About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 20

Sunday, September 24, 2006 - 5:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
> Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah in Lebanon, appeared before thousands of supporters in public for the first time since the ceasefire in the recent Hezbollah war. It was announced on the news that his presence before such a large crowd would prevent the Israelis from taking action, given the size of the human shield they would have to kill to reach him. [Ted]

This is one of the disadvantages of having declared a ceasefire. Unless ceasefire means you have agreed you can't go after the terrorist leader as opposed to ceasing troop movements, he should have been taken out by a sniper or a drone carrying a small explosive charge that would only take him out. [And you don't have to firebomb all of Beirut or bomb the entire square or plaza to decapitate Hesbollah, for chrissake.]

You may not have many chances to get the son of a bitch once he goes back under cover. Actually, the more I think of it, if you could design the bomb precisely to just blow his arms and legs off so the bastard dies a slow and painful death that would be benevolent as well.

> [Orianna Fallaci] described...her Pride for her chosen homeland, America...Like the British immigrant...Christopher Hitchens, she could see the virtues of her adopted homeland much more clearly, and defend it with ever so much more passion than any domestic American pundit I can recall.

I saw an old movie, I wish I knew its name tracing the childhood and adulthood of two bosy and a girl growing up in an ethnic neighborhood in an Eastern city. The one boy was trying to find some way to tell the girl how much he loved her: "I love you the way an immigrant loves America". It's the thing that has stuck with me years later - no one feels it as much as those who know what it is like elsewhere. I wish I had the exact words, the full poem, the name of the movie. It was beautiful.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Monday, September 25, 2006 - 10:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The key to winning the War on Islam (or the War on Current and/or Historical Islam) is tell the truth. Point out that this ideology is hateful and rotten, like naziism and communism.
This is a wise course. Attacking the idea is what is needed. We also need to uphold our own.

The nation that Reagan called the Evil Empire was brought down without firing a shot at them. You could say that there were wars "by proxy" in places like Angola. But it collapsed because we were patient and let it happen.

This is the only moral and practical way to deal with Islam. Call it what it is, defend yourself when attacked with violence, and have confidence that the power of better ideas will eventually appeal to the reason that exists in all humans.


Post 22

Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 8:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

What, Then, Before We Act?

My understanding from reading Diana Hsieh of the ARI is that Peikoff argues the Left has lost its moral fervor. But the only constant I see from the American Left is hatred of all moral authority, and hence hatred of America wherever she stands up for right, and hatred of Bush and any who dare even express moral support for freedom, truth or self-defense. While it is trumpeted in the press how low Bush's approval numbers are, it is ignored that his numbers with Democrats have never changed and that Congress' approval rating is consistently lower than that of the President's. While I found not only Peikoff's reasoning for voting a Democrat ticket but also the premises upon which that reasoning were based to be utterly absurd, I did not vote and am not upset that the Republicans have lost their majority in both houses.

The simple truth is that Congress authorized the "use of force" and Bush has not used that force, his moral capital, or our initiative in any coherent or justifiable way. On the same day that Iraq and Syria resume mutual relations, the nominal leader of the Lebanese opposition is assassinated, and Bush makes a strongly worded complaint to the U.N. to move faster in investigating Hariri's prior murder at Syrian hands? How many people has Putin murdered in the meanwhile? It is painfully clear that Iraq should have been and still needs to be put under martial law, and that we should have negotiated, and still must negotiate an armistice with the current Iraqi regime on our own terms, and should oust the current administration there without compunction if they so much as sneeze. We have undeniable evidence of Syrian, Iranian and prior European collusion with the Ba'athists and we do nothing and say nothing. To curry favor with whom? We refuse to translate the documents showing Saddam's weapons programs and violations and refuse to trumpet or even admit the evidence that we ourselves have found there of Saddam’s, the U.N.'s, France's, Russia's and Germany's criminality and acts of war against us in order to buy the favor of whom? In order not to offend whom? In order to look moderate to whom? In order to gain what advantage? According to what principle? To what end? To our own death by snuff-film televised by BBC, Al Jazeera, and the 93% socialist U.S. media?

Bush is Commander-in-Chief. He has been granted the power to wage war and has the sole constitutional authority to negotiate treaties. If we haven't put this war on the right footing and explicitly asserted our full moral authority to have done so, we may as well prove the bastard right and put Saddam back in charge rather than on the end of a rope. Bush, the U.S. and the West have nothing to lose by decisive action. Will it take the simultaneous detonation of a dozen nuclear bombs in the cities of the U.S. and her allies while China and Russia make their desperate last grab for power before we act?

?

