us in their English
websites, newspapers, broadcasts, and other public utterances.

We have no reason to be suspicious of 1+ Billion people who themselves
and their leaders remain mostly mute on the excesses of their own
radicals.

They do not have an institutionalized hatred of the West and/or Israel.

Their most venerated clerics do not regularly call for violence against
the Christian/Jewish/Secular West.

They are not winning the population war in Europe to the point where
they will shortly (less than 50 years) be the dominant culture and thus
shove Sharia law down the European's throats - a demand they are not
already making.

The multiple attacks on the World Trade Center, the USS Cole, the
Marines in Lebanon, the many suicide bombings in Israel, the attacks on
Kurds, Christians & Jews in their own lands, and the later attacks in
Spain and the UK are all just flukes of an otherwise civil and
nonthreatening religious/cultural worldview. In fact, in the past 6
years or so, these attacks are the fault of Bush/Blair whose evils
vastly exceed those of the Islamic world.

I am utterly wrong in the propositions ... you've convinced me.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Right. Sadaam & Son's butcher the innocent by the thousands, but it's
*Bush's* fault there is conflict in the region.

Well, there wasn't a lot of conflict when the conflictors (is that a word?)
were being butchered :-).

And in case you've forgotten, we didn't go into Iraq to "make the world just
slightly better". but to eliminate a threat to us that it turned out was bogus
- whether by mistake or intention is still to be determined.

If the Iraqis had a bad government, it was up to the Iraqis to do something to
fix the problem, not us. But the truth is that the Sunnis were quite happy
with Saddam and encouraged and abetted his atrocities against the Shia and
the Kurds.

--
It's turtles, all the way down

Larry Blanchard wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Right. Sadaam & Son's butcher the innocent by the thousands, but it's
*Bush's* fault there is conflict in the region.

Well, there wasn't a lot of conflict when the conflictors (is that a word?)
were being butchered :-).

And in case you've forgotten, we didn't go into Iraq to "make the world just
slightly better". but to eliminate a threat to us that it turned out was bogus
- whether by mistake or intention is still to be determined.

If the Iraqis had a bad government, it was up to the Iraqis to do something to
fix the problem, not us. But the truth is that the Sunnis were quite happy
with Saddam and encouraged and abetted his atrocities against the Shia and
the Kurds.


So long as the conflict remained internal and had no real chance of
expanding, I more-or-less agree with you. The problem is:

1) We did - at the time - believe there was a larger threat

2) Sadaam had already demonstrated a willingness to export his
nonsense by invading his neighbors, funding suicide bombers
among the "Palestinians", and playing happy host to terrorists
living openly in Bagdhad.

So .. at the time, at least, there was some reasonable reason to
suppose the threat was larger than just local to Iraq.

Ironically, the same people who raise the loudest voices against
the Iraqi war, widely supported military intervention in Kosovo
(where there were not only no "good guys" but where the conflict
was entirely regional, or if not, at most, Europe's problem) and
are now howling for military intervention in the Darfur ... and
entirely local problem.

I have no problem staying out of other people's conflicts so long
as it does not have the real likelihood of moving from brushfire,
to wildfire, to forest fire ... a scenario that seemed likely
a few years ago.

But - and I say this as someone who did and does support US action
in Iraq, however grudgingly - W and necons' greatest mistake wasn't
going to war. It was going to war *for the wrong reasons*. Going to
war to neutralize threat is proper. Going to war to export Jesus
and democracy is a plainly stupid motivation. Democracy has to
be earned by its beneficiaries, not just handed out like candy from
your visiting uncle. It is this flawed motivation that keeps the
US mired down in Iraq today. W should get up and make this
statement:

We went to Iraq to erase a real threat to world stability.
We did so successfully. We also thought we could help the people
of the region accelerate their path to democracy - to do in a generation
what took us 200+ years. We were wrong - the Iraqi people weren't
ready for democracy as we understand it. Our policy now is to find
a way to place the burden of Iraq's future on its own citizens and
withdraw as soon as reasonably possible. We do retain the right to
reenter at any time when we see *our* enemies gathering, training,
and/or operating there. Iraq is the business of the Iraqi people
for here forward - we've opened the door, they have to walk through
it.


