0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

 
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Nov, 2006 10:35 pm
ican wrote:
Truths cannot be avoided by you or anyone else by falsely alleging that those articulating those truths are using strawman arguments.

Some Jews in Palestine did deliberately offend Arabs there prior to 1929.

Some Arabs in Palestine did deliberately kill non-killer Jews there prior to 1929.

Deliberately offending is mean but is not a crime.

Deliberately killing is murder and is a capital crime.


Jews in Palestine did not deliberately kill killer Arabs there prior to 1929.

Jews in Palestine did not deliberately kill supporters of deliberate killer Arabs there prior to 1929.

In 1929 and thereafter, Jews in Palestine did deliberately offend Arabs there.

In 1929 and thereafter, Jews in Palestine repeately retaliated against Arabs there whenever Arabs there deliberately killed Jews there, or who supported Arabs there who deliberately killed Jews there.

Killing those who deliberately offend you or those you love, is not a justifiable act.

Killing those who deliberately kill you or those you love, is a justifiable act.


Now, to further obfuscate the issue of who was "downtrodding" whom, and when, you attempt to apply your own criteria as to what is a crime and what is not, what is justifiable and what is not in regard to your own silly definitions.

Oppression, which the word downtrodden describes as the suffering thereof, is most certainly a crime, and killing is most certainly justified by many suffering oppression as a response thereof, your inane syllogisms notwithstanding.

As to some of your aforementioned inanities, "deliberate killing" is prescribed by many organizations of humans as a a just response to "deliberate offense," hence, "killing those who deliberately offend" one or one's loved ones is most certainly a justifiable act to those certain organizations of humans, your own government included. Alternately, "killing those who deliberately kill" one or one's loved ones is not necessarily a justifiable act to those certain organizations of humans who do not hold it as such, again, your own government included.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2006 08:20 am
I messed up in this post. I meant to say I agreed with there being no civil war if we didn't remove Saddam Hussein in 2003. That part I disagreed with was obviously the statement that the Al Queda camp would have grown if we had not invaded. We could have simply bombed Zarqawi's camp destroying the camp and saved hundreds of lives as Pentagon wanted but the Bush administration simply wanted to keep him alive so that they had more reason to justify invading Iraq. It was all about regime change by then and it didn't matter what lies they had to tell or truths they had to stretch or lengths they had to in order to justify it.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2006 08:37 am
Containment check....

Containment functioning properly. You may restart the thread now.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2006 09:21 am
Quote:
Can we also agree that if Saddam Hussein's regime had not been removed, probably the al-Qaeda sanctuary created in Iraq in December 2001, would have grown and trained at least as many fighters by December 2006, as were trained in Afghanistan September 1996 to September 2001?


No. And I think Revel defined why.

Quote:
Can we also agree that if Saddam Hussein's regime had not been removed, probably the number of Iraqis killed by violence by Saddam Hussein's regime March 2003 to December 2006, would exceed the number actually killed by violence since Saddam's regime was removed?


Not even close, buddy, not even close.

Joe(If the War on Terror is a new kind of war, why are we fighting it as if it were one of the old kinds?)Nation
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2006 07:27 pm
revel wrote:

...
ican711nm wrote:

...
Can we also agree that if Saddam Hussein's regime had not been removed, probably the al-Qaeda sanctuary created in Iraq in December 2001, would have grown and trained at least as many fighters by December 2006, as were trained in Afghanistan September 1996 to September 2001?

No, since there is no evidence there was an Al Qaeda sanctuary. What there was a few was Zarqawi and a few other small number of those types of Al Qaeda (who at the time wasn't even affiliated with Osama Bin Laden but was rivals) in the no fly zones which was an area outside of Saddam Hussein's control, but rather in an area we controlled. In fact we could have gotten him if we wanted to.
...
Quote:
In March 2004, NBC News' Jim Miklaszewski reported that the White House had three times in 2002 turned down a Pentagon request to attack Zarqawi, who then was believed to be running a weapons lab in northern Iraq--in territory not controlled by Saddam Hussein's government. Miklaszewski wrote that "the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam." That is, the Bush White House let Zarqawi alone so it would have an easier time selling the war in Iraq.