Ted Keer, 23 November, 2006, USA

the image is from catholic-resources.org

Post 23

Monday, November 27, 2006 - 6:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Speaking of Nukes, anyone watching the series Jericho?  It is not too realistic I think, but I still find the old "survival after the end of the world" scenario fascinating.

Post 24

Monday, November 27, 2006 - 11:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
hatred of Bush and any who dare even express moral support for freedom, truth or self-defense.
Bush has claimed that he supports these things. But what actions have shown that he supports them?
The simple truth is that Congress authorized the "use of force" and Bush has not used that force, his moral capital, or our initiative in any coherent or justifiable way.
He does not have any moral capital.
It is painfully clear that Iraq should have been and still needs to be put under martial law
It is painfully clear that you are expressing support for dictatorship, which you have done before.
We refuse to translate the documents showing Saddam's weapons programs and violations and refuse to trumpet or even admit the evidence that we ourselves have found there of Saddam’s, the U.N.'s, France's, Russia's and Germany's criminality and acts of war against us in order to buy the favor of whom?
You still believe in the weapons of mass destruction? What acts of war has Germany committed? Is anything you don't like now an "act of war"?
Bush is Commander-in-Chief. He has been granted the power to wage war and has the sole constitutional authority to negotiate treaties.
Actually the Constitution says:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur....

If we haven't put this war
Who is "we"? When has Congress declared war?
put Saddam back in charge rather than on the end of a rope.
But that would put an end to the gravy train for the likes of Halliburton. Interestingly enough, right before the invasion, Saddam also decided that he would no longer accept dollars in payment for oil and take euros instead. Saddam is smart enough to know the dollar is toilet paper. This was quickly reversed after the invastion.
China and Russia make their desperate last grab for power
Russia can't even keep the Chechens down. They are much more concerned with messing around in the Caucasus region anyway. Those people like to fight about as much as they do in the Balkans. Russia is a big joke.


Post 25

Monday, November 27, 2006 - 12:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This has an interesting take - I was thinking of the motives of terrorists, and specifically the people who believe they will not attack us if we "don't interfere" and I think that does not motivate them at all.  In any case, the article here presents the idea that this is a "fantasy ideology" that is so far divorced from reason that traditional ideas of war won't stop it, it acts more like a disease:

http://www.policyreview.org/aug02/harris.html

I think it needs some of both - create a healthier environment that does not breed the disease - and wipe it out whenever and wherever you find it, and quarantine against it as much as possible.


Post 26

Monday, November 27, 2006 - 8:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My god! We have got to understand this! Quck! Find a pundit! Find several! Put them on talk shows... Do it! Do it now!!! 

You know... the two deadliest remedies to current events are history and science fiction.

Right now, I am taking HST 270: China and it is not much different here or there, now or later...  The palace coup that saw 10,000 bureaucrats assassinated... the destruction of this capital or another or a different one... the dowager empress and her idiot nephew, not to be confused with Julia Domna and Severus Alexander, of course...

Islam Schmisslam... has it changed since 700 AD?  Some regimes are liberal and others are repressive...  Some are in what is now modern Spain and others in what was once modern Iraq....  Anyone see  Osama lately?  I think he's not well, eh? ... Anyway, what difference does it make what ideology these killers profess?  They could be the Michigan Militia -- oh, that's right, they were...  -- anyway, the thing is for the individual you inside you to be happy, live your life, prosper, tend your shop i.e., mind your business, and -- considering the recent news about the renminbi floating! -- just work hard and put your savings in into gold and silver...

Other than that, it really pays no dividends to go to war.


Post 27

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 12:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I read an article earlier today that stated that the greatest terrorists in America are actually "animal-rights activists."


Post 28

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 1:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
They are a great threat, I agree, but that does not mitigate the Islamist threat, nor did they blow up the WTCs.

Post 29

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 4:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Putin Declares War, the West Capitulates?

All who seek to destroy or intimidate through violence are potentially mass murderers.

I find it interesting that Alexander Litvinenko, the most recent thorn in former KGB director Putin's side to have been assassinated by KGB methods claimed that he himself had been fired from his spy post for refusing to assassinate the exile Boris Berezovsky, and that it was Putin who engineered the 2000 Moscow apartment building bombings in order to blame the Chechens.

This latest in a string of Political assassinations by Putin is an outright act of war, given that it was conducted on British soil, in violation of British sovereignty, and against a naturalized British citizen. The BBC has the gall to report that the Russian "press" doubted Litvinenko's claims. What Russian press? I suppose the BBC think it was Blair's doing?

The silence is deafening.

