LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   All Hank, all the time. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=734)

taxwonk 08-13-2006 05:13 PM

Can we kill them all?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
When you look at the polls - that over a quarter of British Muslims thought that the 7/7 train attacks on helpless civilians were justified - then you begin to see that most of these people are "bad" and unable to live peaceably in a civilized society.

Us versus Them. Get used to it.
Which brings us back to my original question: can we kill them all?

Spanky 08-13-2006 08:25 PM

Do yourselves a favor and shut the hell up.............
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Your first two sentences make sense individually, but not when read together. If these folks think terrorism is wrong, how can they think there is some justification for it?

And then I don't understand your last two sentences at all. Of course we want people to "expect" terrorism. MI5, MI6, etc. That doesn't mean they approve of it.



In denial of what? I suspect that these people believe that what they are urging will not only help Britain avoid terrorist acts but also is "right." If you assume that they are patriotic Brits urging what they think is best for the country, what's the problem?
You know perfectly well that there are differentl levels of condemning something. They condemn it but not that strongly. If you were condemnning the Allied targeting of civilian neighborhoods during bombing during WWII, there is a huge difference between saying - under absolutely no circumstances is intentionally bombing civilian targets OK. (vs.) Well, it is wrong, but what do you expect with the way the Nazi were acting and the people are partically responsible for what their government does.

And during WWII, if you were trying to get the British and American government to stop targeting Civilians, the wrong line of reasoning would be to say that they shouldn't do it because of what the Nazis might do. Such a line of reasoning would remind them that the Nazis would probably do it anyway regardless of Allied actoin, and would probably inflame people's desire for retaliation.

If you were trying to get the Allied leaders to stop bombing civilain targets, the time not to do it would be right after a major Nazi bombing campaign. You would keep your mouth shut until a time that passions diminshed a great deal.

Adder 08-13-2006 08:35 PM

Can we kill them all?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
If you think it's ok that 25-30% of an ethnic population freely and openly supports the murder of innocents, you're the one who is totally fucked up.
Thank god there are no more Catholics in Northern Ireland.

Gattigap 08-13-2006 09:01 PM

Can we kill them all?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
If you think it's ok that 25-30% of an ethnic population freely and openly supports the murder of innocents, you're the one who is totally fucked up.
OK. Which does, indeed, bring us back to Wonk's question. If we can conclude from these polls that the entire group is to blame, and it's Us vs. Them, please share your solution.

Would it be modern-day internment? Mass forced emigration to the Middle East? Simple extermination? Anyone who holds a Koran will do?

American Muslims too, or just the Brits? Do we wait until a Pew poll shows similar evil thoughts lurking in the minds of American citizens before we begin?

taxwonk 08-13-2006 10:20 PM

Can we kill them all?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Adder
Thank god there are no more Catholics in Northern Ireland.
Or Protestants.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-13-2006 10:40 PM

Do yourselves a favor and shut the hell up.............
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
You know perfectly well that there are differentl levels of condemning something. They condemn it but not that strongly. If you were condemnning the Allied targeting of civilian neighborhoods during bombing during WWII, there is a huge difference between saying - under absolutely no circumstances is intentionally bombing civilian targets OK. (vs.) Well, it is wrong, but what do you expect with the way the Nazi were acting and the people are partically responsible for what their government does.

And during WWII, if you were trying to get the British and American government to stop targeting Civilians, the wrong line of reasoning would be to say that they shouldn't do it because of what the Nazis might do. Such a line of reasoning would remind them that the Nazis would probably do it anyway regardless of Allied actoin, and would probably inflame people's desire for retaliation.

If you were trying to get the Allied leaders to stop bombing civilain targets, the time not to do it would be right after a major Nazi bombing campaign. You would keep your mouth shut until a time that passions diminshed a great deal.
Either you take them at their words when they condemn the attacks or you don't. I do. Apparently, you don't. It seems odd to me to scrutinize public statements and then treat them as dishonest, but I can't stop you.

I don't understand at all your analogy to the Nazis. Except maybe for Slave, we should all be able to agree that there is a public diplomacy component to the war on terrorism. Do you take Karen Hughes' job seriously? I do. These people are pointing out that the Anglo-American Middle East policy is undercutting that task.

sgtclub 08-14-2006 12:18 AM

Can we kill them all?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
OK. Which does, indeed, bring us back to Wonk's question. If we can conclude from these polls that the entire group is to blame, and it's Us vs. Them, please share your solution.