But, of course, he *can't* make that speech even if he believed it.
His political opponents - who care only about seizing power - will
use it as ammunition to undermine his remaining presidential years
and his political party. It makes no difference that a speech like
this would be good for our entire nation and the West broadly. The
Democrats have amply demonstrated that their interest is not liberty
or even the good of their own nation, but their own callow need for
power...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

BULL****
Terrorism was going on long before Bush, Blair, Clinton,etc.
True, I believe the intention for the invasion of Iraq has come and gone,
something still was needed at the time. If there were no WMD, then why did
he play around with the UN inspectors for 12 yrs.
Don't forget, he was an ally at one time.
There was an Iraqi fighter pilot that did fire a missle at one of our
warships during the Gulf war/conflict and nothing was done about it.
Lastly, if you want to see what the Arabic world is saying about us, then
read it. Google...al-jezeera and click on English. I have been for some
time. You might find out some interesting bits there.
Now take this **** somewhere else.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:

OK - I'll leave it at this: You're right, I'm wrong.

We English speakers can know little or nothing about what is going on in
the rest of the world based on their witness to us in their English
websites, newspapers, broadcasts, and other public utterances.

We could do as you suggested and go to: http://memri.org

and get a sampling from the islamic world.

I stipulate that there is too much support for violent jihad.

But we also find:

"The Muslim Brotherhood has never spoken any other language but the
language of Koranic punishments and of rigid, cruel Salafi Islamic
violence. They have always been opposed to Islam that is merciful,
peaceful, and beautiful, since, in their opinion, it is not Islam - the
only [real] Islam and the only truth are those of the Muslim
Brotherhood...

***

Tahhan: "To read the Koran rationally is to accept that the Koran is
open [to interpretation] and has many meanings. The tradition regards
the Koran as one-dimensional and fixed. This approach is not
rationalist. To be a rationalist is to accept that each era, with its
[particular] methods and discoveries, presents its own reading of the
Koran, and this is the way it will be until the end of days. To be a
rationalist is to acknowledge that the orthodox approach is
fundamentally wrong since it does not accept the multiplicity of
readings."

***

"Some say that Arab soil produces only Islamist or dictatorial regimes.
We say that there is a third way - the way of reform, liberalism, and
democracy, which is the way desired by millions of Arab citizens who
dream of living in freedom and dignity like other human beings...

***

Director General of Al-Arabiya TV in Defense of President Bush's
Description of London Bombers: 'They Are Fascists'

In an August 14, 2006 article titled "They Are Fascists" in the London
daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, the paper's former editor-in-chief and current
director general of Al-Arabiya TV, Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, defended
President George W. Bush's description of the individuals who were
arrested last week before they could carry out their plan to blow up
passenger airplanes.

The following are excerpts from the article, in the original English:

"The Protesting Groups... Would Have Done Better to... Denounce the
Deeds of Those Affiliated to Islam Who Harmed All Muslims and Islam"


***

The following is an op-ed, in the original English, by Ahmed
Al-Jarallah, editor of the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa. [1]

"Five years have passed by since the destruction of the World Trade
Centre in New York in one of the worst terrorist attacks in the world.
Although the United States has been able to prevent the spread of
terrorism since that fateful day, it has yet to succeed in its mission
of rooting out terrorism once and for all. This is because in the
aftermath of 9/11 terrorists have proved their ability to improvise
their methods, which has enabled them to continue their operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq.

"Fighting terrorism should not be the concern of only the United
States. We need an international alliance to combat this phenomenon
because terrorism is not targeting any one country. Terrorists are
active all over the world including the Arab and Islamic countries, and
Western Europe where Spain and Britain were the recent victims.

