All Hank, all the time.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
And how do we occupy if we hadn't invaded?

I wasn't aware that we had invaded Israel, Lebanon, Syria, etc. had been invaded. Are you suggesting that Iraq is a good foothold? It could be, if we were actually willing and able to implement a full-scale operation.

I don't think it can be done, realistically. I don't see us being willing to pay for it, in taxes and in lives. I don't see Israel standing for it, although it is an interesting theoretical problem, us occupying Israel for their own good. I certainly don't see the rest of the world standing by and letting the US march in to take over the Middle East, either.

So, it appears that we can't kill them all (although some seem at least willing to consider it) and we can't make them behave. What next?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
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?

Not really, no. If you actually believe that you could expel all Arabs from the US without a major violent opposition, you're living in far more of a state of delusion than I thought. Of course, violent opposition will require violent response.

They don't need another 9-11. They can just sit back and wait for you to grow your own.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
(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.)

(a) When you start a post with "not to disagree, but..." it suggests something other than strong assent. More importantly, you went on to blame the failure of Muslims to condemn extremism and terrorism on oppressive governments -- in essence, agreeing but offering a reason. And I was disagreeing with the reason.

(b) Not to disagree with you, but.... Oh, hell, I disagree completely. Hatred -- killing hatred -- doesn't spring up overnight, or from nowhere. Especially a hatred purportedly based on faith and religious teachings. It is learned over years. Here, it is learned from leaders, especially religious leaders or those who coopt religion, who express and applaud hatred and violence in sermons and conversations and posters and the like.

Tolerance, too, is learned over years. But the carrier of that message must have the same credibility, the same inside influence, that the people promoting hatred have. Otherwise, it's a message from outsiders that is ignored.

Whatever condemnation we've heard has been tepid to say the least. Muslim leaders need to condemn Muslims who attack civilians. Full stop. They need to stop suggesting that it's bad, but okay if the other side does it, or let's look at Israeli "terrorism", or the like.

What I am asking them to do is the same thing that you ask American leaders to do over, say, Abu Ghraib or Gitmo -- say that it is wrong, say that it is not our values, say that those who did it or directed it should be punished. And not say "all torture of prisoners is bad, whether its done by Americans or Iraqis or Israelis or Russians." Because the former means that you are taking a stand against your own people and government, and you are trying to be a voice that influences others of your own people. And the latter is just saying "a pox on both their houses" and is ultimately meaningless.

If they cannot take a strong stand now, publicly, then it is absolutely certain that they are not taking that stand when it really counts -- in the mosques and writings and schools and private discussions that really influence people's lives. Muslim children need to grow up thinking "my Imam says Hezbollah is wrong because they intentionally kill civilians," not "my Imam thinks that both Israel and Hezbollah use bad tactics, but at least Hezbollah is fighting for the right cause."

(c) The CAIR statement is a prime example. They give a general "condemnation" of "terrorist" by all -- states, not-states, individuals, blah blah blah. In other words, they are equating Israel's conduct with Hezbollah's. And they are not singling out people of their own faith and their own ethnicity and their own community and saying "this is wrong -- these people are wrong."

(d) Maybe, maybe not. But we did hear what they did say. And I suspect that if Muslim religious leaders were regularly speaking out against Hezbollah and Hamas, we would hear that too.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Adder
I have no seen anyone on these boards object to profiling for airport security.

I'm sure John Walker Lindh and John Reed were okay with it, too. The problem with profiling is that it has as many gaps and allows for as many lapses as any other system that is dependent on humans, fallible as we are. Well, that, and the fact that it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Adder
I have no seen anyone on these boards object to profiling for airport security.

I don't object to it but people should not see it as a panacea. How do you profile based on religion?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I wasn't aware that we had invaded Israel, Lebanon, Syria, etc. had been invaded. Are you suggesting that Iraq is a good foothold? It could be, if we were actually willing and able to implement a full-scale operation.

I don't think it can be done, realistically. I don't see us being willing to pay for it, in taxes and in lives. I don't see Israel standing for it, although it is an interesting theoretical problem, us occupying Israel for their own good. I certainly don't see the rest of the world standing by and letting the US march in to take over the Middle East, either.

So, it appears that we can't kill them all (although some seem at least willing to consider it) and we can't make them behave. What next?

I'm suggesting that we can't nation build without being there. I think this is obvious. If we are not willing to do this, and we are not willing to nuke the entire place, then we might as well just give up.

Incidentally, the history channel has been running a series called "Revolution" which details the Revolutionary War and it's aftermath. It's funny how many similarities there are between the creation of the US and Iraq. Were you aware that there was a great deal of civil strife in this country after we defeated the British? That Americans took up arms against one another?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I'm sure John Walker Lindh and John Reed were okay with it, too. The problem with profiling is that it has as many gaps and allows for as many lapses as any other system that is dependent on humans, fallible as we are.

