I\'ve been Thinking
 

You are going to be appalled. If you do not want to be appalled, stop reading now.

I have been thinking. I have put myself in harms way in my life for things I believe in. Before I resolved to put myself in harms way, I had to reconcile what I would be willing to die for. Putting myself in jeapordy was an act of freedom. I did it of my own free will under no duress or coersion. Basically, I resolved that I would be willing to die in an attempt to kill someone whose goal it was to deprive me of my freedom. If I could not kill someone in the process of dying to preserve my freedom, I would be unwilling to die and probably choose a path that would allow me to live so that I might attempt to kill someone denying me my freedom at a later time. That pretty much sums up what I would be willing to die for.

Killing someone else is another matter. It is much easier. What would I be willing to kill for? I basically come up with the tenents of English law. Being I would kill to preserve the life of myself, someone else, my property, someone elses property, or my country. By necessity that would mean someone who was jeapordizing life, property, or country.

Every other Sapiens Sapiens on the planet, to me, then became a human being worth defending and protecting. Each one having the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, BTW, are in my view only guaranteed by a free market.

Now, what makes a human being? This becomes a sticky point. I can only define it one way. An inborn desire to be free. My life is about freedom. My entire existance can be framed in the motif of seeking greater freedom. I cannot concieve of another human being on the face of the Earth who would seek a life leading to less freedom. To me, the inborn desire to make choices for yourself and seek, as much as you can, to determine your own fate ecompasses everything I can concieve as the human spirit. The freedom to worship what you want, [censored] who you want, marry who you want, be friends with who you want, buy what you want, do business as you want, think what you want, and most importantly learn what you want, define, for me, a human being.

What about a human being who seeks less freedom? Is that possible? What is the point of a life in which all the decisions are made for you? What is enriched by that life? What is learned in that life? What is the value of that life? All I can answer is nothing. Does that mean that anyone who actively seeks to have less freedom is less than human?

I think it was Jefferson of Franklin who said "Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither."

What does it mean? Does it mean that our great nemesis in this era, instead of godless communists, but devaut Sharia practicing Muslims are less than human? Is the idealogy of freedom that sewn up and watertight? Do we, as a society, not yet realize it? When will we?

Please, if you are going to give me some Liberal-Socialist Non-Producer-Hate-America-Anti Capitialist tripe about the US being the biggest threat to "human rights" by being the oil fueled fast food economy that is going to rape the planet until the human race is extinct, don't bother replying. If you want to discuss this from a stand point of being a freedom loving freedom seeking human soul, I want to hear from you.

My own logic disturbs me on a basic level. The classification of other members of the species as sub human smacks of racist or religious propaganda, without the race or religion. In fact, you could use this logic to justify the extermination of a whole belief system, an entire civilization. The word Islam literally means "submit."

There is another step to be taken in the logic, I just am so totally blown away by this train of thought I can barely comprehend the implications. Can you force freedom on those who don't want it?

X

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

Part of the problem is freedom in many parts of the world has become synonymous with American Culture,specifically those parts of our culture as seen on TV or in movies and heard in music. It then becomes very easy for totaltarian leaders to convince people they don't want freedom, which in reality what they don't want it to lose their own cultural identity and values.

Thus it may not be correct to say these people do not want freedom.

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
What would I be willing to kill for? I basically come up with the tenents of English law. Being I would kill to preserve the life of myself, someone else, my property, someone elses property, or my country.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're willing to kill someone to preserve the right of someone's elses property?

I better return that stapler to work ASAP...

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

Pretty sure I wouldn't kill to protect property, but I can sympathise with a lot of what you say. I have had similar thoughts about Muslims several times, they make me ashamed so I push them into the back of my thoughts and excuse myself as feeling threatened, which is true.

At some point I think people have to sit down and talk, it's the only real alternative from the US and allies to keep attacking rogue nations one at a time, if we do that then we creep towards a global war against Muslims. I feel like there is a real chance of losing everything we in the West hold dear, either by legislation or by waiting and doing nothing. We are basically caught between a rock and a hard place, negotiate with terror or go to war.

