Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You were doing really well until that statement. Rather than tell you what I think about it, let me just ask -- huh? Cite, please? What are you talking about?

I think that what the Spankster meant was that the large and vocal anti-war movement in France and Great Britain (there was an Oxford petition or resolution or something in which students vowed that they would not go to war for King and Country under any circumstances) emboldened Hitler and Mussolini in the mid to late 1930s. Lots of people think that if the western allies done anything when the Germans violated the Treaty of Versailles by occupying the Rhineland, building an air force, etc., there would not have been a war.

Churchill talks about this in "The Gathering Storm." For example, the anti-war sentiment in Britain meant that defense spending was continually being reduced even as the Germans started rearming.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I think that what the Spankster meant was that the large and vocal anti-war movement in France and Great Britain (there was an Oxford petition or resolution or something in which students vowed that they would not go to war for King and Country under any circumstances) emboldened Hitler and Mussolini in the mid to late 1930s. Lots of people think that if the western allies done anything when the Germans violated the Treaty of Versailles by occupying the Rhineland, building an air force, etc., there would not have been a war.

Churchill talks about this in "The Gathering Storm." For example, the anti-war sentiment in Britain meant that defense spending was continually being reduced even as the Germans started rearming.

Ah, ok. I thought he was talking about a US peace movement, for some reason. Probably the drugs.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Osama bin Laden is not poor. The Wahhabis are not supported by poor people. They feed on the poor but so does every form of extremism, religious or not. Wealth has not made Islam in the Middle East less extreme, but more, and that extremism is the root of this problem (and, I would argue, that extremism contributes to much poverty by distracting people from the business of development.)...The countries where most of those people are starving are not the source of terror and never have been. The poorest countries are in sub-Saharan Africa and they have never been exporters of terror, nor fertile recruiting grounds for terror, nor even particularly strong bastions of Islam (there are some exceptions to this -- i.e. Nigeria -- but even in Sudan, the poorest people are not muslim but animist.)

To further your point, from the London Times:

AL-QAEDA is secretly recruiting affluent, middle-class Muslims in British universities and colleges to carry out terrorist attacks in this country, leaked Whitehall documents reveal.
A network of “extremist recruiters” is circulating on campuses targeting people with “technical and professional qualifications”, particularly engineering and IT degrees.

Yesterday it emerged that last week’s London bombings were a sophisticated attack with all the devices detonating on the Underground within 50 seconds of each other. The police believe those behind the outrage may be home-grown British terrorists with no criminal backgrounds and possessing technical expertise.

A joint Home Office and Foreign Office dossier — Young Muslims and Extremism — prepared for the prime minister last year, said Britain might now be harbouring thousands of Al-Qaeda sympathisers.

Lord Stevens, the former Metropolitan police chief, revealed separately last night that up to 3,000 British-born or British-based people had passed through Osama Bin Laden’s training camps.

The Whitehall dossier, ordered by Tony Blair following last year’s train bombings in Madrid, says: “Extremists are known to target schools and colleges where young people may be very inquisitive but less challenging and more susceptible to extremist reasoning/ arguments.”

The confidential assessment, covering more than 100 pages of letters, papers and other documents, forms the basis of the government’s counter-terrorism strategy, codenamed Operation Contest.

It paints a chilling picture of the scale of the task in tackling terrorism. Drawing on information from MI5, it concludes: “Intelligence indicates that the number of British Muslims actively engaged in terrorist activity, whether at home or abroad or supporting such activity, is extremely small and estimated at less than 1%.”

This equates to fewer than 16,000 potential terrorists and supporters out of a Muslim population of almost 1.6m.

The dossier also estimates that 10,000 have attended extremist conferences. The security services believe that the number who are prepared to commit terrorist attacks may run into hundreds.

Most of the Al-Qaeda recruits tend to be loners “attracted to university clubs based on ethnicity or religion” because of “disillusionment with their current existence”. British-based terrorists are made up of different ethnic groups, according to the documents.

“They range from foreign nationals now naturalised and resident in the UK, arriving mainly from north Africa and the Middle East, to second and third generation British citizens whose forebears mainly originate from Pakistan or Kashmir.

“In addition . . . a significant number come from liberal, non-religious Muslim backgrounds or (are) only converted to Islam in adulthood. These converts include white British nationals and those of West Indian extraction.”

The Iraq war is identified by the dossier as a key cause of young Britons turning to terrorism. The analysis says: “It seems that a particularly strong cause of disillusionment among Muslims, including young Muslims, is a perceived ‘double standard’ in the foreign policy of western governments, in particular Britain and the US.

“The perception is that passive ‘oppression’, as demonstrated in British foreign policy, eg non-action on Kashmir and Chechnya, has given way to ‘active oppression’. The war on terror, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, are all seen by a section of British Muslims as having been acts against Islam.”