Quote:

http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
09/08/2006,
Page 316 Conclusion 6.

Postwar information indicates that the Intelligence Community accurately assessed that al-Qa'ida affiliate group Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq;


Can we also agree that if Saddam Hussein's regime had not been removed, probably the number of Iraqis killed by violence by Saddam Hussein's regime March 2003 to December 2006, would exceed the number actually killed by violence since Saddam's regime was removed?

no

Quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1039115/posts
Estimate of Saddam's Victims Tops One Million


From that and Iraq vital statistics published by Britannica for 1992 through 2002, I estimate that in the four years from January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2002, Saddam's regime killed 102,999 civilians by violence.

Quote:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
IBC's Count of Civilians Killed By Violence in Iraq since 1/1/2003



As of October 31, 2006, IBC reports 52,803 Civilians killed by violence in Iraq since January 1, 2003. I estimate that in the four years January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2006, the total will be no more than 64,000.


0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2006 08:27 pm
InfraBlue wrote:
ican wrote:
Truths cannot be avoided by you or anyone else by falsely alleging that those articulating those truths are using strawman arguments.

Some Jews in Palestine did deliberately offend Arabs there prior to 1929.

Some Arabs in Palestine did deliberately kill non-killer Jews there prior to 1929.

Deliberately offending is mean but is not a crime.

Deliberately killing is murder and is a capital crime.


Jews in Palestine did not deliberately kill killer Arabs there prior to 1929.

Jews in Palestine did not deliberately kill supporters of deliberate killer Arabs there prior to 1929.

In 1929 and thereafter, Jews in Palestine did deliberately offend Arabs there.

In 1929 and thereafter, Jews in Palestine repeately retaliated against Arabs there whenever Arabs there deliberately killed Jews there, or who supported Arabs there who deliberately killed Jews there.

Killing those who deliberately offend you or those you love, is not a justifiable act.

Killing those who deliberately kill you or those you love, is a justifiable act.


Now, to further obfuscate the issue of who was "downtrodding" whom, and when, you attempt to apply your own criteria as to what is a crime and what is not, what is justifiable and what is not in regard to your own silly definitions.

Oppression, which the word downtrodden describes as the suffering thereof, is most certainly a crime, and killing is most certainly justified by many suffering oppression as a response thereof, your inane syllogisms notwithstanding.

As to some of your aforementioned inanities, "deliberate killing" is prescribed by many organizations of humans as a a just response to "deliberate offense," hence, "killing those who deliberately offend" one or one's loved ones is most certainly a justifiable act to those certain organizations of humans, your own government included. Alternately, "killing those who deliberately kill" one or one's loved ones is not necessarily a justifiable act to those certain organizations of humans who do not hold it as such, again, your own government included.

Quote:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=downtrodden
Main Entry: down·trod·den
Pronunciation: 'daun-'trä-d&n
Function: adjective
: suffering oppression


Who was downtrodding whom?

Quote:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060417-104407-2948r.htm
Terrorist shown as downtrodden
April 18, 2006

ASSOCIATED PRESS
After an impoverished childhood afflicted by a violent, alcoholic father, September 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui embraced radical Islam as a young adult when anti-Arab racism and his background thwarted his desire to become an international businessman, defense witnesses testified yesterday.

Struggling to save Moussaoui from execution, court-appointed defense lawyers called a clinical social worker, Moussaoui's high school friends and his older sisters to try to offset his second damaging appearance on the witness stand last week. Clinical social worker Jan Vogelsang testified that it was not her purpose to make excuses for Moussaoui's actions, but to understand how he reached that point.

They described a boy who witnessed violence at home and endured five stints in orphanages by age 6, frequent moves and deep poverty but nevertheless became an engaging and fun-loving teenager known for his smile and his ambition.

His Moroccan ancestry and lack of family financial backing, however, helped block his ambitions, first in France and then in London. He withdrew from family and friends in 1995, gained weight, shaved his head and took up radical Islam, these witnesses said.