Would it be modern-day internment? Mass forced emigration to the Middle East? Simple extermination? Anyone who holds a Koran will do?

American Muslims too, or just the Brits? Do we wait until a Pew poll shows similar evil thoughts lurking in the minds of American citizens before we begin?
The long term "solution" (which is a terrible word choice, given history's use of that term) is to attempt to change the incredibly fucked up thinking of a large majority of Arabs. The only possible way I see this happening is to give them an alternative to what they currently have, and the only realistic alternative that I see is democracy. I don't mean democracy in the sense of free elections only, but far more importantly is free thought. Democracy, however, is a pre-condition to free thought. Which is a long way of saying that, regardless of the WMD question, I support the toppling of Saddam and our efforts to establish a democracy in the heart of the middle east.

The effort will take time (not years, but decades, probably a generation, but I don't believe there is any other alternative.

The DEMs offer what? A pull out of Iraq? I don't fault them for wanting us out of Iraq. I want us out of Iraq too. But then what? Back to the status quo pre-Saddam? What is the long term alternative?

SlaveNoMore 08-14-2006 02:16 AM

Can we kill them all?
 
Quote:

sgtclub
The long term "solution" (which is a terrible word choice, given history's use of that term) is to attempt to change the incredibly fucked up thinking of a large majority of Arabs.
"Here's a clue, from a recent Pew poll that asked: What do you consider yourself first? A citizen of your country or a Muslim?

In the United Kingdom, 7 percent of Muslims consider themselves British first, 81 percent consider themselves Muslim first."

These are British citizens we are talking about - not some random immigrants.

Spanky 08-14-2006 02:51 AM

Do yourselves a favor and shut the hell up.............
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Either you take them at their words when they condemn the attacks or you don't. I do. Apparently, you don't. It seems odd to me to scrutinize public statements and then treat them as dishonest, but I can't stop you.
You have zero reading comprehension and it is very annoying. I didn't say I didn't believe them. I questioned their timing and their tone. And I am not scrutinizing the public statement. You don't have to scrutinize it, you just simply have to read it to see that their condemnation was Tepid.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't understand at all your analogy to the Nazis. Except maybe for Slave, we should all be able to agree that there is a public diplomacy component to the war on terrorism. Do you take Karen Hughes' job seriously? I do. These people are pointing out that the Anglo-American Middle East policy is undercutting that task.
Yes, there is a public diplomacy aspect to the war on Terrorism. There is also a public diplomacy aspect to what the Muslims in England are doing. And they are doing it poorly. Now is not the time to state that one should change the Middle East policy or otherwise British people will get bombed. And of all people, when discussing the bombing, Muslims, if they want to influence British public opinion, need to be very vociferous in their condemnation. These people need a new public relations consultant, and if they don't have one they need to get one. They were trying to point out that Anglo-Middle east policy is losing hearts and minds in the middle east, but they are going about it the wrong way.

What they are doing is not helping their argument but hurting it among the British people. That Ad they was very poorly thought out. It is not that complicated.

Gattigap 08-14-2006 09:43 AM

Can we kill them all?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
"Here's a clue, from a recent Pew poll that asked: What do you consider yourself first? A citizen of your country or a Muslim?

In the United Kingdom, 7 percent of Muslims consider themselves British first, 81 percent consider themselves Muslim first."

These are British citizens we are talking about - not some random immigrants.
As Slave has pointed out, the poll that enrages him so is taken from Muslims that already enjoy the benefits of democracy, Club.

So, Slave, what is your preferred policy choice here? It is Us vs. Them, you know.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-14-2006 10:25 AM

Do yourselves a favor and shut the hell up.............
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
You have zero reading comprehension and it is very annoying. I didn't say I didn't believe them. I questioned their timing and their tone. And I am not scrutinizing the public statement. You don't have to scrutinize it, you just simply have to read it to see that their condemnation was Tepid.
I have zero reading comprehension but you are not scrutinizing the public statement? Right. Have you even read it? Here it is:
  • Prime Minister, As British Muslims we urge you to do more to fight against all those who target civilians with violence, whenever and wherever that happens.

    It is our view that current British government policy risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad.

    To combat terror the government has focused extensively on domestic legislation. While some of this will have an impact, the government must not ignore the role of its foreign policy.

    The debacle of Iraq and now the failure to do more to secure an immediate end to the attacks on civilians in the Middle East not only increases the risk to ordinary people in that region, it is also ammunition to extremists who threaten us all.