At the time they were "operative" they looked like people who should be profiled- they were both clearly crazed looking- but for sure the most dnagerous thing is the "Aryan-Islamic" guy. Of course, they are available in seemingly small quantities (so far 2) so maybe the profiling would do some good (so far 20000 or so)?

Well, that, and the fact that it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

better or worse that the residue of plastic explosives?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm suggesting that we can't nation build without being there. I think this is obvious. If we are not willing to do this, and we are not willing to nuke the entire place, then we might as well just give up.

I agree that we can't do anything without being there. I don't think we can just give up, either.

I recall that last week you didn't want to pay for this. Have you had a change of heart? If you have, I'm not sure how many others have. I'm not trying to be obtuse here. I see a solution, but I don't see it as acceptable to the world.

Incidentally, the history channel has been running a series called "Revolution" which details the Revolutionary War and it's aftermath. It's funny how many similarities there are between the creation of the US and Iraq. Were you aware that there was a great deal of civil strife in this country after we defeated the British? That Americans took up arms against one another?

I was aware of this. At least one part of the conflict was over an excise tax on barrels of booze. It was called the Whiskey Rebellion. President Washington ledd the militias of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and several other states against small distillers.

One result of the Rebellion was an object lesson that citizens of the several states would have to seek redress for laws they objected to through the political process. Another result was that many of the losing whiskey men moved to Kentucky and Tennessee, outside the boundaries of the United States. They begat moonshiners, who begat Junior Johnso, who begat Nascar.

[SlaveNoMore]

taxwonk
Not really, no. If you actually believe that you could expel all Arabs from the US without a major violent opposition, you're living in far more of a state of delusion than I thought. Of course, violent opposition will require violent response.

They don't need another 9-11. They can just sit back and wait for you to grow your own.

Being in the US is not a right, it's a privilege. Preach hate or be here under suspicious circumstances and your privilege should be immediately revoked.

[Adder]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I'm sure John Walker Lindh and John Reed were okay with it, too. The problem with profiling is that it has as many gaps and allows for as many lapses as any other system that is dependent on humans, fallible as we are. Well, that, and the fact that it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I share your concerns, and to some degree get the same bad taste, but ultimately it is true that it is a waste of resources to focus our security measures on Sven Bjornson from Duluth.

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Being in the US is not a right, it's a privilege. Preach hate or be here under suspicious circumstances and your privilege should be immediately revoked.

Does your rule apply to citizens too?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
At the time they were "operative" they looked like people who should be profiled- they were both clearly crazed looking- but for sure the most dnagerous thing is the "Aryan-Islamic" guy. Of course, they are available in seemingly small quantities so maybe the profiling would do some good.. better or worse that the residue of plastic explosives?

I can't really say, not having much experience with either. Maybe you can ask Thurgreed about the profiling thing.

And if you are disturbed about ahving to get screened for your kids' athletic events now, how much more disturbing will it be sending them off to school every day to face a bunch of angry kids who are singled out for being patted down and having their lockers searched?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Being in the US is not a right, it's a privilege. Preach hate or be here under suspicious circumstances and your privilege should be immediately revoked.

Under your rule, you should be packing. Just something to think about. You know...Us v. You.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
1) You aren't on the anti-Israel platform, so stop parroting their lies. We sided with Israel over Hezzbollah, a terrorist group funded by Syria and Iran and operating out of southern Lebanon to the chagrin of the powerless-Lebanese government - not Lebanon.

We were siding with Israel over Lebanon (the issue, not the adversary) in the sense that we were opposed to a quick cease fire in order to permit Israel more time to try to accomplish its military objectives. The rest of the world noticed that Lebanon (generally) absorbed much the punishment, however meant for Hezbollah specifically.

2) This foiled airline plot was planned months before these recent events in Lebanon and Gaza, so I wish you and others would stop lumping it in as some precursor.

I don't believe I said that it was a precursor. To observe that our Middle East policies stirs up animus against us is not to suggest that we are the cause of all unhappiness and/or terrorism.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I can't really say, not having much experience with either. Maybe you can ask Thurgreed about the profiling thing.

And if you are disturbed about ahving to get screened for your kids' athletic events now, how much more disturbing will it be sending them off to school every day to face a bunch of angry kids who are singled out for being patted down and having their lockers searched?

I didn't say I was for or against profiling- I said it seems inevitable. And in that context asked whether members of Parliment who are Islamic, not "leaders apparently, might want to take steps to avoid the seemingly inevitable.

My son is one of the best basketball players, so he's friends with the black kids- PLUS he is in good with the chaldeans, so he'd be okay.