But leaving court for a break after the judge and jury had gone, Moussaoui said loudly, "It's a lot of American B.S."

Though slumped in his chair, even Moussaoui could not take his eyes off most of the videotaped testimony, taken in France in December, from his sister Jamilla, who described her younger brother as "a pretty little baby, always smiling. ... He was the little sweetheart of the family."

But she also described the abusive atmosphere caused by their father, Omar, who repeatedly beat his wife, Aicha, and Miss Moussaoui.

"He almost killed me; he tried to kill me," she said. When her mother had money for food, "he ate everything and left us nothing."

Miss Vogelsang said Mrs. Moussaoui provided little supervision and no religious training. The family celebrated Christian and Islamic holidays because the mother wanted her children to integrate into French culture, the clinical social worker said. As a teenager, Moussaoui was rejected as a "dirty Arab" by the family of his longtime girlfriend, Miss Vogelsang said.

On cross-examination, prosecutor David Novak tried to undercut the tone of inevitability that Miss Vogelsang had struck. He got her to acknowledge that Moussaoui's older brother, Abd Samad Moussaoui, emerged from the same family to become an engineering teacher rather than a terrorist.

Two high-school buddies from France, Fabrice Guillen in court and Christophe Marguel on videotape, testified how much Moussaoui liked to have fun, party and play sports. Mr. Guillen said Moussaoui's hero was Martin Luther King.

Both said he encountered racism in France, being barred from clubs because of his being an Arab, Mr. Guillen said.

"He said it wasn't a big deal ... but we all knew it bothered him," he said.

Gilles Cohen, who met the then-18-year-old Moussaoui in 1986, said they became good friends and that his family even put Moussaoui and his brother up for several months in 1990 when they left their mother's home in a dispute over their desire to use all their finances for education.


Was being downtrodden a valid justification for murder?

Quote:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/murder
Main Entry: 2murder
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): mur·dered; mur·der·ing /'m&r-d(&-)ri[ng]/
transitive verb
1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2 : to slaughter wantonly : SLAY
3 a : to put an end to b : TEASE, TORMENT c : MUTILATE, MANGLE <murders> d : to defeat badly
intransitive verb : to commit murder
synonym see KILL


Is being threatened with murder a valid justification for pre-emptive self-defense?
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2006 09:56 pm
Quote:
Is being threatened with murder a valid justification for pre-emptive self-defense?


George W. Bush certainly thinks so.

The policy prior to his regime was 'clear and present danger'.

Joe(Bang! I thought you were thinking about hitting me.)Nation
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 09:54 am
General Abizaid
FINALLY, someone in authority is telling us the truth about what is really going on in Iraq. During a Sunday interview, General John Abizaid correctly described Iraq (and the entire middle east) as revenge-based tribal societies. They settle their disputes at the local level: family, religious leader, war lord, etc. They don't exclusively use legal institutions and the rule of law, except for Islamic law, to right wrong. They use revenge.

We've seen this play out for decades between Israel and the surrounding muslim states. When Israelies fail to follow the rule of law and fall back on revenge, they always make their situation worse. They behave no better than their Muslim neighbors.

Thank you, General Abizaid. FINALLY, someone who actually understands the history and culture of the Middle Eastern countries and tribes, is telling us something too many of us didn't know. People by the thousands are dying due to our ignorance.

Why are those in charge only now speaking up? Damn their timidity!

Is anyone listening?

BBB
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 10:12 am
John Roberts Tells Kurtz: Iraq Worse Than Media Shows
John Roberts Tells Kurtz: Iraq Worse Than Media Shows
By E&P Staff
Published: November 26, 2006

CNN's John Roberts, recently returned from a month-long visit to Iraq, was interviewed by The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz for his CNN "Reliable Sources" program on Sunday. Much of the talk concerned media treatment of the war, starting with complaints by U.S. soldiers, and then the overall media coverage.