Regards Mack

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

Yes, this is a big big conundrum. That poses the problem of how do you educate a population about democracy who have no understanding or frame of reference for the idea that no one is forcing them to participate in an immoral culture. I think of religious groups in America who do not let their kids watch TV or go to public schools. No one forces them to participate in what they consider an immoral culture. Their rights recieve equal protection.

The concept of equal protection even is foriegn to Sharia practicing Muslims. There is no penalty for killing a non muslim, etc.....

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

I'm talking about dehumanizing other people and all you can do is be appalled about killing for the protection of property? How revealing.....

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm talking about dehumanizing other people and all you can do is be appalled about killing for the protection of property? How revealing.....

[/ QUOTE ]

How revealing of what? That you wouldn't (don't) actually kill to protect other's property? Yeah, I guess that was revealing (if it wasn't already obvious).

And who said I was appalled? I actually laughed when I read it; do you think anyone really believes you kill to protect other's property?

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have had similar thoughts about Muslims several times, they make me ashamed so I push them into the back of my thoughts and excuse myself as feeling threatened, which is true

[/ QUOTE ]

No reason to be ashamed. You're human. You're allowed to feel threatened and make yourself comfortable about dealing with the threat in any way you need to.

[ QUOTE ]
At some point I think people have to sit down and talk

[/ QUOTE ]

Good luck. How do you make someone sit down and negotiate with the "Great Satan?"

[ QUOTE ]
I feel like there is a real chance of losing everything we in the West hold dear, either by legislation or by waiting and doing nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

If you were looting my neighbors house, I'd happily kill you. Obviously, there are degrees. You should be able to appreciate the differences, being the subtle, nuanced mind that you are.

Convienent you forget all about the arguements of degree when they don't suit you.

X

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you were looting my neighbors house, I'd happily kill you. Obviously, there are degrees. You should be able to appreciate the differences, being the subtle, nuanced mind that you are.

Convienent you forget all about the arguements of degree when they don't suit you.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're claiming that there's some variables that go into your thought process of whether or not to kill to protect other's property, than your axiom/claim (you would kill to protect other's property) has no real normativity and is just empty noise. But since you admitted this already, I'm not sure why you're even bothering trying to defend it.

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

i disagree with you, but i don't really have any animosity towards your point of view, and i'm not going to argue with you, but simply question some of your assumptions.

You say that there is no point to living a life in which you are not free, with the obvious hypothesis that there is value to being free (freedom being as you define it, life liberty happiness, to you signified by the free market). I'm not going to disagree with this but simply say that your conception of where value stems from is an assumption and arguable as a fact.

If i were to say that the value of life comes not from being free but from moving the human community foward, or from submission to the will of god i believe these would all be equally worthwhile definitions of "value".

Essentially i don't disagree with your assesment for you however i don't think these are inarguable premises, just the ones you accept, while there are other equally viable and valuable ideas as to what makes life worthwhile.

edit: this thread is filled with people who believe they have a direct line on what is valueable and what is not, which is percisely what they see as anethma in their enemies thinking. There are different conceptions of "good" and "valuable"

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, this is a big big conundrum. That poses the problem of how do you educate a population about democracy who have no understanding or frame of reference for the idea that no one is forcing them to participate in an immoral culture. I think of religious groups in America who do not let their kids watch TV or go to public schools. No one forces them to participate in what they consider an immoral culture. Their rights recieve equal protection.

The concept of equal protection even is foriegn to Sharia practicing Muslims. There is no penalty for killing a non muslim, etc.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, there is really no questioning that part of the world is a [censored] mess.

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]


Now, what makes a human being? This becomes a sticky point. I can only define it one way. An inborn desire to be free. My life is about freedom. My entire existance can be framed in the motif of seeking greater freedom. I cannot concieve of another human being on the face of the Earth who would seek a life leading to less freedom. To me, the inborn desire to make choices for yourself and seek, as much as you can, to determine your own fate ecompasses everything I can concieve as the human spirit. The freedom to worship what you want, [censored] who you want, marry who you want, be friends with who you want, buy what you want, do business as you want, think what you want, and most importantly learn what you want, define, for me, a human being.

What about a human being who seeks less freedom? Is that possible? What is the point of a life in which all the decisions are made for you? What is enriched by that life? What is learned in that life? What is the value of that life? All I can answer is nothing. Does that mean that anyone who actively seeks to have less freedom is less than human?