Ted Keer, 28 November, 2006, NYC



Post 30

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 4:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tongue in Cheek Candy Filmed by NASA?

Michael, your post is too tongue-in-chhek for a serious response. I am not sure if you are simply advocating pacificsm, or are actually suggesting that Daniel Pearl, the Cole Bombing, Litvinenko, 9-11, NK's Tests, Saddam gassing the Kurds, The London bombings, Madrid 3-11, etc., etc., ad nauseum were all filmed by NASA on Jewish owned sound stage lots?

Chris, if you chose to expound on one of your candystripes in post 25 at length (100 word minimum) I will respond to it in kind. Otherwise, it's just buzzing, not an argument.

Ted Keer, 28 November, 2006, NYC

Post 31

Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 1:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The Road to Damascus
(or A Capitol Crime)

"A liberal is someone who won't take her own side in a fight.*
- unattributed

So now Nancy Pelosi is off to speak to her ally Bashir El-Assad, Ba'athist tyrant of Syria. Maybe he'll take her on a guided tour of his palaces, of his political prisons, or of his stockpile of WMD's inherited from his late brother Saddam. Shooting down her plane over international waters might kill innocent people. But given that the Congress will surely not be in session during her absence, and that there will undoubtedly be two witnesses of her giving our enemy aid and comfort in a time of war, she can certainly be arrested for treason as she attempts to re-enter the US. I assume that's still a capital crime

Ted Keer

Post 32

Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 4:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That column by Rich Lowry was excellent, Ted. Great find.


Sanction: 25, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 25, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 25, No Sanction: 0
Post 33

Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 8:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I used to spend some time in the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, mainly in Dhaka and Chittagong.   During one of these trips, about ten years ago, I asked my hosts, educated Muslim naval officers, "Why does the Muslim world hate the West?"

They corrected me.  Paraphrasing from memory:  "The Muslim world does not hate the West; the Muslim world fears and loathes the West.   It is led by America, and we are taught from a young age that America is officially a Godless place, that the most powerful nation on earth is officially a Godless thing running loose in the world, unguided by morality."   I asked if they thought I was a person without morality, and they laughed, and corrected me again: "We understand the difference between the American people and the American government, the state.  The state is officially a Godless thing, and so, unguided by morality."

Well, of course we are.  To me, this isn't a complaint.  We get it.  We understand our 1st Amendment.   I mean, that is something our education system does a great job at, as well as much of our popular culture.   The 1st Amendment is important to us, to our way of life, it's a keystone of our freedom, its the 1st of the BoR.    We get it.   But from their worldview, they are in fact absolutely speaking the truth, and although places like Bangladesh nominally have a secular civil government, in fact, in practice, the place is run by the religious leaders, who regularly demonstrate that fact via the calling of 'Hartals' (national strikes) on any whim whatsoever, simply to demonstrate who is really running the place.  It should really be called "The Islamic Peoples Republic of Bangladesh," like Iran or Pakistan, because that is the political reality.   It controls their education, it is their political reality, these places are effectively thoecracies if not actual theocracies.  They control government, they control education, they control the local political context.   They also recognize the political reality that, in a world dominated by a secular giant, their political reality is threatened if that secular giant, whose shadow is never far from sight, is not regularly shown to be bleeding from the a$$.  In their political reality(the local old men in robes clinging to their gig), they have correctly perceived that is is 'them or us,' and they are acting to secure the preservation of their power.  So, although we, here, are perfectly happy living in a world that also includes theocracies, those trying to maintain power inside of de facto thocracies cannot politically suvive in a world that includes us.   They correctly calculate, "it is us or them."    How else to explain to their people, "Why do we live like this, and why do they live like that?"   The way we live must be demonstrated to be "not so well," and their task in demonstrating that to their people is also aided by our actual cavalier exercise of the other half of the 1st Amendment, which regularly demonstrates to them that some of our choices with our freedoms can be used to paint us as Babylon incarnate.

These were not islamic radicals; Bangladesh does not have a fighting navy, per se, their navy is more like their civil defense corps.  Former East Pakistan was created by force at the exit of India's sewage disposal system,  at the mouth of the Ganges River Delta, and is always getting flooded, so they are always busy.  But, the navy is one of the outlets in a place like Bangladesh for 'the best of the best.'   It is not possible to effectively describe in words what life is like on the streets of Dhaka or Chittagong, or how the air burns your lungs with every breath.    But, life on a naval base in Bangladesh is shangrila in comparison with life outside the walls and gates.    These were some of the most highly educated individuals in the country, and this was their belief, which in fact, was based on the truth.  America the state is officially a Godless thing, proudly, and in writing, and the local old men in robes, the local politicos, use every tool at their disposal to maintain their local political power, in their context, and that demands that secular America be demonstrated to be 'not such a great idea to emulate.'