Roberts revealed that despite some charges to the contrary, military personnel did not have a problem with the coverage and, in fact, the situation on the ground is an "absolute mess," worse than the media has shown. "The amount of death that's on the streets of Baghdad for U.S. forces and for the Iraqi people is at an astronomical level," he said. "So, to some degree, what we're seeing is sanitized."

Transcripit:

KURTZ: The conventional wisdom is that American troops resent the media's coverage of this war as too negative. But there's a Zogby poll of U.S. forces that say 72 percent think they should leave within a year.

What did you find when you were in Iraq military people saying about the mission and the media?

ROBERTS: You know, I spent a lot of time with U.S. troops. In the month that I was there, I spent probably two weeks or a little bit more than that on the ground with them, north of Baghdad, in Baghdad, traveling with a lot of the Stryker units who had been there for 16 months now.

They were very optimistic on the unit level about what they were doing. They believed in the mission that they were undertaking -- you know, clearing operations, trying to secure thee streets of Baghdad, trying to get some of the weapons off the streets, trying to deal with these militia members who are the cause of so much of this sectarian violence.

When they stepped back, though, and took a look at the larger picture, there were a lot of questions about where the direction was headed, where they were going to go in the future...

KURTZ: And did they think...

ROBERTS: ... whether the plan immediately was the right plan.

KURTZ: And did they think the coverage, generally, on balance, was fair or unfair?

ROBERTS: You know, they didn't seem to have too many complaints about the coverage. They appreciated the fact that we were there, and anytime you're embedded with U.S. forces, you're going to see the bad along with the good.

They were always trying to put a positive spin on things from a command level. You know, taking us to certain areas to show us certain things they thought would play well. But by and large, I didn't hear any complaints about the coverage.

KURTZ: If you're sitting at home watching it on TV, you see mass kidnappings, suicide bombings, mosque bombings, death squads. When you're there as a journalist, does the situation seem as chaotic to you as it does to a viewer?

ROBERTS: You know, Howie, I had a perception of Iraq going in, and it was the first time I'd been there in three-and-a-half years. I got out a couple of days after the Saddam statue fell, after the initial invasion. So it was quite a shock to go back and see the chaotic state that the country was in. And as -- I guess you could say as realistic as my perceptions were about going in there, the reality on the ground far exceeded that.

The place is a mess. It's an absolute mess. There is nowhere you can go in the Baghdad area as a Western journalist without an escort, where you could feel safe from being kidnapped, shot at, whatever. The amount of death that's on the streets of Baghdad for U.S. forces and for the Iraqi people is at an astronomical level.

I was out riding with a Stryker unit a couple of days after the election. They got the 911 call, an IED attack against an American convoy. This convoy of Humvees had just been driving up the on-ramp on to a highway when one of those formed projectiles hit it.

It literally disintegrated the guy in the passenger seat, who was right there where the projectile came through, killed the driver. I watched him die on the roadside.

And when you look at that from such a personal level, it does affect your perceptions of what's going on on the ground. And I know that that's not everywhere, all the time, but it does suggest that death lurks at every step in Iraq, and any place where death lurks at every step can be in nothing but a state of chaos.

KURTZ: So in a nutshell, you're saying that the coverage -- that the situation in Iraq on the ground, as you saw close up, is worse -- is worse than it appears from the television and newspaper coverage.

Why is that? Why are we not capturing the full anarchy there?

ROBERTS: Because television can't -- and even print -- can't fully capture the scope of what's going on in Iraq. And to some degree, too, over the last three-and-a-half years, Howie, it's become the daily traffic report, the daily drumbeat.

When you get there and you see it on a personal level, when you watch somebody die before your eyes, it gives you a much different perspective on it than it does being a half a world away, reading about it or watching it on television. Also, you know, the pictures on television are sanitized compared to what they are on the ground.

For example, when we came across that IED attack, we did not shoot pictures that we would show on television of the carnage. We showed pictures of people carrying litters, et cetera, because it's, A...

KURTZ: Too raw?

ROBERTS: ... it's too raw for television. B, it's too personal for the families who were involved, because the fellow who I saw on the ground, Howie, he was ripped apart. And that's just not the sort of thing that you want a family to know.