    Attacking civilians is never justified. This message is a global one. We urge the Prime Minister to redouble his efforts to tackle terror and extremism and change our foreign policy to show the world that we value the lives of civilians wherever they live and whatever their religion.

    Such a move would make us all safer.

The key theme, it seems to me, sounds in equality -- attacks on civilians are wrong wherever they occur, in the UK or elsewhere. Is that the problem? Are they supposed to say that attacks in the UK are worse?

Quote:

Yes, there is a public diplomacy aspect to the war on Terrorism. There is also a public diplomacy aspect to what the Muslims in England are doing. And they are doing it poorly. Now is not the time to state that one should change the Middle East policy or otherwise British people will get bombed. And of all people, when discussing the bombing, Muslims, if they want to influence British public opinion, need to be very vociferous in their condemnation. These people need a new public relations consultant, and if they don't have one they need to get one. They were trying to point out that Anglo-Middle east policy is losing hearts and minds in the middle east, but they are going about it the wrong way.

What they are doing is not helping their argument but hurting it among the British people. That Ad they was very poorly thought out. It is not that complicated.
You're grading their PR or you disagree with what they said? Or both?

taxwonk 08-14-2006 11:30 AM

Can we kill them all?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
The long term "solution" (which is a terrible word choice, given history's use of that term) is to attempt to change the incredibly fucked up thinking of a large majority of Arabs. The only possible way I see this happening is to give them an alternative to what they currently have, and the only realistic alternative that I see is democracy. I don't mean democracy in the sense of free elections only, but far more importantly is free thought. Democracy, however, is a pre-condition to free thought. Which is a long way of saying that, regardless of the WMD question, I support the toppling of Saddam and our efforts to establish a democracy in the heart of the middle east.

The effort will take time (not years, but decades, probably a generation, but I don't believe there is any other alternative.

The DEMs offer what? A pull out of Iraq? I don't fault them for wanting us out of Iraq. I want us out of Iraq too. But then what? Back to the status quo pre-Saddam? What is the long term alternative?
Occupation of the region to impose peace, then a concentrated program of nation-building. By nation-building, I mean developing the economic and political infrastructure to support broad-based social and economic opportunity and and social infrastructure, to inculcate the values that support such opportunity.

Hank Chinaski 08-14-2006 12:03 PM

Do yourselves a favor and shut the hell up.............
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The key theme, it seems to me, sounds in equality -- attacks on civilians are wrong wherever they occur, in the UK or elsewhere. Is that the problem? Are they supposed to say that attacks in the UK are worse?
But do you think that is a reasoned statement? Are the two type attacks "equal"? in your mind? An attack to kill Hezbollah fighters that inadvertantly (or maybe with knowledge of the liklihood) kills women and children is the equivalent of walking onto a train with bombs to kill dozens of civilians, is the equivalent of shooting rockets at towns in Israel, is the equivalent of walking into a JCC in Seatlle and gunning down people?

Did the July 2005 bombers pick a train with some British soldiers in it Ty? how could you not be disgusted with these guys trying to equate the two?

I am really depressed because I sort of saw the future last week- armed guards at a kids sporting event.

With percetages like Slave cites isn't it realistic that 1 % would be willing to blow up innocent people? You bitch about what Bush has or has not done re. planes, but i see that as almost irrelevant. We all agree a homocide bomber could walk onto the NYC or DC subway today- 100% chance of getting to a crowded platform. How do we stop that?

Shouldn't these "leaders" be doing everything they can do to make clear that there is no justification for the 1% crazy, and doing everything they can do to root them out? Does it make sense for "leaders" to publish a statement that implies they sort of understand why some people might blow some other people up?

sebastian_dangerfield 08-14-2006 12:04 PM

DHS, protecting you.
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the guy who taught me to do litigation, taught me that one should never predict a % liklihood of winning- instead you should say "you have a good case, but whether you have a 40% chance of losing or a 20% chance of losing doesn't matter- because the loss is a 100% lose." translation- if they get you you're dead. but that wasn't the point of my original post- my point was that in the US Jews really can't gather w/o security because there is a real risk an Islamist will kill bunches of them.

Do you think the Islamic kids olympics needs real intense security here?
The advice of a litigator, eh?

What does Sylvester Stallone's mother have to say about this issue?

SlaveNoMore 08-14-2006 12:08 PM

Do yourselves a favor and shut the hell up.............
 
