You don't. If you tried to state it concisely now, you wouldn't get it right.JohnSmith wrote:I understand his point of view.
So how much things are "improving" in the muslim w
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/m ... ckson.html...there is a streak of near-savagery that runs deep in American society, and which most commonly manifests itself during times of war. Walter Russell Mead, in his 2001 book Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How it Changed the World, calls it "Jacksonianism"—and not only does he see it as an integral part of American society; he believes it to be a necessary one as well.
I think the obvious thing for the rest of the world to do is to face that fact. And don't awaken the beast.
sleeping giant quote - wikiJapanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto is portrayed at the very end of the 1970 film Tora! Tora! Tora!, and in the 2001 film Pearl Harbor, as saying after his attack on Pearl Harbor, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."
Now the quote is disputed. But I think it is an accurate representation of a very wide swath of American politics.
In the very American movie "Star Wars" :
[R2-D2 and Chewbacca are playing the holographic game aboard the Millennium Falcon]
Chewbacca: Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrgh!
C-3PO: He made a fair move. Screaming about it can't help you.
Han Solo: Let him have it. It's not wise to upset a Wookiee.
C-3PO: But sir, nobody worries about upsetting a droid.
Han Solo: That's 'cause droids don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose. Wookiees are known to do that.
Chewbacca: Grrf.
C-3PO: I see your point, sir. I suggest a new strategy, R2: let the Wookiee win.
======
There are a lot of Americans who follow the Englishman J.S. Mill
And that is reprized by American General G.S. Patton:War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. - John Stuart Mill
Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle.
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom—go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" Samuel Adams
Now I can appreciate that Arabic culture is a warrior culture. American culture is the same. There is not room for the both of us on the planet. The aim for Americans is to turn the Arabs into peace lovers because they are tired of being whipped by Americans.THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. - Tom Paine
====="To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of Muhammad and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have kept on developing" -- General George S. Patton: The War as I Knew it
http://www.badeagle.com/2001/05/18/what ... ite-women/
BTW Professor Bad Eagle is a strong supporter of the Jewish Nation. I'm proud to have him on my team.They say that a warrior is measured by the strength of his enemies. As an Indian, I am proud of the fact that it took the mightiest nation on earth to defeat me.
Last edited by MSimon on Sun Feb 07, 2010 5:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
A little Hard Corps war music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTs6a0ORdQU
http://www.thewarriorsong.com/lyrics.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTs6a0ORdQU
http://www.thewarriorsong.com/lyrics.html
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I just asked the first mate if she liked being married to a warrior.
A big smile came across her face and she said "Yes".
And I replied, "I'm honored."
I like the Marine Corps unofficial motto. "No better friend, no worse enemy."
A big smile came across her face and she said "Yes".
And I replied, "I'm honored."
I like the Marine Corps unofficial motto. "No better friend, no worse enemy."
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Simon, please please please stop double and triple posting. Decide what you want to say, then post once. I can't even explain why, but it drives me nuts.
This is what we keep coming back to. The Islamic religion is not at war with you. There are terrorists, it's true. But you're talking about attacking civs because of the actions of extremists. I don't think I've ever voiced opposition to coming down hard on your enemies - I just think you can't figure out who your enemies are.
This is what we keep coming back to. The Islamic religion is not at war with you. There are terrorists, it's true. But you're talking about attacking civs because of the actions of extremists. I don't think I've ever voiced opposition to coming down hard on your enemies - I just think you can't figure out who your enemies are.
JohnSmith wrote:Simon, please please please stop double and triple posting. Decide what you want to say, then post once. I can't even explain why, but it drives me nuts.
That's almost sig worthy.What experience do you have with Muslims? Do you have any outside of American Muslims?The Islamic religion is not at war with you.
-
alexjrgreen
- Posts: 815
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
- Location: UK
Since there hasn't been a Caliph in a while, there's no practical way for the entire religion to be at war.JohnSmith wrote:The Islamic religion is not at war with you.