[/ QUOTE ]

What a bunch of nonsense.

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

OK, Maxpower, you have thrown down the Guantlet. Placing value on a human life is based on the pursuit of freedom is utter nonsense. Now tell me why. I dare you.

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've been Thinking

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought i smelled something...

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

OK Jdanz,
Your response here was challenging. I appreciate it. You have caused me to examine my pretexts. I can only conclude the reason why I pursued this line of thinking was because as I learn more and more about the rhetoric of Islamists, I am motivated to come up with a line of thinking which puts them in the same light as they view me. That is, as immoral and sub human.

Now, the arguement you presented to me, is basically the moral equivalency arguement. My moral belief system is equivalent to a Communists or a Fascists or an Islamists or a tribesman on some isolated island somewhere because all moral codes everywhere seek to achieve the same things.

If you believe this, you are wrong.

I'll tell you why.

In fact, you mentioned it yourself. You threw out the concept of "moving the human community forward." OK now define it. If you define it by war and mass exterminations, then fascism and communism from the last century would win hands down. If you defined it by the creation of a society which has in two hundred and some years provided a higher standard of living for its people than has ever been seen in human history, more techological advancement in the shortest amount of time than has ever been seen in human history, more freedom of thought and social tolerance for it's people than has ever been seen in human history, more wealth for it's people, the longest average life spans in human history, the best health care for it's people in human history, then you have to unavoidably unmistakingly absolutely conclude that the Democracies of the western world are the benchmark for "moving the human race forward."

What major contribution to history has Islam made in the past thousand years? If you choose to set the standard for the value of morals based on the "moving the human community forward" standard, my moral code and my standard (i.e. free market and democracy) of defining the value of human life is clearly superior.

Choose your freedom or submit. Which one do you think will move your human community the farthest forward?

X

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
OK, Maxpower, you have thrown down the Guantlet. Placing value on a human life is based on the pursuit of freedom is utter nonsense. Now tell me why. I dare you.

[/ QUOTE ]

First you need to tell me what you mean by pursuit of freedom.

Anyway, I think that starting to put value on human life by using some ideology is starting down a dangerous path.

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

I see your point that Muslims are anti-freedom. There may be degrees of difference, but aren't practically all religions including Christianity anti-freedom? I'm not defending Christianity. I'm pointing out that it should also be included if you want to make your argument/observation and I'm not sure if you are willing to do so or not.

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

I have to concede your point that basically adherance to any particular religion, including Christianity, diminishes ones freedom, in so much as it limits your choices. I respect the right of everyone to worship whatever it is they want to. The problem comes in, though, when someone from the religion begins to preach about the immorality of the non believers and call for their extermination. Christianity, at least the Pope, hasn't done that since the crusades.

This is the line where religion begins to infringe on the rights of the non believers. This is what makes equal protection and separation of church and state so crucial in the Constitution.

I don't believe that anyone's desire to pursue any religious faith infringes on my freedom, unless the religion they are following calls for my demise. Christianity does not, Islam, or extreme sects of it do. This is where I have the problem and what motivates me to view them in the same light as they view me.

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

I think there are a lot of Muslims who are not fanatical and who are mainly concerned with the simple things of life, like with their families and putting food on the table, etc. Many of them probably don't realize the full extent to which the Koran tells Muslims to fight and subdue the infidels, etc. In other words, they are not entirely dissimilar from some lay Catholics or Protestants in this country who aren't really all that devout. I think many of these people are not terribly concerned with us or with the West.

However there also exist many Muslims who are extremely devout and who take the Koran quite literally. A great many radical "anti-Western" imams fall into this category. Saudi Arabian Wahhabism is like this, as are the teachings in many madrassas in Pakistan and elsewhere.

Islam, taken literally and fundamentally, is diametrically opposed to our own values of free speech and equality; to governance by human consensus; and to anything that does not fit the mold of Islamic religious thought.

If all laws and customs come directly from God, what need is there for human modifications, or for other ideologies? There really is no middle ground, ideologically speaking, between such a world view and our way of thinking.