***

Saudi Arabia Ministry of Islamic Affairs Launches Arabic-English
Website to Fight Extremism

The Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs has announced the upcoming launch
of a website aimed at fighting extremism and to reform individuals with
extremist views. The website, which will have sections in Arabic and in
English, is aimed at Muslim audiences worldwide. It will include forums
for debating controversial issues like takfir (accusing other Muslims
of heresy) and al-walaa wal-baraa. [1]

***

Mujahideen Respond to "Mecca Charter"

On October 25, 2006 an Islamist website posted a response to the
agreement known as "The Mecca Charter" (wathiqat Mecca) which was
signed recently by Sunni and Shi'ite religious scholars in Iraq.[1] The
agreement calls upon all parties in Iraq to spare the lives and
property of all Muslims in the country, to avoid harming religious
sites, and to uphold the territorial unity of Iraq.

***

Christian Churches in Iraq Subjected to Synchronized Terrorism
By Dr. Nimrod Raphaeli*

Introduction

In a synchronized act of terrorism on January 29, 2006, seven churches
were attacked - six by car bombs and a seventh, St. Joseph, in the
banking district of Baghdad, by explosives which caused no damage. Five
of the churches are located at various parts of Baghdad and the other
two in Kirkuk, northern Iraq. There were a number of casualties among
Christians and passer-by Muslims. [1]

***

"While [almost] every Muslim community in the world has produced jihad
fighters for Al-Qaeda and [similar] organizations, there is one Muslim
community that has had no part in this phenomenon. This Muslim
community is the second largest in the world: the Muslim community in
India.

"This community of more than 150 million people... is the only Muslim
community which has not [produced] a single individual who left the
country to plan and take part in violent actions that are labeled by
their perpetrators as 'jihad' while the [rest of the] world calls them
'terrorism.' ...

"The most important point is that India has proven that when Muslims
(like any other human beings) exist in a public climate that allows
them full participation in political life, they do not turn to
underground activities... and they do not leave [their country] to blow
up a plane, a train or a bus full of innocent civilians..."

***

Egyptian Intellectuals Speak Out Against the Muslim Brotherhood
Movement and its Slogan 'Islam is the Solution'
By A. Shefa**.

***

Hizbullah Recruits Children Barely 10 Years Old

According to Roz Al-Yusuf, "Hizbullah has recruited over 2,000 innocent
children aged 10-15 to form armed militias. Before the recent war with
Israel, these children appeared only in the annual Jerusalem Day
celebrations, and were referred to as the 'December 14 Units,' but
today they are called istishhadiyun ['martyrs']..."

***

"This prohibition against targeting civilians... was not the result of
a choice on the part of the jurisprudents, nor was it a matter of
preferring an overriding common interest. Holy texts forbade targeting
the majority of these groups in Prophetic statements and divine
revelation. This raises the severity of this prohibition in the soul of
every believer to the highest level of warning lest they violate it...

"If religion forbids killing these [civilians] in [the case of] the
outbreak of war, is it imaginable that this would be permitted in a
case where war has not broken out?...

"This distinction between fighters and civilians with regard to whom
one is allowed to kill is a venerable wisdom which derives from a
profound philosophy that is dedicated to respecting the human soul,
which Islam has come to remedy. How can it go about annihilating the
soul, when it wants its good?" [4] ...

"[Al-Qaeda's] fatwa was wrong in considering American citizenship a
sufficient cause for killing American civilians and [Al-Gama'a
Al-Islamiyya] rejects [the idea] that everyone with American
citizenship is an infidel, since having American citizenship does not
require adherence to another religion apart from Islam, and does not
require [the adoption of] any belief contrary to one's religion, since
the First Amendment to the American Constitution specifies that
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or
preventing the free exercise thereof.'

***
It seems that you mistook the fingers in your ears for
"deafening silence".

I do make the presumption while reaidng these artilces that
refering to an act as "terrorist" is a de facto condemnation
of that act, and referring to a person as "innocent" is a
de facto condemnation of those who victimize that person.

While I was already familiar with the other sources you cited,
I was not aware of MEMRI. Thank you for directing me to it.


