On the wings of a snow-white dove

LOL Finn, you will never get me to say that Dys is sweetness and light wrapped up in a wrinkled package.

Dys often irritates me with his brusque statements. Some of the people here on a2k know Dys and appreciate the breadth and depth of his knowledge, which is astounding. He knows , in detail, about philosophy, literature (one of his degrees is in American literature from 1880 to 1920, or maybe 1930), history, farming and ranching, motorcycles and sports cars (and he has raced both). And because he grew up in Saudi Arabia, his outlook is far more international than that of most Americans. The people who really know him are aware of all this. Dys has never discussed his own, personal, history on a2k, only bits and pieces.

He is the most fascinating man I have ever met, but he just doesn't give a **** about what people think. He is what he is.

Actually, if I knew as much as Dys does, I'd probably have a lot less patience with people. He's likely much more tolerant than we give him credit for.

What a good post, Diane.

Dys is a very blessed man to have you Miss Diane. I think he knows that. You are one of the most honest and fair people on A2K. I like Dys. He gets frustrated with me and I can understand why. He has so much more knowledge than I do. But, even when he gets frustrated, he does it with humor and ya gotta love that.

I look at it this way. While the car/suicide bomber is definitely more dangerous to the average human in the short term, especially if you get in his way when he flips the switch. It's like comparing heart attacks to cancer. A heart attack is more acute and could possibly kill or at the very least leave you damaged very quickly. If you follow certain practices, like a good diet, exercise it can be avoided, if you can catch it before it can do any damage, you may have be able to stop or at least lessen the aftermath. Same with terrorists. If you study them, profile etc, you can potentially stop them from their bloody goals in the short term.

However, the unabashed hatred, racism and fear that certain groups, here or abroad, keep perpetrating is insidious, and it undermines the goals or at least the vision many people have for this world. Much like cancer, once you've got it, chances are it will kill you, in a slow, painful manner.
I would posit, that while one group uses extreme violence to get their message across, the didn't always preach suicide and or violence. If you look at the root causes for their willingness to blow them selves up and attack that, you could hopefully find other alternatives to bloodshed. I'd say one group has evolved from a benign force and the other group is well on it's way.
Obviously, both groups are dangerous and should be stopped, but it's a free world, or at least we like to believe it is and both ways of thinking have or could seriously impact our lives, neither for the better.

Your analogy is weak at best.

No amount of "living right" is going to fend off the Jihadists, and while we have been studying them for years now, in the last year we have seen one horrific massacre within an American army base and two failed attempts that failed through no effort by our knoweldgeable defenses, and which, if they had been successful, would have rocked this country.

You obviously forget (although you can be sure the Jihadists do not), that while the loss of life and property on 9/11 was extra-ordinary, the greater damage was to our economy and national psyche. While every 9/11 death was a tragedy, our society has weathered events with greater death counts, and the property losses, in total, were not beyon those generated by a severe hurricane.

This is what terrorists aim for. The number of people killed and the number of buildings destroyed is only meaningful to the extent that they are sufficient to instill terror, to sap will, and to foster appeasement.

Imagine if they had been able to destroy the White House and the Capital. The number of lives lost probably would have been less, the impact probably would have been greater.

You seem to be drawing a ridiculous and, frankly, obscene distinction between Jihadists and Koran Burners that argue the latter are malignant while the former are only frustrated and desperate (but at least one time benign). You seem to share the insane notion of Cyclo that Koran Burners are somehow fundamentally more dangerous than Suicide Bombers; demonstrating the same breathtaking ignorance of the reality that even if we concede the Koran Burners are motivated by nothing other than hate (which I do not), the depth of hatred that compels men to slaughter innocents must be greater than that which compels book burning.

When Koran Burners start sluaghtering innocent muslims, perhaps then your argument will have more merit.

It's a free world? Are you kidding me?

The Suicide Bombers are somehow "free" to pursue their goals through murder?

It is a free country (USA) and Koran Burners are free to burn whatever books they like as long as the act doesn't directly imperil anyone - just as Flag burners are.

Somehow I doubt you see the same level of hate in Flag Burners as you do in Koran Burners.

Finn, I'm going to assume you have a drop of Irish blood in your veins. Who do you think taught the world this kind of ****. They all, apparently, believed in the bible and yet... They did and in some rare cases still perpetrate that same fucked up way of thinking.
Hatred isn't born, it's layers and layers of **** piled on top of more ****. Violence is something that is tolerated and allowed to grow unfettered. The seeds of hatred grow into complete and total calousness, so yes, your jihadists are terrible, but turning a blind eye to the assholes in your backyard is just as stupid.
I'm not a yank. I know many americans love to believe they live in a free country, laughable yes, but they believe it none the less. I also know that there have been far more casualties at the hand of jihadists against their own people, fellow muslims, than the "good guys" deaths, they don't even compare in numbers.

Who argued in favor of turning a blind eye to Koran Burners? They are at best fools and at worst possible provocatuers, but they are not criminals, and while we can condemn them, that's all we can, and should do.