Quote:

Tyrone Slothrop
I have zero reading comprehension but you are not scrutinizing the public statement? Right. Have you even read it? Here it is:
That statement is getting the tons of backlash it deserves:

Exhibit 1 - an op-ed from Lord Stevens, former police chief of London

Quote:

IF YOU'RE A MUSLIM - IT'S YOUR PROBLEM
WHEN will the Muslims of Britain stand up to be counted?

When will they declare, loud and clear, with no qualifications or quibbles about Britain's foreign policy, that Islamic terrorism is WRONG?

Most of all, when will the Muslim community in this country accept an absolute, undeniable, total truth: that Islamic terrorism is THEIR problem? THEY own it. And it is THEIR duty to face it and eradicate it.

To stop the denial, endless fudging and constant wailing that somehow it is everyone else's problem and, if Islamic terrorism exists at all, they are somehow the main victims.

Because until that happens the problem will never be resolved. And there will be more 7/7s and, sometime in the future, another airplane plot will succeed with horrific loss of innocent life.

Equally important, those British politicians who have seemed obsessed with pandering to, and even encouraging, this state of denial, must throw off their politically-correct blinkers and recognise the same truth—that Muslim terrorism in Britain is the direct responsibility of British Muslims.

If only they would follow the lead of Home Secretary John Reid, whose tough, pragmatic, clear-sighted approach has been a breath of fresh air. Only then can they properly work out how to tackle it.

For instance, every airport in Britain is in chaos over the plane bomb-plot alert as every passenger is subjected to rigorous security checks. Why? They take lots of time, lots of staff, and are extremely expensive.

I'm a white 62-year-old 6ft 4ins suit-wearing ex-cop—I fly often, but do I really fit the profile of suicide bomber? Does the young mum with three tots? The gay couple, the rugby team, the middle-aged businessman?

No. But they are all getting exactly the same amount and devouring huge resources for no logical reason whatsoever. Yet the truth is Islamic terrorism in the West has been universally carried out by young Muslim men, usually of ethnic appearance, almost always travelling alone or in very small groups. A tiny percentage, I bet, of those delayed today have such characteristics.

This targeting of airport resources is called passenger profiling—the Israelis invented it and they've got probably the safest airports and airlines in the world.

In all my years at the front line of fighting terrorism, one truth was always clear — communities beat terrorists, not governments or security forces. But communities can't beat terrorism unless they have the will to do so. My heart sank this week as I saw and read the knee-jerk reaction of friends and neighbours of those arrested in this latest incident, insisting it was all a mistake and the anti-terrorist squad had the wrong people.

I have no idea whether those arrested are guilty or not. But neither have those friends and neighbours. They spoke as if it was inconceivable such a thing could happen in their community; that those arrested were all good Muslims; that Islam is a religion of peace so no Muslim could dream of planning such an act.

But we heard the same from the family and friends of the 7/7 bombers, didn't we?

And the two young British Muslims who died as suicide bombers in Israel. Then there are the British Muslims known to have become suicide bombers in Iraq.

There is currently a huge, long-running and complex alleged Islamist bomb plot being tried at the Old Bailey. And a fistful of other cases of alleged Muslim terrorism plots such as the 21/7 London Underground case are also awaiting trial.

All this would suggest the blindingly obvious—that terrorism is a major problem for the Muslim community of Britain. Of course, there will be instant squealings that this is racism. It's not. It's exactly the same as recognising that, during the Northern Ireland troubles that left thousands dead, the IRA were totally based in the Catholic community and the UVF in the Protestant.

And that, most importantly, IRA terrorism only began to draw to a close when that Catholic community it was based in decided as a whole that it was no longer prepared to back violence as the only way forward. Interestingly, it was Catholic revulsion over republican terrorist atrocities such as Enniskillen and Omagh that fuelled that change.

Well, Muslim terrorism in Britain is based in, has its roots in, and grows in, our Muslim community. The madmen of 7/7 and other suicide bombings didn't hide among the Hindu communities, worship in the Sikh temples, recruit at Catholic churches, did they? It may be true that events in Iraq have angered sections of the Muslim community. I have no doubts, whatever Tony Blair says, that it was a catalyst. I also think it's entirely fair for Muslims, if they wish, to vocally oppose Britain's continuing involvement there.

I can recognise, too, that recent events in Lebanon inflame some people, and they want their voices of protest heard. The absolutely unacceptable problem is that this opposition is used by too many to turn a blind eye to, or excuse, terrorists in their midst.