Osama Bin Laden, on the other hand, declared war on America in 1996:
Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places
Ars artis est celare artem.
"The Islamic religion is not at war with you."
At this point, they need to prove it by depriving the jihadists, expelling them from their society, jailing them, and helping us kill them, insofar as they have a decent chance to do it.
BTW, attacking a city because of it's ideological significance is not genocide, neither is attacking several tens of cities, even if the intent is to obliterate those cities. The difference between total war and genocide is that total war ends when the enemy give up. Genocide stops with extermination.
They are very different things.
So yes, you were mendacious, also known as lying.
"So are you saying that by making an unprovoked attack on Iraq soil"
The idea it was unprovoked is laughable, only three or four nations ever offered such extreme or sustained provocation ever yet in American history.
"Simon, to the best of my knowledge, Iraq had nothing to do with WTC attacks. The official justification was WMDs which never existed. "
MSimon, to the best of my knowledge, never said Iraq had anything to do with the WTC attacks on 9/11. Also WMD were one of more than a dozens reasons given for the overthrow of Saddam, and in fact, they not merely existed before and after the first Gulf War, several tons were found after the invasion--they were not in organized stockpiles, and their existence might even have been inadvertent oversights--but they are proof positive that Saddam's interference in UN efforts to find them all helped prevent them from being secured...until they were found by the invaders.
"And the 'Don't tread on me' motto has long been adopted by libertarians."
Americans generally, actually, not libertarians.
"You always talk about individual freedom and human rights in a domestic context, but your foreign policy is completely opposite."
Where on earth did you get the idea that individual freedom and human rights extends to letting other people do whatever they want no matter how unjustly harmful it is to other people and/or your own interests?
"Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group""
And yet, self defense is permitted; even, for example, attacking your opponent's capital with such means as will obliterate it. Kind of vitiates your argument, doesn't it?
"Your stated goal is to wipe Islam from the face of the planet, as they pose an 'intolerable threat.'"
No. Maybe you just have bad reading comprehension. I said Islam must change, not vanish. Islam changing so as to be unrecognizable is fine, because it's pretty ugly. Changing from within is fine, but as long as Saudi stays Wahhabist, as long as bin Laden or someone like him exists, then it is perfectly just for us to kill whatever Moslems come against us with jihadist precepts as their motivation. Additionally, it is fine for us not merely to respond, but to pursue them, to hunt them down.
They need to stop. When they stop, we'll stop.
Seeing if the nuclear destruction of Mecca and its ideological sites encourages them to stop is in the cards, and is isn't even unjust if it comes to that, and it certainly isn't genocide, not anymore than killing Nazis and the Imperial Japanese until they quit was genocide--even when in fact it was being nuked that pushed the Imperial Cabinet over the edge towards surrender.
You simply know not whereof you write.
And I'd really like you try to back your assertion the Israeli's are committing any sort of genocide against other semites. Of course, I encourage you in that because I like it when fools discredit themselves to the uttermost extent possible. You've already earned a big round red nose, why not go for the huge floppy shoes?
At this point, they need to prove it by depriving the jihadists, expelling them from their society, jailing them, and helping us kill them, insofar as they have a decent chance to do it.
BTW, attacking a city because of it's ideological significance is not genocide, neither is attacking several tens of cities, even if the intent is to obliterate those cities. The difference between total war and genocide is that total war ends when the enemy give up. Genocide stops with extermination.
They are very different things.
So yes, you were mendacious, also known as lying.
"So are you saying that by making an unprovoked attack on Iraq soil"
The idea it was unprovoked is laughable, only three or four nations ever offered such extreme or sustained provocation ever yet in American history.
"Simon, to the best of my knowledge, Iraq had nothing to do with WTC attacks. The official justification was WMDs which never existed. "
MSimon, to the best of my knowledge, never said Iraq had anything to do with the WTC attacks on 9/11. Also WMD were one of more than a dozens reasons given for the overthrow of Saddam, and in fact, they not merely existed before and after the first Gulf War, several tons were found after the invasion--they were not in organized stockpiles, and their existence might even have been inadvertent oversights--but they are proof positive that Saddam's interference in UN efforts to find them all helped prevent them from being secured...until they were found by the invaders.