We have no reason to be suspicious of 1+ Billion people who themselves
and their leaders remain mostly mute on the excesses of their own
radicals.

Now you have slipped from "deafening silence" to mostly mute.
Most everyone in the world is 'mostly mute' in the sense that
their opinoins are not published.

Care to see if anyone has polled Muslim leaders or Muslim clerics
worldwide? Oh, I almost forgot, you don't DO research.



They do not have an institutionalized hatred of the West and/or Israel.

Their most venerated clerics do not regularly call for violence against
the Christian/Jewish/Secular West.

Who are the most venerated clerics?


They are not winning the population war in Europe to the point where
they will shortly (less than 50 years) be the dominant culture and thus
shove Sharia law down the European's throats - a demand they are not
already making.

It is telling that you refer to the shifting demographics in
Europe as 'war'. Particularly when you consider that
almost all of the organized religiously targetted violence
in Europe wars in the 20th century, and especially the
most heinous, has been perpetrated by 'Christians'
against non-Chrisians, specifically semites.

But as to the Muslims taking over due to immigratino and
higher birth rates I guess that will happen in Europe
just like the Chinese and Catholics took over the US, right?

In a poll taken of British Muslims shortly after the
subway bombings 91% -were against the bombings,
only 2% agreed with what the suicide bombers did.
88% thought there was no justification in the Koran
for the bombings, but 5% thought there was.

When asked to select a response to the statement:

"Muslim clerics who preach violence against the West
are out of touch with mainstream Muslim opinon."
Nearly half - 46% - disagreed or strongly disagreed,
while 54% thought they were out of touch.

(SInce both of those answers mean the same thing
I _think_ the word 'not' was omitted from the last
choice in the article reporting the result.)

79% - agreed that the Muslim community must
take more responsibility for preventing young
Muslims from becoming bombers.

IOW, the ovewhelming majority of British Muslims
have adopted the same values IRT violent extremism
as their fellow Britons, have reconciled those values
with their religious beliefs (or vice versa as people
are prone to doing) even though they themselves
believe (correctly or not) that acceptance of violent
extremism is common in mainstream Islam.

But are they correct? Indonesia and India have the
two largest Muslim populations in the world. How
many hijackers of Sept 11 were from there? Zero.
How many Indian and Inonesian Muslims have been
arrested in the "War on Terror"? Zero and zero or
damn few, respectively. The fact is the majority of
practicing Muslims are no longer in the Middle East.
The extremists, are only a small minority even
there. If the mainstream of Islam is not defined by
the majority of practicing Muslims, how is one to
define it?

The problem is not their religion.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/...391671,00.html


The multiple attacks on the World Trade Center, the USS Cole, the
Marines in Lebanon, the many suicide bombings in Israel, the attacks on
Kurds, Christians & Jews in their own lands, and the later attacks in
Spain and the UK are all just flukes of an otherwise civil and
nonthreatening religious/cultural worldview. In fact, in the past 6
years or so, these attacks are the fault of Bush/Blair whose evils
vastly exceed those of the Islamic world.

What was that about changing the subject?

I thought the issue in contention was the existance of,
then later the frequency of, public statements in
opposition to violent jihad in the Muslim world. I don't recall
anyone claiming there were no violent jihadis against whom
to direct that opposition, nor would you even consider falsely
attributting such a notion to me.

Perhaps that proposition was introduced by one of your
straw men?


I am utterly wrong in the propositions ... you've convinced me.


Glad to know it wasn't a wasted effort.

--

FF

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoisted_by_my_own_petard

Note followups

Brent Beal wrote:
BULL****
Terrorism was going on long before Bush, Blair, Clinton,etc.
True, I believe the intention for the invasion of Iraq has come and gone,
something still was needed at the time. If there were no WMD, then why did
he play around with the UN inspectors for 12 yrs.