So-called "fundamental" Islam is spreading, and more moderate (or less fanatical) Muslims are often unwilling to speak up against it, in part due to fear of repercussions. Moreover, the fanatical or fundamentalist elements have the literal text of the Koran on their side. As Ibn Warraq put it, "There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate."

Sadly, I don't see a likely practical solution to these increasing problems. The best thing would be for gradual change or reformation to take place in the Islamic community, but while there are voices stirring in that direction, the larger tide has seemed to be moving in the opposite direction.

What I suspect may well happen--especially if the democratic experiment in Iraq fails and does not spread to neighhboring regions--is that increasing ideological polarization combined with economic pressures for resources will eventually ignite another world war focused in the Middle East. If this occurs a couple of decades from now, China may take part too, due to their increasing demands for oil. If that should happen, who can guess where it all might lead: we might end up at war with both China and the Middle East.

Very tricky and dangerous times ahead.

I have suggested that perhaps we might need a 10 or 15 million man army to actually take over the Middle East and re-mold it along the lines of a Germany or Japan. If the crazy Islamists keep attacking Europe and Australia, perhaps those citizens will get fed up with it enough to decide to do it along with us. Between all of NATO and ourselves, if we were to mobilize and prepare sufficiently, we could likely do it and maintain it for long enough to accomplish serious overhaul reform, although the time needed to actualize reform would be decades.

I'm not necessarly suggesting we do this, however. However if efforts to reform the region (as we are hoping to do in Iraq) ultimately fail, and if radical Middle Eastern countries acquire nuclear weapons, and if attacks on the free world persist and grow in severity or frequency, at some point it might well become the only solution. Whether we would have the will and the unity to do this would remain to be seen; at present we have not, nor are we prepared to embark on such a course. However if the Islamists keep attacking, and grow ever more powerful and threatening, it might force our hand in that direction. By the way, the indiscretion and stupidity of the Islamists in launching their attacks fairly indiscriminately, to the point of attacking even other Muslims (as in Bali), will help rally even fairly pacifistic opinion against them.

If France or other European were to suffer an attack or two on the magnitude of 9/11, for instance, you can bet that their general popular opinion would harden significantly against the Islamists. So in one sense, the Islamists might eventually prove to be their own worst enemies. If they keep attacking most everyone, sooner or later most everyone will be against them--and might become willing to mobilize for a major war.

In addition to the two groups mentioned at the beginning of this post, that is, the radical Islamists and the moderate Muslims, there are also many Muslims who fall somewhere in between on the political spectrum. For instance, bin-Laden has very high approval ratings in certain countries such as Kuwait. There are many non-activist or non-radical Muslims, who would not dream of attacking the West themselves, but who nevertheless tacitly rather approve of others carrying out such attacks.

All in all it is a very complex and difficult scenario. If democratic reform takes hold in Iraq and spreads, that may become enough of a solution. If it doesn't, we may end up seeing the equivalent of another world war at some point.

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think there are a lot of Muslims who are not fanatical and who are mainly concerned with the simple things of life, like with their families and putting food on the table, etc. Many of them probably don't realize the full extent to which the Koran tells Muslims to fight and subdue the infidels, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was always curious as to how much the average Muslim actually knew of their own faith. Thankfully we have our own Koranic expert here to educate us. I never did hear where you learned Arabic and studied the Koran, MMMMMM. Which institute of higher learning was that, anyway?

The hubris of some here at 2+2 knows no bounds.

[ QUOTE ]
Islam, taken literally and fundamentally, is diametrically opposed to our own values of free speech and equality; to governance by human consensus; and to anything that does not fit the mold of Islamic religious thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ditto Christianity. Pretty irrelevant point, IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
If all laws and customs come directly from God, what need is there for human modifications, or for other ideologies? There really is no middle ground, ideologically speaking, between such a world view and our way of thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, the West has joined together and formed a consensus about what constitutes our way of thinking. Quite amazing. I must have missed it in my constant trolling here on 2+2, but apparently the West is of one mind now? Truly astounding. Thanks for the update. I'll note this one down, as it would seem to invalidate all of this 'deliberation' and 'debate' that's been going on in the West the past few centuries.

At the least, I'll certainly have to let Dr. Falwell and Pat Robertson know that pluralism now rules the day in the West.