Blasting a passenger airliner out of the sky, killing hundreds of innocent men, women and children, is NEVER acceptable. Under any circumstances. There is NEVER an excuse.

A terrible tragedy costing Muslim lives in Lebanon or Iraq or Afghanistan is never ever an excuse for terrorism here.

It is totally unacceptable, totally wrong. What one party perceives as a wrong, no matter how strongly they feel, does not, in turn, justify another wrong being done to avenge it.

And until every single member of the Muslim community believes that and preaches that—from an ordinary parent to imam or madrassa teacher—terrorism can't be beaten.

Politicians must accept this truth, and do something about it. One example would be to tackle this chaos at our airports and the passenger profiling I described earlier. Another must is to reconsider ID cards. The importance of knowing whether someone really is who they say they are has never been higher.

This must be combined with improved border controls, logging exactly who goes OUT of the country as well as who comes in should also be reconsidered, whatever the politically correct among us may say. The time terrorism suspects are kept in custody before charge has also caused dissent. Currently the maximum is 28 days—it may well be this should be reconsidered and, if necessary, raised again to, say, 42 days.

Plainly, Muslim terrorism isn't going away. We need to consider everything in our battle to defeat it. But that's the responsibility of all.

Not least the community where, sadly for them, it is festering
Exhibit 2 - oped from the left-leaning Guardian

Quote:

There is indeed a plausible argument that military action in recent years has made Britain less, not more, secure. In particular, the conduct of the war in Iraq, regardless of the virtues of removing Saddam Hussein from office, has been riddled with error…

But even within the bleakest possible analysis of Mr Blair’s foreign policy, it is still simply not true that the West is waging war on Islam. Just as it is not true that the CIA was really behind the 11 September attacks or any other arrant conspiratorial nonsense that enjoys widespread credence in the Middle East and beyond. It is also a logical and moral absurdity to imply, as some critics of British policy have done, that mass murder is somehow less atrocious when it is motivated by an elaborate narrative of political grievance.

If young British Muslims are alienated, that is sad and their anger should be addressed. But anyone whose alienation leads them to want to kill indiscriminately has crossed a line into psychopathic criminality. Policy cannot be dictated by the need to placate such people.

British Muslim leaders are entitled, along with everybody else, to raise questions about the conduct and consequences of Mr Blair’s foreign policy. But they have a more immediate responsibility to promote the truth: that Britain is not the aggressor in a war against Islam; that no such war exists; that there is no glory in murder dressed as martyrdom and that terrorism is never excused by bogus accounts of historical victimisation.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-14-2006 12:09 PM

Can we kill them all?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
Occupation of the region to impose peace, then a concentrated program of nation-building. By nation-building, I mean developing the economic and political infrastructure to support broad-based social and economic opportunity and and social infrastructure, to inculcate the values that support such opportunity.
Swell. Train a 1,000,000 bomb catching monkeys and deploy them all over the country and we'll put our soldiers right on it...

You sound like Dean saying "The Dems stand for a strong middle class, and once we re-establish the middle class, this country will be great again!" on Meet the Press over the weekend. Do these people have any respect for the public's understanding of the issues at hand at all?

SlaveNoMore 08-14-2006 12:13 PM

Do yourselves a favor and shut the hell up.............
 
Quote:

Tyrone Slothrop
I don't understand at all your analogy to the Nazis. Except maybe for Slave, we should all be able to agree that there is a public diplomacy component to the war on terrorism....
Yes, except for me, because I am not gullible to think that anything we do vis a vis governments in the Middle East will change the hearts and minds of those bent on slaughtering innocent Westerners

SlaveNoMore 08-14-2006 12:17 PM

Can we kill them all?
 
Quote:

Gattigap
As Slave has pointed out, the poll that enrages him so is taken from Muslims that already enjoy the benefits of democracy, Club.

So, Slave, what is your preferred policy choice here? It is Us vs. Them, you know.
A start

1) Immediately cease the ludicrous "random" searches at all transportation hubs and begin profiling.

2) Immediately withdraw visas and expel all Islamic foreign students. Those 11 Egyptians - who came to study in Montana???? - that just decided to disappear into thin air was kept rather quiet, no?

3) Same as 2, but for these hate-mongering Imams and Hezzbollah supporters, such as those in Dearborn, MI.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-14-2006 12:18 PM

Can we kill them all?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
As Slave has pointed out, the poll that enrages him so is taken from Muslims that already enjoy the benefits of democracy, Club.