If a loved one died in Iraq, they died in Iraq. You don't need to show them the graphic pictures of it.

So, to some degree, what we're seeing is sanitized.

KURTZ: But here you have administration officials, as you know, repeatedly, relentlessly criticizing the coverage of this war as too focused on the violence and not paying any attention to what they claim are -- is progress, at least in other areas.

Is that argument now collapsing or fading as the violence apparently continues to get worse there?

ROBERTS: I never thought it was a solid argument to begin with. You know, you could say, hey, why aren't you showing the good news? But when most of the news is bad, it's difficult to show what good things that are happening there.

You know, I did notice that in some of the areas of Old Baghdad, when we were out on patrol with the Stryker units, that there is electricity, there is running water to a greater degree than there was before. There are some things that are getting done.

But you talk to the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, Stuart Bowen, whom I know quite well, and he'll tell you, face-to-face, that the amount of violence in Iraq is absolutely preventing any real progress on the reconstruction front. So until they get a handle on the violence, it's going to be very difficult to see the good news.

KURTZ: So you're saying the violence is the story; everything else is secondary.

ROBERTS: The violence affects everything in Iraq.

KURTZ: As public opinion has swung against this war -- and we certainly saw that in the results of the midterm elections -- do you think that the media's coverage, and what you described as `the traffic report,' the daily death toll, both Iraqis and Americans, have helped to turn the coverage -- almost reminiscent of Vietnam, John -- have helped to turn the country against this war?

ROBERTS: I think it's because you're not seeing any definable progress. If people were fighting and dying, and yet there was a lot of progress, I think you could -- people back home could make the case in their own minds that yes, this is worth it. But when you see people fighting and dying, and in greater numbers -- I mean, look at the death toll in October, 105, fourth deadliest month...

KURTZ: And you see Iraqis killing each other in greater numbers and with increasing brutality, and then you question what -- and the media increasingly have questioned, what are you U.S. soldiers accomplishing?

ROBERTS: Exactly. What's the end game here, how is this going to turn out? Vietnam, after the Tet Offensive in 1968, public opinion started turning against it. President Bush suggested recently that the upswing in violence by insurgent groups and al Qaeda may be their attempt at instigating a certain Tet Offensive backlash.

I've got to tell you, if that's what they're doing, it's working. But I think to a larger degree, it's not anything strategic on their part, it's just that this is the way that things are going in Iraq. And the more chaotic it gets, the more death there is, and the more people will look at the U.S. involvement in Iraq and say, if there's no progress, if there's no defined end game here, if there's no way of knowing when people are coming home, why are we there?
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 10:40 am
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 10:43 am
U.S. policymakers would have benefited from more time reading history and less concocting rosy scenarios. In the 1920s, the British similarly believed that democracy could be imposed on a tribal culture accustomed to rule by strongmen. After a few massacres, the British learned their lesson, installed a king and retreated.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 05:04 pm
Joe Nation wrote:
Quote:
Is being threatened with murder a valid justification for pre-emptive self-defense?


George W. Bush certainly thinks so.

The policy prior to his regime was 'clear and present danger'.

Joe(Bang! I thought you were thinking about hitting me.)Nation

I agree that when one is threatened with murder pre-emptive self-defense is justifiable. First, it is more likely to succeed in preventing one's death. Second, the criterion of 'clear and present danger' is debatable right down to the point when the murder is actually committed.

In other words, the criterion of 'clear and present danger' is a euphemism. It generally degenerates over disagreement right down to not defending yourself until you are attacked. Then and only then is the danger generally agreed by almost all to be present. I say almost all, because as you know there are always some who advocate thereafter not acting pre-emptively to stop a next attack.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 05:17 pm
Re: General Abizaid
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

...
We've seen this play out for decades between Israel and the surrounding muslim states. When Israelies fail to follow the rule of law and fall back on revenge, they always make their situation worse. They behave no better than their Muslim neighbors.
...

What is the relevant "rule of law" that the Israelis should have followed after they were attacked?