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, the fanatical or fundamentalist elements have the literal terxt of the Koran on their side. As Ibn Warraq put it, "There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate".

[/ QUOTE ]

There may be moderate Christians, but Christianity itself is not moderate.

[ QUOTE ]
I have suggested that perhaps we might need a 10 or 15 million man army to actually take over the Middle East and re-mold it along the lines of a Germany or Japan. If the crazy Islamists keep attacking Europe and Australia, perhaps those citizens will get fed up with it enough to decide to do it along with us. Between all of NATO and ourselves, if we were to mobilize and prepared enough, we could likely do it and maintain it for long enough to accomplish serious overhaul reform, though the time needed for reform would be decades.

[/ QUOTE ]

You libertarians are a funny bunch, let me tell 'ya.

[ QUOTE ]
If France or other European were to suffer an attack or two on the magnitude of 9/11, for instance, you can bet that their general popular opinion would harden significantly against the Islamists. So in one sense, the Islamists might eventually prove to be their own worst enemies. If they keep attacking most everyone, sooner or later most everyone will be against them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, as 9/11 has certainly made American public opinion toward fighting abroad quite hardened indeed.

[ QUOTE ]
All in all a very complex and difficult scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to have quite a grasp of it all, though. It can't be that complex.

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

Pusuit of Freedom - Defined by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness. Happiness being defined by the individual and the pursuit thereof give equal protection provided it does not infringe on the rights of others to pursue their brand of happiness.

Is that sufficient nonsense?

Now, I can understand your point about the dangerous road. I agree it is a dangerous road. I can see why someone would be loathe to travel that road, knowing that human history is litered with corpses created by those who have. But, this may be a necessary road, one that is forced on us.

The danger is that if we do not take it, we may be incapable of action in the face of a threat to our very existance.

X

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

Your post has no normativity. Please adhere to the normativity standards for posting.

Thank you.

X

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your post has no normativity. Please adhere to the normativity standards for posting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously my post doesn't have normativity. Do you see why a lack of normativity makes claims like "I would kill to preserve someone elses property" meaningless?

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

If you were looting my neighbors house, I promise that concept would have meaning for you.

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

Nice use of the ePenis.

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

DVaut1,

Instead of ad hominem-styled sarcasm, why don't you do some serious reading or research of your own--such as I have done over the last 5 years or so?

Over the last 30 years, I have held a serious interest in comparative religions--and even in my teens and early twenties I read over 40 books on (and of) Buddhism and Taoism--plus some Hinduism, Christianity and Judaism.

More recently, and especially after the attacks on 9/11, I turned my attention to trying to understand the ideological basis for Islam, and its political effects. This involved a great deal of reading about such matters over a period spanning perhaps 5 or 6 years. You might try doing the same--reading and research--instead of merely throwing barbs and employing sarcasm. You might even end up actually learning something.

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you were looting my neighbors house, I promise that concept would have meaning for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

But then your maxim isn't:

"I would kill to preserve my neighbors property";

it's actually:

"I would kill to preserve my neighbors property, if and only if, X was true" (X being whatever circumstances you would need to kill)

Obviously the first claim ("I would kill to preserve my neighbors property") is pretty silly and not accurate.

----------------------

Think of it this way:

My axiom: "I would kill anyone who comes within 15 feet of my wife"

...when I actually meant "I would kill anyone who comes within 15 feet of my wife with a gun pointed at her".

See why the first claim isn't particularly accurate?

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
DVaut1,

Instead of ad hominem-styled sarcasm, why don't you do some serious reading or research of your own--such as I have done over the last 5 years or so?

Over the last 30 years, I have held a serious interest in comparative religions--and even in my teens and early twenties I read over 40 books on (and of) Buddhism and Taoism--plus some Hinduism, Christianity and Judaism.

More recently, and especially after the attacks on 9/11, I turned my attention to trying to understand the ideological basis for Islam, and its political effects. This involved a great deal of reading about such matters over a period spanning perhaps 5 or 6 years. You might try doing the same--reading and research--instead of merely throwing barbs and employing sarcasm. You might even end up actually learning something.