1998 - 1991 = 7

Seven years. There were no UN inspectors to play around with
from 1999 to 2002, or prior to 1991. From the return of the UN
inspectors late in 2002, to the invasion in 2003, his cooperation
was 'unprecedented' according to the Chief Inspector, whereas
some inspectors referred to the US 'intelligence' as '****'. Then
there was also the matter of submittign forged documents to the
IAEA. The only people who disputed that Iraq was cooperating
were those who were obstructing the inspectors by feeding
them that '****'. Bush, Cheney, Rice, etc.

Don't forget, he was an ally at one time.
There was an Iraqi fighter pilot that did fire a missle at one of our
warships during the Gulf war/conflict and nothing was done about it.

For the same reason that the British didn't do anything when we
shot down one of their Tornados. (AFAIK, the only unequivical
confirmed kill by a Patriot Missle under actual combat conditions).
They were friendly fire incidents.

Lastly, if you want to see what the Arabic world is saying about us, then
read it. Google...al-jezeera and click on English.
I have been for some
time. You might find out some interesting bits there.

Mr Daneliuk gave us another good source:

http://www.memri.org

You should also try:

http://www.iaea.org
and
http://www.unmovic.org

for pre-invasion evaluations of the putative Iraqi WMD program.

I have been for some
time. You might find out some interesting bits there.
Now take this **** somewhere else.

How about alt.politics?

--

FF

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:50:53 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:


So long as the conflict remained internal and had no real chance of
expanding, I more-or-less agree with you. The problem is:

1) We did - at the time - believe there was a larger threat

res ipsa loquitur.



Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

But, of course, he *can't* make that speech even if he believed it.
His political opponents - who care only about seizing power - will
use it as ammunition to undermine his remaining presidential years
and his political party.**It*makes*no*difference*that*a*speech*like
this would be good for our entire nation and the West broadly.**The
Democrats have amply demonstrated that their interest is not liberty
or even the good of their own nation, but their own callow need for
power...

As opposed to the Republicans, whose need for power is not callow?

C'mon Tim, they're all a bunch of assholes. The system is broken, assuming it
ever worked as intended. Wasn't the first George the one who warned against
the evils of political parties?

Other than that, I find myself in agreement with a large part of your response
(but not all).

I leave you with two quotes from my favorite political pundit, Will Rogers
(and I may not have the wording exactly right, but the meaning is there):

"Anyone who wants to be elected shouldn't be."

"The Democrats want to take my money and give it to the poor. The Republicans
want to take my money and give it to the rich. If I can't keep it, I'd just
as soon it went to the poor."

--
It's turtles, all the way down

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

2) Sadaam had already demonstrated a willingness to export his
nonsense*by*invading*his*neighbors,*funding*suicid e*bombers
among*the*"Palestinians",*and*playing*happy*host*t o*terrorists
living*openly*in*Bagdhad.

And now for the part I don't agree with :-).

Saddam invaded Iran with our backing (and our weapons). As to Kuwait, Iraq
has long considered Kuwait to be a part of Iraq, and invaded it only after
some ill considered remarks by our ambassador/envoy/whatever led him to
believe that we wouldn't intervene.

Yes, he provided stipends to the families of suicide bombers. This was wrong.
But he was hardly the only one in the region to give aid and comfort to the
Palestinians.

The bit about him hosting terrorists has been widely debunked. If there was
anything Saddam didn't want, it was a bunch of religious fanatics challenging
his secular rule. There were reports of some activity by terrorists in the
Kurdish area of Iraq, but that was in our "no-fly" zone and there's some
doubt whether Saddam even knew they were there.

--
It's turtles, all the way down

Larry Blanchard wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

But, of course, he *can't* make that speech even if he believed it.
His political opponents - who care only about seizing power - will
use it as ammunition to undermine his remaining presidential years
and his political party. It makes no difference that a speech like
this would be good for our entire nation and the West broadly. The
Democrats have amply demonstrated that their interest is not liberty
or even the good of their own nation, but their own callow need for
power...

As opposed to the Republicans, whose need for power is not callow?

C'mon Tim, they're all a bunch of assholes. The system is broken, assuming it
ever worked as intended. Wasn't the first George the one who warned against
the evils of political parties?