Could Israel have survived until now, if they had followed that "rule of law" instead of attacking those they thought were attacking them and/or supporting those who were attacking them?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 08:05 am
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

...
We've seen this play out for decades between Israel and the surrounding muslim states. When Israelies fail to follow the rule of law and fall back on revenge, they always make their situation worse. They behave no better than their Muslim


100 million + Moslems looking to destroy the State of Israel against 3 millon[approx]Jews fighting for it's survival. . And you are asking them to turn the other cheek. I guess that is easy to say sitting comfortably behind your computer.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 10:53 am
Quote:
Bush, at NATO summit, stands firm on finishing 'mission' in Iraq
RIGA, Latvia (CNN) -- President Bush gave a freedom pep talk Tuesday at the University of Latvia, once again vowing he won't support the removal of U.S. troops from Iraq "before the mission is complete."

Bush, who faces heightened political pressure because of rising Shiite-Sunni violence in Iraq, is in Riga for a summit with other NATO leaders, and many of his comments addressed the strengthening of democracy in eastern Europe, including the former Soviet republic of Latvia.

"The most basic responsibility of this alliance is to defend our people against the threats of a new century," he said. "We're in a long struggle against terrorists and extremists who follow a hateful ideology and seek to establish a totalitarian empire from Spain to Indonesia.

"We fight against the extremists who desire safe havens, and are willing to kill innocents anywhere to achieve their objectives."


Here we go again.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 03:19 pm
Alas, what do you think would be better to do? Confused
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 04:04 pm
Quote:

"Straight Talk from a Retired General" (presumably, General Zais)

The Rape of Europe

The German author Henryk M. Broder recently told the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant (12 October) that young Europeans who love freedom better emigrate. Europe as we know it will no longer exist 20 years from now.

Whilst sitting on a terrace in Berlin, Broder pointed to the other customers and the passers-by and said melancholically: "We are watching the world of yesterday." Europe is turning Muslim. As Broder is sixty years old he is not going to emigrate himself. "I am too old," he said. However, he urged young people to get out and "move to Australia or New Zealand. That is the only option they have if they want to avoid the plagues that will turn the old continent uninhabitable."

Many Germans and Dutch, apparently, did not wait for Broder's advice. The number of emigrants leaving the Netherlands and Germany has already surpassed the number of immigrants moving in. One does not have to be prophetic to predict, like Henryk Broder, that Europe is becoming Islamic. Just consider the demographics. The number of Muslims in contemporary Europe is estimated to be 50 million. It is expected to double in twenty years. By 2025, one third of all European children will be born to Muslim families.

Today Mohammed is already the most popular name for new-born boys in Brussels, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and other major European cities. Broder is convinced that the Europeans are not willing to oppose islamization. "The dominant ethos," he told De Volkskrant, "is perfectly voiced by the stupid blonde woman author with whom I recently debated. She said that it is sometimes better to let yourself be raped than to risk serious injuries while resisting. She said it is sometimes better to avoid fighting than run the risk of death."

In a recent op-ed piece in the Brussels newspaper De Standaard (23 October) the Dutch (gay and self-declared "humanist") author Oscar Van den Boogaard refers to Broder's interview. Van den Boogaard says that to him coping with the islamization of Europe is like "a process of mourning." He is overwhelmed by a "feeling of sadness." "I am not a warrior," he says, "but who is? I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it."

As Tom Bethell wrote in this month's American Spectator: "Just at the most basic level of demography the secular-humanist option is not working." But there is more to it than the fact that non- religious people tend not to have as many children as religious people, because many of them prefer to "enjoy" freedom rather than renounce it for the sake of children. Secularists, it seems to me, are also less keen on fighting. Since they do not believe in an afterlife, this life is the only thing they have to lose. Hence they will rather accept submission than fight. Like the German feminist Broder referred to, they prefer to be raped than to resist.

"If faith collapses, civilization goes with it," says Bethell. That is the real cause of the closing of civilization in Europe. Islamization is simply the consequence. The very word Islam means "submission" and the secularists have submitted already. Many Europeans have already become Muslims, though they do not realize it or do not want to admit it.