Whether or not you think this is a free country, our laws allow people to burn books whether or not they are considered holy by others. Chances are pretty damned good, in fact, that if the fool actually burned Korans and was arrested, the ACLU would have jumped in to defend him.

If we can burn Bibles and Torahs and Flags, we sure as hell can burn Korans.

Too many countries have reacted to aggressive Islamist extortion with appeasement.

We have a certain class in this country (and elsewhere it appears) who have taken up the cause against schoolyard bullies but are only too content to give their lunch money to Islamists.

It's unendingly amazing to me that folks like you can seek to "understand" one group of haters, while automatically condemning another.

There is no moral equivalency between murderous Jihadists and Koran Burners.

Clearly you are driven by the anti-American sentiment expressed as a child might "You think you're so great!"

As for who taught the world this kind of ****, I'm guessing you mean to suggest it was the Irish. You're totally wrong, but let's assume you're right...So what?

Do you mean to suggest that Christian terrorists excuse Muslim terrorists?

Do you really consider the IRA "Christian terrorists," in the way al-Qaeda are "Muslim terrorists?"

I suspect that you are one of those Western liberals who is only too happy to admit to the sins and failing of the West while exempting yourself personally because of your moral insight.

You assume too much. I'm not appologizing or siding with either group.

Neither was Paisley (apparently) but look at all the hatred he caused and see how many of his followers were only to happy to break a knee cap or kill an innocent with a snipers gun.
Burn anything you want, but if you think this stuff dissipates with the ashes... well, you only have to look at other countries that have been scarred by similar lunatics.
I am not anti-USA, I was merely pointing out, because you assumed incorrectly, that I was not a citizen of your fair country.
The Irish did teach the world, they've been at it far longer that most, not only did they set up camps in Libya but they gave the urban warfare and civilian deaths a new cache. Which by the way, the US loved and funded.
The IRA, UDF and countless other scumbags considered themselves Christians. Why is it you won't acknowledge their beliefs and yet you push the whole, every muslim is a terrorist crap. It just ain't so, and there are plenty of dead and mutilated muslim's to attest to the slaughter.
Again, I'm not an appologist and I highly doubt any of the other posters who disagree with you are either. It's just... after a century of terrorist activities by many, many groups, there has to be a better way that constantly spewing hate and disturbing the hornets nest with even more hatred and ignorance.

What do you figure is the measure of moral equivalency between murderous Jihadists and murderous Americans, Finn, considering that the number of murderous Americans and the number of murdered innocents murdered by murderous Americans far far far outnumbers those of murderous Jihadists?

That's precisely the motto of the CIA!

But the CIA likes personal terror the best. It loves mutilating live subjects, raping, torturing, murdering and then using those unfortunates as examples to do exactly what the motto suggests.

By the by, did you know that some Swedish hackers, when the internet was in its infancy, broke into the CIA website and renamed it the Central Stupidity Agency.

Finn, I'm really curious; what is it that makes you [and so many others] such a blind hypocrite?

Am I too late to razz dys ? He's.....well, he's......nahh, I got nothing. Let that be a warning to others.

If you argue that there is moral equivalency between Koran Burners or Cordoba Mosque opponents and murderous Jihadists, then I'm afraid you are either an apologist for the Jihadists, someone who has no sense of proportion at all, or a knee-jerk reactionist to any behavior you might associate with the Right.

If you insist the Irish taught the world terrorism you simply don't know much about history.

Of course the members of the IRA and the UDF, in the main, considered themselves Christians, but they were not killing each other and innocents in the names of either the Pope or the Archbishop of Cantebury, nor were they seeking to rid the world of apostates.

This doesn't excuse any of their crimes. Political terrorism is not better or worse than the religious variety, but you and your friends insist on using them as examples to minimize the foundational influence of Islam on Jihadists. The Jihadists are not the Middle Eastern replica of the IRA.

I defy you to find evidence that I have asserted that all muslims are terrorists. In fact, I have argued otherwise and defended Islam as a religion. I have and continue to argue that we can't fight and defeat this enemy if we do not understand and acknowledge the role Islam plays in their motivation.

The importance of this religious element is the general reluctance of moderate muslims to mount a real opposition to the Jihadists and the support they receive from muslims who personally could never commit the same crimes.

Of course burning Korans is not an effective response to the Jihadists. I've never argued otherwise. What I have argued is that such foolish actions are not an excuse for Jihadist crimes, are not an equivalent action to suicide bombing, and not, in the least, evidence that the West has it's own religious terrorists.

We have had members of this forum arguing that the police should have arrested Terry Jones before he had a chance to burn a single Koran.

That is cowardly and insane.

No one was burning Korans before 9/11. We have done nothing to deserve their attacks, and there is nothing we can do (short of surrender) to stave off future attacks.

All we can do is defeat them, which means killing the cynical bastards hiding in caves who incite the slow-witted and the psychotic to martyr themselves killing infidels.

This is not a struggle that will be resolved through "understanding," and "dialogue."

Wouldn't it be wonderful if by saying "No" to hatred and violence a segment of us could change human nature and the minds of monsters?

It ain't happening any time soon.

And unless you're someone who would rather see your entire family die before you took someone's life, it's all political; so spare me the moralizing.