[/ QUOTE ]

A few things:

1) Another typical tactic of yours. Claim I'm using ad hominem attacks (which I am), claiming it's somehow in poor taste, then using your own ad hominem attacks to close out the post "You might try doing the same--reading and research--instead of merely throwing barbs and employing sarcasm. You might even end up actually learning something."

Typical hypocrisy I've come to expect, and it's what makes your moral and ethical lecturing about everyone else's 'poor' behavior here complete [censored]. Take this piece of wisdom to heart: Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

(Understand that I don't really have a problem with ad hominem attacks - they're all in good fun. I have a problem with your inane and incessant lecturing about decorum and behavior, which might have more credibility coming from others, but loses much credibility coming from you).

2) Everyone here has read books, I'm sure; lots and lots of books, I'd imagine. Such arrogance to assume others don't read. I probably read 5-10 books a month, at least. So do you, I'd imagine. So do most people who enjoy reading. Not a particularly extrodinary quality.

3) I'm dead serious (no sarcasm) when I say that many Muslims think you cannot truly understand the Koran until
you've studied it for years, in it's original Arabic. Have you done that? If not, where do you come off claiming that Muslims 'don't understand what the Koran really says', when many would claim you don't know what the Koran really says. How could you, if you've never read it the way it was intended to be read? Seems like incredible hubris of the most terrible nature to claim that Muslims don't know what the Koran says. Have you preformed a study to discover such things? Perhaps if you had some clout as an expert, I would accept what you say with more than a grain of salt; but merely because you've 'read' does not make you an expert. Everybody reads. Not everyone's an expert. Put differently, I've read much of the 2+2 library, but I'm not David Sklansky, nor am I a world-class poker player.

So when I see your constant posts about the 'true' nature of Islam, I have to laugh a little bit. It borders on comical (like most posts here, including my own, I'm sure, that come with an undeserved auroa of expertise; it's fun to play serious academic on 2+2. But prattling on about the ignorance of others seems a tad delusional and hypocritical, no? You seem to do it quite often. I have to only wonder how you find the gall to do it. I know you think I target you especially, but you seem to be one of the few people that has his head so far up his ass that you've got yourself convinced you're a leading academic, and that 2+2 is like an academic quarterly - note to your ego: you're not, and it's not. You may already know this, but sometimes I'm not so sure).

4) I'm interested in what kind of research you've produced. Have you produced any articles for an academic journal somewhere? Perhaps something in a law review? Have you made contributions to your local universities social research branch?

Or, by saying you've done 'research', did you merely mean 'you've read'. Like I said, everyone reads. It's not a particularly unique quality, and merely being well-read doesn't mold you into an expert, nor does it give your opinion any level of authority.

But if you have submitted work to, let's say, a peer-reviewed journal, and said work got published - please, by all means, post a link or a reference. I think it would do much to lend you some credibility.

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

Whatever, DVaut1. Have a good life.

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever, DVaut1. Have a good life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well thought out and comprehensive answer to DVaut's points [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I always knew reading sharpened the mind.

Frank

Our man reveals his true colors...
 

MMMMMM, our favorite moderator, has long been a proponent of libertarianism, a political philosophy that wishes that emphasizes maximum personal freedom with minimum government intervention, dropped this gem on us:

[ QUOTE ]


I have suggested that perhaps we might need a 10 or 15 million man army to actually take over the Middle East and re-mold it along the lines of a Germany or Japan. If the crazy Islamists keep attacking Europe and Australia, perhaps those citizens will get fed up with it enough to decide to do it along with us. Between all of NATO and ourselves, if we were to mobilize and prepare sufficiently, we could likely do it and maintain it for long enough to accomplish serious overhaul reform, although the time needed to actualize reform would be decades.

I'm not necessarly suggesting we do this, however. However if efforts to reform the region (as we are hoping to do in Iraq) ultimately fail, and if radical Middle Eastern countries acquire nuclear weapons, and if attacks on the free world persist and grow in severity or frequency, at some point it might well become the only solution. Whether we would have the will and the unity to do this would remain to be seen; at present we have not, nor are we prepared to embark on such a course. However if the Islamists keep attacking, and grow ever more powerful and threatening, it might force our hand in that direction. By the way, the indiscretion and stupidity of the Islamists in launching their attacks fairly indiscriminately, to the point of attacking even other Muslims (as in Bali), will help rally even fairly pacifistic opinion against them.