"And the 'Don't tread on me' motto has long been adopted by libertarians."
Americans generally, actually, not libertarians.
"You always talk about individual freedom and human rights in a domestic context, but your foreign policy is completely opposite."
Where on earth did you get the idea that individual freedom and human rights extends to letting other people do whatever they want no matter how unjustly harmful it is to other people and/or your own interests?
"Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group""
And yet, self defense is permitted; even, for example, attacking your opponent's capital with such means as will obliterate it. Kind of vitiates your argument, doesn't it?
"Your stated goal is to wipe Islam from the face of the planet, as they pose an 'intolerable threat.'"
No. Maybe you just have bad reading comprehension. I said Islam must change, not vanish. Islam changing so as to be unrecognizable is fine, because it's pretty ugly. Changing from within is fine, but as long as Saudi stays Wahhabist, as long as bin Laden or someone like him exists, then it is perfectly just for us to kill whatever Moslems come against us with jihadist precepts as their motivation. Additionally, it is fine for us not merely to respond, but to pursue them, to hunt them down.
They need to stop. When they stop, we'll stop.
Seeing if the nuclear destruction of Mecca and its ideological sites encourages them to stop is in the cards, and is isn't even unjust if it comes to that, and it certainly isn't genocide, not anymore than killing Nazis and the Imperial Japanese until they quit was genocide--even when in fact it was being nuked that pushed the Imperial Cabinet over the edge towards surrender.
You simply know not whereof you write.
And I'd really like you try to back your assertion the Israeli's are committing any sort of genocide against other semites. Of course, I encourage you in that because I like it when fools discredit themselves to the uttermost extent possible. You've already earned a big round red nose, why not go for the huge floppy shoes?
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria
You know. It just creaps me out the thought of you out there some where reading what I write. So please do me a big favor. Stop reading.JohnSmith wrote:Simon, please please please stop double and triple posting. Decide what you want to say, then post once. I can't even explain why, but it drives me nuts.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
MSimon, to the best of my knowledge, never said Iraq had anything to do with the WTC attacks on 9/11.
That is correct. He did have something to do with the first attack on the WTC.
War Against America: Saddam Hussein And The World Trade Center Attacks
Where I come from that is a cause for war.One of the Intelligence Community's reported successes in the period of Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm was the arrest of the teams on landing outside Iraq. They were caught by their fake passports, all of which were in consecutive sequence. The attempt to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush in Kuwait in April 1993 was a botched job, using apparently ill-trained operatives in an ill-planned operation.
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/hear ... _yaphe.htm
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
A variant of the Don't Tread On Me flag currently flies on ALL US Navy Ships.
http://www.navyjack.info/history.html
As a Navy Man (Inactive) I think I qualify to fly it. As does any American.
http://www.navyjack.info/history.html
As a Navy Man (Inactive) I think I qualify to fly it. As does any American.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Hmm. I wasn't familiar with the earlier WTC attacks. I apologize.That is correct. He did have something to do with the first attack on the WTC.
It's just a bit of messageboard etiquette. Makes it easier to follow the conversation.You know. It just creaps me out the thought of you out there some where reading what I write. So please do me a big favor. Stop reading.
TD, I don't even know what you'd call attacking a city because of it's ideological significance, but attacking cities until the local population is dead or so terrified that they won't oppose you anymore, that is genocide. I guess, technically, it's only a genocide if a sizable fraction of the population dies, but I think that's likely if you start tossing nukes around. The self defense argument is silly. You are not at war. They pose no significant threat.
And changing Islam to be unrecognizable is the same as destroying it. Semantics will not save you. You are proposing genocide.
I don't know if the nukes ended WWII. Probably a bit sooner. But it was a slaughter of over 200,000 civs. I know I don't agree with it.
