All Hank, all the time.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


In denial of what?

Reality?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
If not, then perhaps a different strategy is called for.

Why? did we kill all the Nazis, assorted other facists and Japanese Imperialists prior to the end of WWII?

We just need to kill all the really bad ones.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Reality?

Quite possibly, although I thought he was saying something more specific to whatever point he was trying to make.

etfm

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Why? did we kill all the Nazis, assorted other facists and Japanese Imperialists prior to the end of WWII?

We just need to kill all the really bad ones.

I meant all the really bad ones. Of course, the differenc between WWII and this conflict is that the former was fought by armies and the latter is being fought by.... Well, you keep pointing out that we can't really tell who is fighting on the Arab side.

Perhaps more apt analogies would be Vietnam and Algeria?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
I'll just respond to #3. Their point is that British policies in the Middle East are making it more likely that Britain will face plots such as the one just foiled. This seems like a fine time to bring that up, no?

Actually, what they seem to be doing is threatening the British Government - "our way or else."

Borderline treason, if you ask me.

[SlaveNoMore]

taxwonk
I meant all the really bad ones.

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Actually, what they seem to be doing is threatening the British Government - "our way or else."

Borderline treason, if you ask me.

Only if you assume that because they're Muslim they must be on the side of the terrorists.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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.

"over a quarter" = "most of these people"

OK.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
"over a quarter" = "most of these people"

OK.

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.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Only if you assume that because they're Muslim they must be on the side of the terrorists.

Us versus them. Keep repeating it.

[taxwonk]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Or Protestants.