If France or other European were to suffer an attack or two on the magnitude of 9/11, for instance, you can bet that their general popular opinion would harden significantly against the Islamists. So in one sense, the Islamists might eventually prove to be their own worst enemies. If they keep attacking most everyone, sooner or later most everyone will be against them--and might become willing to mobilize for a major war.

In addition to the two groups mentioned at the beginning of this post, that is, the radical Islamists and the moderate Muslims, there are also many Muslims who fall somewhere in between on the political spectrum. For instance, bin-Laden has very high approval ratings in certain countries such as Kuwait. There are many non-activist or non-radical Muslims, who would not dream of attacking the West themselves, but who nevertheless tacitly rather approve of others carrying out such attacks.

All in all it is a very complex and difficult scenario. If democratic reform takes hold in Iraq and spreads, that may become enough of a solution. If it doesn't, we may end up seeing the equivalent of another world war at some point.

[/ QUOTE ]

it is so very INTERESTING to me that you propose going in and "molding" the middle east instead of just suggesting leaving the whole region alone. Do you feel that Islamic fanaticists would lose their preoccupation with the west if we lost our preoccupation with their oil?

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whatever, DVaut1. Have a good life.


[/ QUOTE ]
Well thought out and comprehensive answer to DVaut's points

I always knew reading sharpened the mind.

Frank

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Frank,

I'm no longer willing to draft well-thought-out and comprehensive answers to DVaut1's posts, because it appears to be a never-ending process with him. My interactions with him always seems to end up with him attacking me in some sort of ad hominem manner, together with his asking for more "well-thought-out and comprehensive" responses. If I provide him such a response, another such attack and request will follow soon thereafter. So, there simply is no longer any point.

I also suspect that for him, this process is more important than the actual ideas being exchanged. That's just my own personal suspicion, though (and I think he does this with others too, although to a lesser extent).

That's why I wished him a good life--and if you're not careful, Frank, I may wish you one too;-)

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
My interactions with him always seems to end up with him attacking me in some sort of ad hominem manner, together with his asking for more "well-thought-out and comprehensive" responses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you not do the exact same thing? You made similar ad hominem attacks; and you demanded that I read, research, and learn. You do this kind of [censored] all the time, then criticize others for it. Just trying to level the playing field. Realizing you're an abject hypocrite might be a tough pill to swallow, but it's best to try to control it, anyway.

And I don't recall asking for more well-thought-out and comprehensive responses, only that you provide me with some reason to treat your opinions as more than just the rants of some guy looking to start the next Crusade. And I asked that you keep your ego in check, given your complete lack of qualifications to speak with an (undeserved) air of expertise; and to stop criticizing others for their lack of knowledge (given there's no reason to think yours is of an extrodinary level of knowledge).

"I read some books" doesn't cut it.

By all means, don't follow my advice. But certainly, expect more sarcastic responses to your laughable posts, until I'm given a reason to treat them more seriously (or until you treat others with the kind of respect you demand).

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

No, DVaut1, I did not do the "exact same thing." If you cannot see that, I would suggest sharpening your forehead a wee bit on the nearest grindstone;-)

Nor do I care how you view my opinions or if you view them credibly. When I post information about certain subjects, you may be asssured that I have strong reason to believe that what I post is essentially accurate. I didn't spend nearly half a century reading A LOT to no avail. However I will no longer be entering essentially interminable debates with you.

If you have a problem with that, well, tough toenails;-) Have a good life, and maybe you will ensnare other posters into endless arguments with you. This poster however has learned his lesson quite well.

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
No, DVaut1, I did not do the exact same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really do the exact same thing (all the time) - I've seen you make more than a few disrespectful, snarky, condescending comments on more than a few occasions, including in this thread (which I personally have no problem with; all is fair here, if you ask me). If you can't see that, you may want to consider getting your eyes/memory checked (then again, I think we all remember how trustworthy an MMMMMM "I never said that!" guarantee is). What I do have a problem with is your endless posturing and lecturing.

If you want to dish it, be willing to take it.