Betruger, you'd be amazed at how many international students we get at my university. Plenty of Muslims, Canadian and otherwise. Not too many are devout, but a few are. Most of them are pretty good.
Ah, nice picture, Simon. I really like one I found recently, showed how meaningless these photos are. It had a bound, battered prisoner being given a drink of water, with one soldier helping and one covering him with a rifle. Cropped one way, it was a beautiful PR image for the marines. Cropped another, a bit of marine hate-bate. Context is everything.
And TD, I don't think I've said anything about israel. Where was that? Where did I say they were committing genocide?
About the flag, sorry Simon. You have every right to the flag, I just had only seen it in libertarian contexts.
"Where was that? Where did I say they were committing genocide? "
My bad, it was KitesmanSA who needs a clown suit for that brain dropping.
Yet here is your bad, which you've doubled down on.
"And changing Islam to be unrecognizable is the same as destroying it. Semantics will not save you. You are proposing genocide. "
Nope, not even slightly. They have no right to continue existing as they are, they must change or die. There is nothing morally different in saying that today than in 1941 it being said of the Axis powers, or in 1861 saying it of the Confederacy, or in 1775 saying it to King George III.
In fact, to go by your definition of it, the Jews resisting the Nazis in the Warsaw uprising were committing genocide against the Nazis as were the Kulaks resisting the Reds in the Ukraine--your definition of genocide is a moral nullity.
Fighting to change someone's mind or even a whole category of people's minds, even to the point of eradicating an ideology; that is not genocide. It might be unjust, but it is not genocide. Since the fight with Islam as it is is essentially about whether or not universal human rights* do in fact exist, and whether they will rule in the West, and whether or not Islam will employ the rules of war in contesting the question, the moral illegitimacy is all theirs.
You get a clown suit too.
*As the best of Western political philosophy perceives them to exist. This excludes the entirety of post-modern thought, in fact, there has been precious little improvement in that perception since what was undertaken in 1775, except in the more broad application of that high-water mark.
My bad, it was KitesmanSA who needs a clown suit for that brain dropping.
Yet here is your bad, which you've doubled down on.
"And changing Islam to be unrecognizable is the same as destroying it. Semantics will not save you. You are proposing genocide. "
Nope, not even slightly. They have no right to continue existing as they are, they must change or die. There is nothing morally different in saying that today than in 1941 it being said of the Axis powers, or in 1861 saying it of the Confederacy, or in 1775 saying it to King George III.
In fact, to go by your definition of it, the Jews resisting the Nazis in the Warsaw uprising were committing genocide against the Nazis as were the Kulaks resisting the Reds in the Ukraine--your definition of genocide is a moral nullity.
Fighting to change someone's mind or even a whole category of people's minds, even to the point of eradicating an ideology; that is not genocide. It might be unjust, but it is not genocide. Since the fight with Islam as it is is essentially about whether or not universal human rights* do in fact exist, and whether they will rule in the West, and whether or not Islam will employ the rules of war in contesting the question, the moral illegitimacy is all theirs.
You get a clown suit too.
*As the best of Western political philosophy perceives them to exist. This excludes the entirety of post-modern thought, in fact, there has been precious little improvement in that perception since what was undertaken in 1775, except in the more broad application of that high-water mark.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria
I'd argue it's the other way around - the definition makes no mention of just or unjust, merely the action.
So fighting to change someone's mind is not genocide, but the eradication - in whole or part - of the people who submit to an ideology is. Just or not.
My biggest problem with the fight in the ME isn't even the 'Islam is incompatible' view, it's the 'well, our enemy doesn't believe in human rights, so why should we bother with them' part.
So fighting to change someone's mind is not genocide, but the eradication - in whole or part - of the people who submit to an ideology is. Just or not.
My biggest problem with the fight in the ME isn't even the 'Islam is incompatible' view, it's the 'well, our enemy doesn't believe in human rights, so why should we bother with them' part.
Last edited by JohnSmith on Sun Feb 07, 2010 11:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.