Some of the people I meet in the U.S. are particularly worried about the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe. They are correct when they fear that anti-Semitism is also on the rise among non- immigrant Europeans. The latter hate people with a fighting spirit. Contemporary anti-Semitism in Europe (at least when coming from native Europeans) is related to anti-Americanism. People who are not prepared to resist and are eager to submit, hate others who do not want to submit and are prepared to fight. They hate them because they are afraid that the latter will endanger their lives as well. In their view everyone must submit.

This is why they have come to hate Israel and America so much, and the small band of European "islamophobes" who dare to talk about what they see happening around them. West Europeans have to choose between submission (islam) or death . I fear, like Broder, that they have chosen submission - just like in former days when they preferred to be red rather than dead.

This is where I see a parallel between Iraq and VN. McNamara was particularly well qualified to screw up the Armed Forces, and remarkably arrogant in his view of how to fight "his" war. The cost of the war was fixed at $25 Billion a year in an agreement with the White House, and to keep the cost controlled, equipment (Army, Navy, AF, and Marine) was allowed to wear out and war reserve munitions were drawn down world wide. Just from the Navy standpoint years after the war ended,we were still trying to fix ships that had been neglected during the nine years of war. Decisions made in desperation by the DoD civilian managers ignored military advice and made a mess of things to say the least. Also, to the best of my recollection they never developed a logical and workable strategy to beat the enemy into submission. Certainly the tactical measures allowed by Mac and State guaranteed an ad hoc effort that did more to increase our casualty rate than do harm to the enemy.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 04:59 pm
au1292
au1929 wrote:
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
... We've seen this play out for decades between Israel and the surrounding muslim states. When Israelies fail to follow the rule of law and fall back on revenge, they always make their situation worse. They behave no better than their Muslim

100 million + Moslems looking to destroy the State of Israel against 3 millon[approx]Jews fighting for it's survival. . And you are asking them to turn the other cheek. I guess that is easy to say sitting comfortably behind your computer.


You know very well that I've always supported the State of Israel. However, I'm not a member of the "Israel can do no wrong" club. Too often, Israel's government is its own worst enemy.

BBB
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 05:30 pm
from ican's quote :
"Whilst sitting on a terrace in Berlin, Broder pointed to the other customers and the passers-by and said melancholically: "We are watching the world of yesterday." Europe is turning Muslim. As Broder is sixty years old he is not going to emigrate himself. "I am too old," he said. However, he urged young people to get out and "move to Australia or New Zealand. That is the only option they have if they want to avoid the plagues that will turn the old continent uninhabitable."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if we go back a few centuries , we can probably see some native indians looking at all the "white" people moving into north-america and saying :
"we are watching the end of all we treasure . the white man is taking over and pushing us off our lands ".

nations come and nations go .
we may think that "our" nation is so much more special than all other nations , but thinking so , doesn't make it so .
just imagine if we had lived 500 years ago and would be able to look at the world today . there would be quite a few surprises .
well , let's try a different exercise ; let's close our eyes and pretend we are coming back in another 500 years . again , there would be quite a few surprises .
imo there is no reason to believe that everything won't change as much during the next 500 years as it did during the last 500 years .

that's simply the way the world moves . no need to fret .
hbg
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 05:50 pm
Re: au1292
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
au1929 wrote:
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
... We've seen this play out for decades between Israel and the surrounding muslim states. When Israelies fail to follow the rule of law and fall back on revenge, they always make their situation worse. They behave no better than their Muslim

100 million + Moslems looking to destroy the State of Israel against 3 millon[approx]Jews fighting for it's survival. . And you are asking them to turn the other cheek. I guess that is easy to say sitting comfortably behind your computer.


You know very well that I've always supported the State of Israel. However, I'm not a member of the "Israel can do no wrong" club. Too often, Israel's government is its own worst enemy.

BBB

Too often Israel's governent is too afraid of prevailing opinion to do the right thing.

Those who repeatedly proclaim their objective to be the killing of Israelies and the removal of Israel, and do kill Israelies, are always Israel's worst enemy.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/16/2025 at 04:07:30