[ QUOTE ]
When I post information about certain subjects, you may be asssured that I have strong reason to believe that what I post is essentially accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

So is racism dead? Sometimes your 'essentially accurate' stuff openly contradicts other 'essentially accurate' stuff you've posted. Who's to know what's true?

[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] ...I had to. But seriously, color me unconvinced when 'accurate' and 'MMMMMM' appear in the same sentence. It's like 'O.J.' and 'innocent' - just doesn't feel right.

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't spend nearly half a century reading A LOT to no avail.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I disagree, but okay. I'm sure there was some avail; perhaps not as much as you'd like to think, though.

You seem to get all your periods and commas in the right place, anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
Nor do I care how you view my opinions or if you view them credibly.

[/ QUOTE ]

For someone who claims not to care, you sure do alot of whining about how my responses are sarcastic. Maybe that's just your way [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Our man reveals his true colors...
 

Hi Hetron,

You will notice that I expressed that scenario conditionally. Actually, quite a parlay of adverse trends and developments would have to occur before I would actually advocate such a course of action. It could happen, though.

[ QUOTE ]
it is so very INTERESTING to me that you propose going in and "molding" the middle east instead of just suggesting leaving the whole region alone. Do you feel that Islamic fanaticists would lose their preoccupation with the west if we lost our preoccupation with their oil?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the Islamic fanatics would not lose their preoccupation with the West if we lost our preoccupation with their oil.

Firstly, the only reason they have any sort of substantial economy at all, is because we buy their oil. Otherwise their GDP would be just terribly, terribly small--and even with the massive oil sales, it is not large compared to other Western countries or regions. So we do help their economies tremendously. Of course, it is a mutually beneficial arrangement. And yes, much of those revenues are concentrated amongst the ruling powers in the Middle East. Yet without those revenues the region would be far poorer still.

Secondly, the principal reason the Islamists hate the West is for religious reasons. The words of Zarqawi and bin-Laden make very clear the religious component to all of this, and this undercurrent is ever present. Their specific stated grievances are just add-ons to the basically religious fanatical theme of hating infidels, democracy, and anything that runs contrary to prely Islamic religious rule.

The problem with just "leaving the Middle East alone" is threefold: 1) if left alone it will continue to fester and produce more virulent anti-Western propaganda and hatred, a la the Saudi Arabia worldwide ideological campaign, 2) Nuclear weapons in the future hands our fanataical enemies such as Iran, could be disastrous, and 3) the current state of the Middle East is entirely deplorable with regard to human rights and especially women's rights. I can't feel morally OK with just allowing many millions to be so oppressed if there is anything within reason which we can do to help the causes of freedom and human rights--and I would hope that you can't, either.

However, as mentioned above, quite a parlay would have to occur before I would actually advocate a Western war against, and occupation of, such countries as Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whatever, DVaut1. Have a good life.


[/ QUOTE ]
Well thought out and comprehensive answer to DVaut's points

I always knew reading sharpened the mind.

Frank

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Frank,

I'm no longer willing to draft well-thought-out and comprehensive answers to DVaut1's posts, because it appears to be a never-ending process with him. My interactions with him always seems to end up with him attacking me in some sort of ad hominem manner, together with his asking for more "well-thought-out and comprehensive" responses. If I provide him such a response, another such attack and request will follow soon thereafter. So, there simply is no longer any point.

I also suspect that for him, this process is more important than the actual ideas being exchanged. That's just my own personal suspicion, though (and I think he does this with others too, although to a lesser extent).

That's why I wished him a good life--and if you're not careful, Frank, I may wish you one too;-)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, wishing me a good life is better than putting a curse on me [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I'm sure you and DVaut1 have been going at it for a long time, and I bet you continue to do so [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Frank

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to get all your periods and commas in the right place, anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

That in itself is actually quite an art. Thank God for the edit feature, too;-)

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
So-called "fundamental" Islam is spreading, and more moderate (or less fanatical) Muslims are often unwilling to speak up against it, in part due to fear of repercussions. Moreover, the fanatical or fundamentalist elements have the literal text of the Koran on their side.........
..........Very tricky and dangerous times ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

What happens when we substitute 'Christian' for "Islam" and 'Bible' for 'Koran'?


Yes, indeed......Very tricky and dangerous times.....right now.