So, Slave, what is your preferred policy choice here? It is Us vs. Them, you know.
Treat them like kids. Use reverse psychology. Ignore the fuckers. The hyper-religious are childlike. The more you tell them they're wrong, the more they'll fight you. Do what the Indians did last month... a day after a massive terrorist bombing, they went back to work. We should stop hand wringing and crying about everything and develop a stiff upper lip. Tell them candidly, "You're going to get a few us now and again. We know we'll have more 9/11s, but our way of life will continue, and spread. You can join us or tilt at windmills. Whatever you like..."

Saying we're "pushing Democracy" is the wrong message. The better message would be "You can't stop it. Your kids will be westernized. Look at China and India."

taxwonk 08-14-2006 12:22 PM

Can we kill them all?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Swell. Train a 1,000,000 bomb catching monkeys and deploy them all over the country and we'll put our soldiers right on it...

You sound like Dean saying "The Dems stand for a strong middle class, and once we re-establish the middle class, this country will be great again!" on Meet the Press over the weekend. Do these people have any respect for the public's understanding of the issues at hand at all?
Okay, what's your plan? Or do you have one?

Tyrone Slothrop 08-14-2006 12:23 PM

Do yourselves a favor and shut the hell up.............
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
But do you think that is a reasoned statement? Are the two type attacks "equal"? in your mind? An attack to kill Hezbollah fighters that inadvertantly (or maybe with knowledge of the liklihood) kills women and children is the equivalent of walking onto a train with bombs to kill dozens of civilians, is the equivalent of shooting rockets at towns in Israel, is the equivalent of walking into a JCC in Seatlle and gunning down people?

Did the July 2005 bombers pick a train with some British soldiers in it Ty? how could you not be disgusted with these guys trying to equate the two?

I am really depressed because I sort of saw the future last week- armed guards at a kids sporting event.

With percetages like Slave cites isn't it realistic that 1 % would be willing to blow up innocent people? You bitch about what Bush has or has not done re. planes, but i see that as almost irrelevant. We all agree a homocide bomber could walk onto the NYC or DC subway today- 100% chance of getting to a crowded platform. How do we stop that?

Shouldn't these "leaders" be doing everything they can do to make clear that there is no justification for the 1% crazy, and doing everything they can do to root them out? Does it make sense for "leaders" to publish a statement that implies they sort of understand why some people might blow some other people up?
I said "sounds in equality" because I didn't want to make a stronger statement about equivalence. I should have anticipated that you or someone else here would have put other words in my mouth anyway.

It's odd to me that these folks essentially said, attacks on civilians are wrong wherever they occur, and for this they are attacked for not condemning terrorism strongly enough. WTF?

taxwonk 08-14-2006 12:24 PM

Can we kill them all?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
A start

1) Immediately cease the ludicrous "random" searches at all transportation hubs and begin profiling.

2) Immediately withdraw visas and expel all Islamic foreign students. Those 11 Egyptians - who came to study in Montana???? - that just decided to disappear into thin air was kept rather quiet, no?

3) Same as 2, but for these hate-mongering Imams and Hezzbollah supporters, such as those in Dearborn, MI.
Wouldn't internment camps be better? That way we could keep an eye on them. Plus think about how many jobs would be created.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-14-2006 12:24 PM

Can we kill them all?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
2) Immediately withdraw visas and expel all Islamic foreign students. Those 11 Egyptians - who came to study in Montana???? - that just decided to disappear into thin air was kept rather quiet, no?
If this post disappears, it wasn't me.

taxwonk 08-14-2006 12:27 PM

Can we kill them all?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Treat them like kids. Use reverse psychology. Ignore the fuckers. The hyper-religious are childlike. The more you tell them they're wrong, the more they'll fight you. Do what the Indians did last month... a day after a massive terrorist bombing, they went back to work. We should stop hand wringing and crying about everything and develop a stiff upper lip. Tell them candidly, "You're going to get a few us now and again. We know we'll have more 9/11s, but our way of life will continue, and spread. You can join us or tilt at windmills. Whatever you like..."

Saying we're "pushing Democracy" is the wrong message. The better message would be "You can't stop it. Your kids will be westernized. Look at China and India."
Ahh, the stiff upper lip defense. Good show, Old Bean. Maybe we could start by dropping tins of pork and beans over Lebanon? Handing out iPods in Bloomsbury?

Carry on.

taxwonk 08-14-2006 12:28 PM

Can we kill them all?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If this post disappears, it wasn't me.
It was the Egyptians, right? Sneaky little bastards.