'Sorry - I didn't mean to imply the Rs were any better, only that under
the current situation, the Ds make it impossible for W to make
the aforementioned speech. But I don't blame the politicians, I blame
*us*. Politicians will do and say what they believe will get them
elected. The Sheeple are the ones that have demanded what we've
gotten: More government, the illusion of safety at the expense of liberty,
and so forth.


Other than that, I find myself in agreement with a large part of your response
(but not all).

I leave you with two quotes from my favorite political pundit, Will Rogers
(and I may not have the wording exactly right, but the meaning is there):

"Anyone who wants to be elected shouldn't be."


Yup.

"The Democrats want to take my money and give it to the poor. The Republicans
want to take my money and give it to the rich. If I can't keep it, I'd just
as soon it went to the poor."


They are both morally reprehensible. The right choice is for people to
be able to keep their own property and money and do what they see fit
with it including which charities (if any) they support. Charity at the
point of a gun is no such thing and theft is always wrong.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
SNIP

I don't trust any politician. But you are playing a not-too clever
game of misdirection. The right of habeus corpus is extended only
to participants in our socio-legal contract. It is *not* extended
to foreign invaders.
A particulary pathetic misdirection. No one has suggested habeas
relief for foreign invaders. But I will later in this article.
There's a shocker.

You are not, by any chance, characterizing persons arrested in
Pakistan or Afghanistan, or captured in combat in Afghanistan
and taken to Guantanamo Bay, and who have never seven attemtped
to enter the United Statesas foreign invaders, are you?
I stand corrected. What I should have said was:

The right of habeus corpus .... It is *not* extended to
foreign invaders OR people with whom we are at war.

Are persons with whom we are not at war _potentially_ entitled
to habeas relief?

Only if they are otherwise participants in our legal-social
contract. For example, an Italian visiting the US legally
is entitled to such legal relief. An Italian doing crime
at the US Embassy in Rome is not except as provided by any
governing Italian law. It's worth mentioning that I certainly
agree that any international treaties to which we are party in
such a situation should be honored.

Is it worth mentioning Thomas Jefferson's opinion?

"The Habeas Corpus secures every man here, alien or citizen, against
everything which is not law, whatever shape it may assume."



That the Constitution allows the Congress (nor the courts nor
the President) to suspend habeas corpus in the event of invasion,
makes it clear that habeas corpus applies absent an explicit, and
permissible, suspension.

See:

EX PARTE QUIRIN
317 U.S. 1 (1942)

The motion for habeas corpus relief was heard and denied by
the USSC. If the foreign invaders in question could not be, under
any circumstances, entitled to the writ the Court would not
have heard their petition, rather than hearing and then denying
their application.

No matter how much you try to dance around this
issue both history and legal precedent are on my side of this debate:
Please provide citations.
Your citations are utterly irrelevant because they are about people
who are _part of our socio-legal contract_.

Please explain how those foreign invaders, German-born Nazi sabotuers,
became part of _part of our socio-legal contract_.

Please explain how to identify those person who are and are not
_part of our socio-legal contract_.

By means of good intelligence, interrogation, corroborating
evidence, and the testimony of reliable witnesses. When
you catch someone calling 1-800-Al-Queda with C4 in their
apartment, it's a pretty big clue.


That does not address either question. That it does not address
the first, is obvious.

As you know, the question is not how to gather evidence, the
question is how is it decided that the evidence is sufficient.

Here in the United States, that issue is adjudicated by a court,
part of a branch of the government that is separate and
independent of the branch that claims to have such evidence.


FWIW, (I said I wasn't
going to do this), one of the strong arguments *against*,
say, torture, is that it corrupts your intelligence gathering
process. If we make it too easy to get "quick results" it's
just too tempting to tempting to use that shortcut and not
focus on sound intelligence gathering. Here again, the
Left opposition is incoherent. You cannot demand, on the one
hand, "no torture, no physical intimidation" and on the other
"no monitoring of suspicious telephone calls".

When both violate the law, why not?

Why should we reject the rule of law?

--

FF