Has the corner been turned in the war against terror?

Craven - You have made a most interesting comment there.
If - just the mere act of HOLDING a typical, popular political
opinion, IS, by its very nature, uncivil - then we ARE most
certainly in trouble here. What is discussion? Without light
we would not know what dark is. So the opposite ends of the
spectrum are what make for most interesting conversations
about all things political (or otherwise) Am I reading you
correctly? I can SEE what a bore it would be if each of us
mouthed the same boring opinions.... there would be nothing
to discuss - we would all be the same, have the same opinions,
be like robots. Remember that movie, where Robin Williams
played a robot, who; unlike other robots actually had the
ability to grow to be human, to become artistic, and this he
did via feelings, the comprehension of feelings, of HIS OWN
FEELINGS, not anyone else's.

Frank--

From page 5, you made negative personal comments about a new member. His great crime was holding a different opinion from yours.

Reading back, you seem to think those guilty of agreeing with a conservative view should be treated in an uncivil manner, because they (having an opinion other than yours) are themselves 'uncivil.'

This is not about having a thin skin. It is about your open rudeness to those you don't agree with. Comments by Scrat and I were mild. Your nutty, new personal agenda to appoint conservatives as uncivil, and excuse yourself for being uncivil in your treatment of them is one step this side of selling flowers with the Moonies.

Do you realize you're on the fringe?

Double post.

Hey, an Internet discussion forum is no place for the thin skinned -- unless they realize that most people are not going to play some silly game that involves being very kind and careful with wording -- to the point where ideas and passion become diluted and, quite frankly, the conversations become boring.
----------------------

In order to attempt to comply with the rules of this board, I have had to be very kind and careful with wording. I have had to dilute passion and ideas.

Do you consider yourself exempt from the rules, Frank?

It is very easy to be thick-skinned when those who disagree with you are operating from a much stricter code of behavior. Trust me, I don't mind a much freer board with far less rules-- but if I am held to a higher standard-- I am going to make sure the rules apply EVENLY. Or at least point it out when they don't.

This newbie has just read the rules, and was probably under the impression everyone here follows them. I think he sees now that they are only for some.

Craven - okay, I think I understand what you meant. But Babs (as usual) makes a strong case.

The art of holding a civil argument lies in expressing what one feels, hopefully complemented with some background information that would indicate useful points to be made.

Sofia, your defense of scrat is illuminating. However, re-reading what you wrote above, you yourself make this into a personal attack. And it's interesting that you mention that you yourself have had some difficulty along these lines. But scrat does tend to make and take things personally, which precludes civil arguments with normal people.

I have read many threads in which scrat has appeared, and it is not simply that he holds an opposing view, it is all in his delivery of same. Which, I think, at least partly embodies some of what Craven was saying.

Just as an example - the topic for this thread is "has the corner been turned in the war against terror?" Reading back, most of us were trying to engage in civil discussion - including opposing views. Look and see who turned the corner of this discussion. Maybe it was a deliberate attempt to stir things up (that's the charitable way of looking at it). But it was obstructionist and detrimental, and that is not helpful to discussion and argument.

Perhaps we could get back to topic?

ebp - Since we're all getting back to the topic here, I wanted to follow-up with your last comments to me by asking whether you realize that when you write that my other historical examples constituted "real" threats and that Iraq did not constitute a "real" threat, that you have offered an opinion, and not a fact?

I understand and respect that opinion, but that is all it is. I and others believed Iraq did in fact pose a very "real" threat. Of course, that;s a safe opinion for me to hold, since, assuming that threat has been averted, we will never know how "real" it was.)

Sure Scrat,

Well first, the burden of proof is logically on you. I doesn't make sense for me to argue that there is *no* threat until you have made your argument as to what the threat is. But, I will assume you are speaking about the WMD's. If you have another threat please let me know.

To the non-threat of WMD's, I have two arguments.