Hank Chinaski 08-14-2006 12:30 PM

Do yourselves a favor and shut the hell up.............
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I said "sounds in equality" because I didn't want to make a stronger statement about equivalence. I should have anticipated that you or someone else here would have put other words in my mouth anyway.

It's odd to me that these folks essentially said, attacks on civilians are wrong wherever they occur, and for this they are attacked for not condemning terrorism strongly enough. WTF?
Do you agree that a pattern is maybe starting to emerge that these attacks seem to often be by young Islamic men? Can we start with a yes on that?

If we get to a yes above, can you see why "leaders" saying that what the UK government is doing might lead to more attacks could be seen by the nut cases as somehow justifying the next attack?

And Sebby, in the UK these are the "children." These are men born there. McDonalds/disney didn't Westernize them-:(

sebastian_dangerfield 08-14-2006 12:31 PM

Do yourselves a favor and shut the hell up.............
 
Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Yes, except for me, because I am not gullible to think that anything we do vis a vis governments in the Middle East will change the hearts and minds of those bent on slaughtering innocent Westerners
Palestine is their fucking pretext to legitimacy. It is a clash of civilizations. Thats why so many moderate Muslims can't criticize their own. They can't admit it, but deeply, perhaps subconsciously, they realize that if "Radical Islam" loses this "war," their faith loses a portion of its identity.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-14-2006 12:53 PM

Do yourselves a favor and shut the hell up.............
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Do you agree that a pattern is maybe starting to emerge that these attacks seem to often be by young Islamic men? Can we start with a yes on that?
I believe that is the premise of the open letter we are discussing. Can we start with an agreement that we are both on the third planet orbiting the Sun?

Quote:

If we get to a yes above, can you see why "leaders" saying that what the UK government is doing might lead to more attacks could be seen by the nut cases as somehow justifying the next attack?
No -- and that is the crux of it. If I say that youths should fasten their seatbelts to avoid fatalities in traffic accidents, it does not mean that I approve of traffic accidents.

Actually, yes: At this point one should reasonably foresee that saying much of anything at all about terrorism will be taken by the nut cases on your side of the political spectrum as somehow justifying attacks on America. Sad but true. Consider it a benchmark of the poverty of conservative ideas.

Sidd Finch 08-14-2006 12:53 PM

Do yourselves a favor and shut the hell up.............
 
Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Yes, except for me, because I am not gullible to think that anything we do vis a vis governments in the Middle East will change the hearts and minds of those bent on slaughtering innocent Westerners
Then why do you post, and apparently applaud, lengthy statements from the British press that appear intent on doing exactly that?



I liked the Lord Stevens quote and the Guardian quote. But they are doing just what you say is impossible, foolish, delusional, etc -- they are trying to convince Muslims to stand against terrorists and extremists.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-14-2006 12:55 PM

Do yourselves a favor and shut the hell up.............
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Palestine is their fucking pretext to legitimacy. It is a clash of civilizations. Thats why so many moderate Muslims can't criticize their own. They can't admit it, but deeply, perhaps subconsciously, they realize that if "Radical Islam" loses this "war," their faith loses a portion of its identity.
Not to disagree with what you say, but another reason why so many moderate Muslims can't criticize their own is that they live under oppressive, undemocratic regimes, often supported by the United States, where they may be punished for criticizing their own. In countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, it's much safer to attack Israel or the West.

Hank Chinaski 08-14-2006 01:06 PM

Do yourselves a favor and shut the hell up.............
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I believe that is the premise of the open letter we are discussing. Can we start with an agreement that we are both on the third planet orbiting the Sun?
WATER. when I do that sort "request for agreement" the point is to show how out to lunch you are.



Quote:

No -- and that is the crux of it. If I say that youths should fasten their seatbelts to avoid fatalities in traffic accidents, it does not mean that I approve of traffic accidents.
No. the better analogy would be "if you were to criticize drunk driving accidents by youths, but note that there would be fewer if only the Governement would enforce drinking laws, it does not mean you approve of accidents." but we don't need an analogy. All across the west yesterday people in airports had additional burdens because of crazy Islamic men. anyone who can be perceived as leaders of those men cannot be making a statement that implies at all the actions of these men was understandable.

The steps slave mentions will happen with more attacks- I really can't do much to stop the attacks, but maybe these "leaders" can?