In an interview yesterday, Blair denied that the London terrorist attacks were a direct result of British involvement in the Iraq war. He said Russia had suffered terrorism with the Beslan school massacre despite its opposition to the war, and terrorists were planning further attacks on Spain even after the pro-war government was voted out.

“September 11 happened before Iraq, before Afghanistan, before any of these issues and that was the worst terrorist atrocity of all,” he said.

However, the analysis prepared for Blair identified Iraq as a “recruiting sergeant” for extremism.

The Sunday Times has learnt that Britain is negotiating with Australia to hand over military command of southern Iraq to release British troops for redeployment in Afghanistan.

The plan behind Operation Contest has been to win over Muslim “hearts and minds” with policy initiatives including anti-religious discrimination laws. A meeting of Contest officials this week is expected to consider a radical overhaul of the strategy following the London attacks.

Stevens said last night at least eight attacks aimed at civilian targets on the British mainland had been foiled in the past five years and that none had been planned by the same gang.

The former Scotland Yard chief, who retired earlier this year, said that on one weekend more than 1,000 undercover officers had been deployed, monitoring a group of suspected terrorists.

He said that he believed last week’s attackers were almost certainly British-born, “brought up here and totally aware of British life and values”.

“There’s a sufficient number of people in this country willing to be Islamic terrorists that they don’t have to be drafted in from abroad,” he said.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I think that what the Spankster meant was that the large and vocal anti-war movement in France and Great Britain (there was an Oxford petition or resolution or something in which students vowed that they would not go to war for King and Country under any circumstances) emboldened Hitler and Mussolini in the mid to late 1930s. Lots of people think that if the western allies done anything when the Germans violated the Treaty of Versailles by occupying the Rhineland, building an air force, etc., there would not have been a war.

Churchill talks about this in "The Gathering Storm." For example, the anti-war sentiment in Britain meant that defense spending was continually being reduced even as the Germans started rearming.

FDR's lies promising to keep us out of the war probably did not help matters from a deterrence standpoint.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Uh-oh. Looks like Spanky missed the "irony" again....

Not really. It was my impression that Slave thought the sentiments were good but that the practical application was impossible. I was trying to point out that the sentiments were really evil in that the priorities are screwed up. It is like the difference in the idea of going out and getting some money and making some money. Going out and making money is a good thing. You will get wealthy. Going out and getting money means obtaining it is as quickly as possible, which usually means stealing which in the end places you in Jail. You should go out and find a good job, or start a good business and then money will come in the end. The same is true with Peace. If you go out to directly achieve Peace the most direct route is appeasing aggression and tolerating injustice. If you go out to achieve justice, a secure and lasting peace will be the good byproduct.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch You were doing really well until that statement. Rather than tell you what I think about it, let me just ask -- huh? Cite, please? What are you talking about?

There were times that Hitler was really vulnerable and the allies from WWII could have easily stopped him. Each time he broke the treaty of Versailles nothing was done. The industrialized western border of Germany, which contained all the steal and coal, was meant to remain demilitarized. In violation of the Versailles treaty Hitler marched right in. At this time France was totally superior to Germany in military might let alone including the forces of Great Britain. If France had moved into to prevent this violation of the treaty, Hitler's army would not have stood a chance. But the overwhelming sentiment in France and England was pacifism "Give Peace a Chance". There were constant Peace marches that were usually started with a viewing of "All Quiet on the Western Front" which was banned in Germany. At this time France and Britain started disarming because "arms races" will only lead to war.

Mussolini and Stalin were both very wary of Hitler. When Hitler absorbed Austria, Mussolini was the one with the biggest objections but he got absolutely no support from the other Allies (Italy was on the allied side in WWI). The Munich treaty convinced both Stalin and Mussolini that the Allies were completely weak and could not be trusted. Therefore they both moved for treaties with Hitler. The pacifists and liberals in both France and Britain treated Chamberlain like a hero for Munich. When Germany invaded Poland, because of their prior conduct and all the Peace marches in Europe, he was convinced the allies would do nothing. Fortunately the allies did declare war on Germany to protect Polish sovereignty.

However, Germany was completely vulnerable because all its armed forces where in Poland. Germanys left Flank was completely exposed and France would have rolled though Germany like a hot knife through butter. Unfortunately, at this point, France still thought that they could avoid further "bloodshed" through some sort of negotiated settlement.

Each one of these opportunities could have prevented the hundreds of millions of deaths in WWII.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Ah, ok. I thought he was talking about a US peace movement, for some reason. Probably the drugs.

I was not talking about the US Peace Movement but that didn't help either. The peace organizations were internationaly linked. The pacifists in the United States encouraged the pacficits in Europe. And after Pearl Harbour, the one person that voted against an armed response was a pacifist member of congress.