1) The only evidence for WMD's has been from the Bush administration whose credibility is strained to anyone but the most partisan. He assured us that there were "stockpiles" of weapons ready to be used against American soldiers. He told us about the "red zone" around Baghdad. So far, even though we now occupy the country and are interrogating Iraqi scientists, all we have found except for several false positives, plus two mobile homes that have been washed with Ammonia.

Whatever threat there was, it was clearly checked by international pressure (otherwise they certainly would have been used as Saddam was losing the war). Not only were they not used, but they were not even prepared for use in the war. There were no loaded WMD shells even made ready.

2) The term "WMD" itself is just a propaganda tool. It tries to lump chemical and biological weapons together with nuclear bombs. If you think about this, this doesn't make any sense.

Biological and Chemical weapons, in spite of the propaganda, do not pose a grave threat, even if they exist and they are in the hands of terrorists.

Look. When a Japanese cult released Sarin Nerve gas in a subway they killed a dozen people. This was in nearly ideal conditions. There was no wind and an enclosed space.

When some wacko aquired "military grade" Anthrax, all he or she was able to do was kill 5 people?

Compare these attacks with what Tim McVeigh was able to do with fertilizer.

The fact is that Chemical and Biological weapons are inefficient. They cause much *less* destruction than conventional bombs. Even Saddams chemical attack against the Kurds shows this. The toxin was spread over a defensless populace by low flying planes. These planes had to make several passes. This was horrific, but it would have certainly been at least as effective to use strafing or bombs.

The one true "weapon of mass desctruction" the nuclear bomb. I think we all agree that would be disasterous in the hands of a terrorist. (Incidently, I may support a military action in North Korea for this very reason.)

However it was perfectly clear before the war that Saddam had no capability to produce nuclear weapons.

---------
The WMD argument is nothing less than a propaganda coup by the Bush administration. The weapons that Iraq might have had are not even very threatening in the grand scheme of things.

What scares me is how easy it is to scare the American people into supporting an unjust war, and sacraficing their own basic rights.

ebp - No, I was not speaking of WMDs, nor does it really matter what specifically I think constitutes a threat. (At least not right now--I've been up all night and can't think that deeply.) I can, of course, explain why I think Iraq is a threat, but we already know that you do not, and I assume you have roughly the same information available as do I, so what would the point be? You do not think Iraq posed a threat to the US and so think the war was wrong. Fair enough.

Thanks for the courteous, thoughtful replies. When I wake up later today I may discover I have the strength to hash this one out some more, but right now I do not.

I have looked over my posts -- and while I have argued with considerable passion and have occasionally lapsed into some personal perspectives, I do not see my comments as markedly different from the kind many others make here and in other forums.

I certainly see nothing in any of my posts that comes close to being disqualifying -- or frankly, even truly uncivil. I suspect the reason some people are making it as big an issue as they are is because they don't like the content of my comments specific to conservatism or some brands of theism.

These places are not for the thin-skinned -- and if a newbie is going to complain in half a dozen instances (about several different people) perhaps the problem lies with the newbie -- and not the people the newbie considers uncivil.

In any case, there is nothing I have said here that is so horrible a newbie (or someone who has been around for ages) -- should determine disqualifies me from further discussion or responses. Not, by the way, that I think Scrat is truly a newbie to this kind of give and take.

And quite honestly, I am laughing out loud at some of the stuff coming my way from people supposedly giving me lessons on how to conduct myself with civility. It's like listening to a lecture from Rush Limbaugh on how to stay trim.

In answer to the original question; no, the war is not won by thousands of miles. Even if I don't believe what the 'intelligence agencies' said about al Quida regrouping around the world, the recent bombings in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and Israel only portends things getting worse than better in the future. c.i.

As a matter of fact, CI, it's getting scary. The conjecture right now seems to be that AlQueda is growing and changing; that new groups are forming from old ones. And still, Osama binLaden, the Mullahs, Saddam Hussein and so many others, to say nothing of the inanimates like WMD, remain far from our grasp. And, apparently, from our ability to grasp the meanings of all this. The attacks in Morocco were coordinated and planned, and executed.