You are not only deaf to that which your eyes won't see but constantly ignorant in your tone. Not once did I use the term moral equivalency, it's your term not mine. As the old saying goes, if you screw for money, then you are what you are. Who the hell cares which group is morally superior, they both are guilty of crimes against humanity. They both hate indiscriminatly, the message may be different, but I believe it's only because group doesn't have the years of persecution or scarcity of choices.
What the **** does the "Right" have to do with me, once again, I'm not an American and I could give a **** about the stupid left/right, liberal/conservative angles you Americans like to reduce every argument to. It just doesn't matter to me, unless you are the spokesman for every nut job who votes for the Republicans... Again, not my battle, but... If you think for one minute the USA is innocent of any bloodshed and politicking in the Middles East pre 911, give your head a shake. Your country has plenty to atone for. Saying that, I do not in any way think the violence done to the US people and many of her allies is justified. Believe it or not, there were many innocent nationals of many other countries amoung the dead of the world trade centre.

As far as the troubles in Ireland are concerned, there were and still are a direct result of religious differences not Politics, aside from the politics of excursion and racism. If you don't know this, you don't know history. And while I doubt any of the idiots firing bullets were doing it for the leaders of their church, I can assure you many a bullet fired was against the papists and/or paisley's pulpit. Pick up any book on Ireland and you can read how the proddies kept the Irish, papist, catholics from work, their language, education and safety. The catholics land was taken, their religion and language was outlawed and they fought back. I defy you to find an Irishman or an Englishman living in N. Ireland to tell you that this wasn't or isn't about religion.

The PLO began for similar reasons. The Palestinian people had their land taken, their people stuffed into humiliating refugee camps, very little opportunity or hope for 60+ years. This was the modern beginning of Muslim unrest. And the IRA was there teaching them the ropes, much like Al Quaida got its training from the US.



Really, that's the best you could do??? Stupid.

That's not what she's arguing. If she's arguing any moral equivalency at all, it's between Christians who stay unapologetically Christian in spite of the IRA, and Muslims who stay unapologetically Muslim in spite of the 9/11 terrorists. And she has no particular problem with either.

Ceili is right: You are just trying to stir **** up by intentionally misreading what your correspondents write.

Don't speak ill of the IRA.

You are, Finn, as Ceili has noted, with kinder words, full of ****. There are many many countries who, if they followed the pattern of the USA, would be fully justified in attacking.

The latest is Iraq and Afghanistan. Both illegal invasions, both crimes against humanity, both clear examples of the terrorism that the USA engages in, has engaged in for well over a century.

And as the old saying goes, If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

I suppose you believe that to argue a moral equivalence of ideas or actions you must actually employ the words "moral equivalence."

Let me illustrate how that is not the case with your own words:

" Who the hell cares which group is morally superior, they both are guilty of crimes against humanity. They both hate indiscriminatly, the message may be different, but I believe it's only because group doesn't have the years of persecution or scarcity of choices."

The "groups" under discussion throughout this thread have been Koran Burners and Jihadists. You are clearly arguing that both are guilty of crimes against humanity: Moral equivalence (and you didn't even have to use the term!)

Burning a Koran is a crime against humanity? Really?

As for the claim that they are equivalent in their indiscriminate hatred, this is simply wrong. Both groups discriminate very precisely in terms of who they hate.
The real give away (and there always is one) however is your final qualifier.

Maybe you're right, you're not arguing moral equivalence, you do seem to recognize that one group is more reprehensible than the other: Like Cyco however you believe the Koran Burners are that group, because, at least, the Jihadists have had greater oppression and have fewer choices. Now you can argue all you want that you never said "the Jihadists have an excuse," but that is exactly what you suggested in your comment (one which can be seen in your prior posts).

As for what the **** the "Right" has to do with you, I would just say that despite your protestations to the contrary, you seem to be far more fixated on the US angle of this subject than I. Or are you suggesting that wherever you live (and frankly, I couldn't care less where that may be) the concepts of the political Left and Right have no meaning?

Your arguments on this topic conform to a Left-wing prospective, but I guess you're right, you can't be categorized so easily...

I don't believe the US government is without sin as respects foreign policy and action, so I guess I don't need to give my head a shake. I don't think, however, the US deserved 9/11, and you seem to agree.

Thanks for the lesson on 9/11 victims. I had no idea all the people who died on that day were not red-blooded American citizens from the Heartland!

A debate on the Irish conflict is probably better left to another thread, but I will continue to argue it was based on tribal politics and had virtually no foundation in religious doctrine. The two tribes at war may have been distinguished by their professed religious affiliation, but that's the extent of the influence of religion.

That the IRA helped spread modern terrorist techniques is undeniable, but terror has been a weapon for centuries, and it wasn't the Irish who introduced it to the world. History extends beyond the last 50 years you know.

Finally, I understand you don't appreciate my point about actual pacifism but then I (arrogantly) don't believe you understand it.

One last thing...What the hell does it mean to be deaf to what you can't see, and how can tone be described as ignorant?

No she's not Thomas and neither are you, although I'm sure she appreciates you lending the weight of your station to her argument.