Did you see the Star Trek with Joan Collins? Because of Joans Pacifisim the US entry into WWII was delayed, giving Germany time to developes rockets and atomic bombs, and therefore the means to win the war.

I am still waiting for someone to tell me a time when a "peace movement" has accomplished something positive.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky

I am still waiting for someone to tell me a time when a "peace movement" has accomplished something positive.

Didn't Rachael Corrie's plowed over dead body help fertilize some otherwise barren soil?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky


Did you see the Star Trek with Joan Collins? Because of Joans Pacifisim the US entry into WWII was delayed, giving Germany time to developes rockets and atomic bombs, and therefore the means to win the war.

Are you serious?!?? I was never a Trekker, so I didn't see that episode, but, because I trust you, I am going to reach under my mattress, fish out my dog-eared copy of the December 1983 Playboy where Joan Collins posed nude and burn that bad boy!

Fwiw, if it makes you feel any better, it is a well known secret that Joan Collins has been bald for years. The 71-year-old former Dynasty seductress has worn a wig for ages to cover her shiny dome. LOL. No offence. NTTAWWT.

[SlaveNoMore]

From the Telegraph, lengthy article detailing how entrenched the Islamists are in England, how the Mayor of London kow-tows to these extremists, and a reminder that no single leading Muslim has truly condemned these terrorist actions.

It's a must read.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
...............and a reminder that no single leading Muslim has truly condemned these terrorist actions.

Why would they? One more dead infidel, regardless of the cause of death or who is behind it, is one step closer to the ultimate goal.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Are you serious?!?? I was never a Trekker, so I didn't see that episode, but, because I trust you, I am going to reach under my mattress, fish out my dog-eared copy of the December 1983 Playboy where Joan Collins posed nude and burn that bad boy!

Fwiw, if it makes you feel any better, it is a well known secret that Joan Collins has been bald for years. The 71-year-old former Dynasty seductress has worn a wig for ages to cover her shiny dome. LOL. No offence. NTTAWWT.

Never a Trekker? Shame on you. Although I can relate. I tried to be a trekkie, but a ship run by a frenchman, a psychotherapist, and repressed homosexual with a beard just never did it for me. In the episode Dr. McCoy goes back into time and screws everythimg up. Spock and Kirk go after him to straighten things out and end up in the United States during the depression. They pretend to be unemployed bums and they find food and Shelter at a halfway home run by Joan Collins. She is very well intentioned and of course - as Paris would say - hot. She spends all her time helping the poor. Of course, Kirk bags her, and falls for her. Spock figures out that where McCoy screwed things up was by saving Joan Collins's life by preventing her from getting run over by a car. If she had died everything would have been OK. But since she lived, she becomes a strong leader of the US Pacifist movement. Through her Charisma and earnest charm she convinces the United States to delay its entry in WWII to "Give Peace a Chance". The delay gives Germany the time it needs to develop its special weapons and win the war. So to save the world, Kirk has to prevent McCoy from saving Joan Collins's life. So Kirk grabs McCoy and doesn't let him grab Joan, and Joan becomes road kill.

The moral of the story: Even if Pacifists are hot the world is better off with out them.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
From the Telegraph, lengthy article detailing how entrenched the Islamists are in England, how the Mayor of London kow-tows to these extremists, and a reminder that no single leading Muslim has truly condemned these terrorist actions.

It's a must read.

It will be interesting to see the liberals answer the following questions posed by the article:

When did you last hear criticisms of named extremist groups and organisations by Muslim leaders, or support for their expulsion, imprisonment or extradition? How often do you see fatwas issued against suicide bombers and other terrorists, or statements by learned men declaring that people who commit such deeds will go to hell?

When do Muslim leaders and congregations insist that a particular imam leave his mosque because of the poison that he disseminates every Friday? When did a British Muslim last go after a Muslim who advocates or practises violence with anything like the zeal with which so many went after Salman Rushdie?

Why is not more stigma attached to the Muslims who are murdering other Muslims every day in Iraq and the Middle East?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky


The moral of the story: Even if Pacifists are hot the world is better off with out them.

I wouldn't really call Rachael Corrie "hot", but I get your well-made point (giving appropriate credit to Gene Roddenberry, of course).

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
II am still waiting for someone to tell me a time when a "peace movement" has accomplished something positive.

In the early 70s being in one helped Bilmore get laid.

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
Never a Trekker? Shame on you. Although I can relate. I tried to be a trekkie, but a ship run by a frenchman, a psychotherapist, and repressed homosexual with a beard just never did it for me. In the episode Dr. McCoy....

Picard, Troi and Riker weren't on the same show was Kirk, Spock, McCoy, et al., as far as most are concerned.

And as Riker was banging Troi throughout the whole TNG series, I don't know how you can call him a repressed homosexual (Worf maybe, but Riker?)