Quote:

Actually, yes: At this point one should reasonably foresee that saying much of anything at all about terrorism will be taken by the nut cases on your side of the political spectrum as somehow justifying attacks on America. Sad but true. Consider it a benchmark of the poverty of conservative ideas.
Fuck you.

Sidd Finch 08-14-2006 01:08 PM

Do yourselves a favor and shut the hell up.............
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Not to disagree with what you say, but another reason why so many moderate Muslims can't criticize their own is that they live under oppressive, undemocratic regimes, often supported by the United States, where they may be punished for criticizing their own. In countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, it's much safer to attack Israel or the West.
There are many Muslims who do not have this excuse -- in places from the US to Turkey to the Philippines, and even in parts of the Arab Middle East -- and sadly few have stood up to criticize their own.

Even the Sunni authoritarian governments, who should have no love for Shiite extremists, are barely heard to criticize Hezbollah, or Shiite violence against Muslim civilians in Iraq.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-14-2006 01:12 PM

Do yourselves a favor and shut the hell up.............
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
All across the west yesterday people in airports had additional burdens because of crazy Islamic men. anyone who can be perceived as leaders of those men cannot be making a statement that implies at all the actions of these men was understandable.
I'm at a loss to understand how Members of Parliament "can be perceived as leaders of . . . crazy Islamic men."

Quote:

Fuck you.
Why don't you go fuck yourself? I'm sick and tired of hearing that your political party has a fucking monopoly on this war against terrorism, as if the rest of us don't get it. Your song and dance is lame, and reflects a serious lack of anything serious to say.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-14-2006 01:19 PM

Do yourselves a favor and shut the hell up.............
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
There are many Muslims who do not have this excuse -- in places from the US to Turkey to the Philippines, and even in parts of the Arab Middle East -- and sadly few have stood up to criticize their own.

Even the Sunni authoritarian governments, who should have no love for Shiite extremists, are barely heard to criticize Hezbollah, or Shiite violence against Muslim civilians in Iraq.
(a) I said I didn't disagree.

(b) This game of "you aren't condemning your bedfellows strongly enough" is so tired. It's tired no matter who's the target. It's about as tired as the "you're being hypocritical" game, a related species.

(c) CAIR -- to take one Muslim group recently attacked on this board for being too close to terrorists, or full of felons, or something -- put out a press release about the UK bombing plots. It starts with a condemnation of acts of terrorism. I don't recall seeing it reported anywhere. If they say the right things, who cares?

(d) If those British MPs had put out an open letter condemning Islamist terrorism in the strongest possible terms, is there any chance at all that anyone who reads this board would have heard about it? I doubt it. (I'm not blaming any of us. We get our news from media. Controversy sells.)

SlaveNoMore 08-14-2006 01:24 PM

Can we kill them all?
 
Quote:

taxwonk
Wouldn't internment camps be better? That way we could keep an eye on them. Plus think about how many jobs would be created.
You laugh. Just wait.

Adder 08-14-2006 01:25 PM

Can we kill them all?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You laugh. Just wait.
Well, at least you and the Islamofascits agree on something...

SlaveNoMore 08-14-2006 01:26 PM

Do yourselves a favor and shut the hell up.............
 
Quote:

Sidd Finch
Then why do you post, and apparently applaud, lengthy statements from the British press that appear intent on doing exactly that?
I posted those to show Ty that even a bunch of Brits seem to think that the "open letter" tended to support of the terrorists.

SlaveNoMore 08-14-2006 01:31 PM

Do yourselves a favor and shut the hell up.............
 
Quote:

Tyrone Slothrop
Not to disagree with what you say, but another reason why so many moderate Muslims can't criticize their own is that they live under oppressive, undemocratic regimes, often supported by the United States, where they may be punished for criticizing their own. In countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, it's much safer to attack Israel or the West.
Unlike say, the oppressive regime of the city of San Francisco, where several hundred Muslims here marched this weekend on City Hall under the flying flags of Hezzbollah and the PLO.

sgtclub 08-14-2006 01:32 PM

Can we kill them all?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
Occupation of the region to impose peace, then a concentrated program of nation-building. By nation-building, I mean developing the economic and political infrastructure to support broad-based social and economic opportunity and and social infrastructure, to inculcate the values that support such opportunity.
And how do we occupy if we hadn't invaded?

SlaveNoMore 08-14-2006 01:33 PM

Can we kill them all?
 
Quote:

Adder
Well, at least you and the Islamofascits agree on something...
I want to weed them out of the country.

They want to cut off my head on television, among other lovely things.

A tad different, no?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:49 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com