All Hank, all the time.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?