Whatever we did in Iraq doesn't really seem to have worked, and I hope it doesn't have a boomerang effect.

I am also terrified of what all this is going to cost. With the government now looking at having foundations do mandated spending (whatever happened to that good old republican cry of "keep government out of my life?"), and more and more states looking at gambling as a way of raising money - we seem to have been well started down that slippery slope.

All that brave talk coming out of Washington is beginning to look quite empty.

Mamaj -- I think the boomerang is inevitable. Would seem to me we're kind of asking for it. Which begs the question: is that our intention?

I heard something last night on libertarian/constitutionalist radio which troubles me. (Please don't hold me to a high tech standard as I try to convey what they were saying -- it's all greek to me...) There is a new way of providing superfast IT -- by using power lines on the grid. The FCC, and in particularly Powell, are all excited about it and writing permission slips all over the place. But there's a dark side: it wipes out shortwave radio in most areas, worse in urban areas, not as bad in rural areas. Shortwave is used by aficionados and by people who like having a communications device which is free and open. This unsupervised communication will be almost obliterated by the new broadband service using power lines. 0 to 8 mhz will be eliminated. For the libertarians (and anyone else who doesn't want their information acquisition and transfer dominated by the federal government and/or large corporations), this feels like a real threat, a closing down of a significant freedom.

Tartarin - This is the first I've heard of this new application, but piggybacking a data signal on a power line is an old concept.

I assume that what you heard begin discussed dealt with the likelihood that such a signal piggybacked across the entire power grid would radiate at a sufficient level as to mask ambient transmissions in that frequency range. (In other words, the signal on the grid will create too much noise in that frequency range for the range to be useable for broadcast.)

Assuming this is something that is actually in the works, what stops ham operators from using another part of the spectrum? Surely the industry will work out a way to survive.

Just my thoughts based on what you've shared. Some or all of what I've written may be wrong. Or not. :wink:

Don't ask me Scrat! My know-nothing theory (from living in a remote part of Europe and being dependent on shortwave for news) is that different times of the day require different frequencies, that signals aren't as steady as medium wave (AM), so shortwave listeners and operators need all the latitude they can get mhz-wise.

In principle, I don't like independent, harmless, small-scale communications networks being driven out by corporate owners of huge communications networks. We are also insufficiently attentive to the harm modern communications can do, from the teensy weensy bother (my ceiling fans coming to a halt every time a certain person drives by on the country road using her cellphone) to the horrible (untold numbers -- thousands -- of birds killed by microwave towers) to the possibility of mass monitoring.

I found an article about it:

I'd sign up for that in a minute, Scrat, being in a very rural area with no DSL and only sketchy satellite service. But I'm really worried about evidence that fringe radio stations are being bought up. Some of them (our local one) is libertarian/constitutionalist, not pulling their punches in going up against Bush (though they sure don't love the Dems). They are increasingly forced to broadcast on shortwave and now they're worried (I think with reason) that shortwave will be less and less available. We are moving from fewer choices but greater diversity to hundreds of choices within a narrow range of opinion. Not good.

Tartarin - I hope your radio station finds a way to keep pumping out whatever message it chooses, but I disagree with the notion that we are being presented with fewer and fewer sources for news given the explosion of sources on the Internet.

Scrat -- I'm delighted with the internet, but not everyone has a computer and not all of those who do have the time to go searching for news. The idea that one of the most commonly used media -- the radio -- would be owned by fewer and fewer conglomerates just... pisses me off.

Tartarin - The radio was not always as common as it is today, nor do most people rely on it for their news, as you seem to suggest. But again, I hope you can continue to tune in any station you chose for years to come.

Guys I know here -- the ones who work outdoors (ranching), the ones who work in garages, etc., -- have the radio on in the car/truck constantly. I don't watch TV, use radio for quick updates. TV doesn't seem to be as much of a big deal here as in cities. Radio seems to be the male choice, TV the female choice.