During one of these trips, I had a chance to use the services of a local 'small business shop.'  They had, for hire, a fax machine, a desktop computer, a modem, a copier.  The shop sold fruit, and ancient Soviet era electronics, like power supplies, inverters, and such.   It was diversified.    It had a dirt floor and no door, just a large blanket hanging in the doorway.    But, the desktop computer had internet access.  For a few Taka, you could avail yourself to everything the world sees fit to post on the electronic equivalent of a public bulletin board in the Men's room of the Port Authority.    I thought, "What an opportunity; here I am in a 3rd world country, about to take a peek at what struggling folks with access to the world's library are interested in."    I took a look at the IE browser history.     Sure enough, nothing but "SMUT" this and "XXX" that as far as the eye could see.   Oh, well.  So much for technology transfer to the 3rd world.

We know to change the channel.  We know to just shrug and laugh when the excesses of 'free speech' offends.  We know that's just people's choices with their freedoms.  We've been taught, it's a cost of freedom, tolerance of others excesses.   And, the local old men in robes know to use those factual excesses against us, to characterize us by our excesses, as readily demonstrable via satellite and internet and media of all types, 24/7/365 around the world.  "See how these Godless people use their precious 'freedom?'

We've been taught differently from those who have grown up in theocracies.   We can live with them in our world, they can't live with us in their world, and modern technology/media makes our world far too front and center in their world to ignore.  The old men in robes correctly have calculated, "it is us or them."

They are absolutely right, and they are fighting for their political reality, and our oblivious and irresponsible exercises of our freedoms in the face of others in different political contexts is fueling their fear and loathing and no matter what my hosts once said, resulting hatred against us.   

We don't get that they don't get us.

regards,
Fred


Post 34

Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 3:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My god, Fred.  That was brilliant.  Brilliant thought and writing. 

Truly.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 35

Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 6:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
 I took a look at the IE browser history.     Sure enough, nothing but "SMUT" this and "XXX" that as far as the eye could see.  

...... "See how these Godless people use their precious 'freedom?'
No, no, no.

That's how they use their freedom.

Sam


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 36

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 11:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sam:

 I took a look at the IE browser history.     Sure enough, nothing but "SMUT" this and "XXX" that as far as the eye could see.  

...... "See how these Godless people use their precious 'freedom?'
No, no, no.

That's how they use their freedom.



Well, both are true at the same time, just not universally.   What I meant was, the old men in robes are perfectly willing and able and incentified to selectively dip into the flood of excesses that we/the West regularly make available to the world, to pick and choose, and to characterize us by the worst examples, just as I did above.   (I apologize, the anecdote was a little confusing.  I didn't mean to imply that what I saw in that instance was them doing research on the West; what I meant, sadly,  was, on average, we're all average, and on average, the internet everywhere is used mainly to move porn from A to B at some fraction of the speed of light, no matter what country you are in, 3rd world or not.)

As far as the local old men in robes, they don't exactly lie when they point to our excesses.  They don't lie when they point to our 1st Amendment and say, "America the state is officially a Godless thing."   They don't lie when they are selective about characterizing what 'America does with its freedoms," they are just selective with the truth.  It is exactly what politicos do when they are desperate to maintain power.   It is 'the truth', it is just not 'all of the truth.'   They are incentified to be selective about the examples they pull from our own airwaves.

OTOH, we are almost totally oblivious to this.  We, in our own context, are fully educated on the cost of freedom, and so, let fly into the eather with abondon.  But, in so doing, we are oblivious to the political realities in other parts of the world, at the receiving end of all this 'glop,' both good and bad.   We don't realize, I think, the ammunition that we self-generate and place willingly into the hands of those elsewhere who see themselves in a fight for their existence, our way or their way, especially when we don't even perceive the same struggle.

This is confused as well, IMO, by our internal political struggle.  There are some on our left, I think, who think this world struggle can be ridden, like a tiger, to achieve change in this country.  As well as, our right, who are trying to fight that 'change' in our context, but the right is trying to ultimately fight that external tiger, not ride it.    I doubt that either the left nor the right in this country would much enjoy life under that tiger, but attempting to ride it anywhere is a reckless thing.

Ask yourself, how many times in the last several years have you ever heard Saddam's or Syria's Ba'ath Socialist party referred to as the Ba'ath Socialist Party?   How front and center has Qadaffi's Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya ever been? (BTW,  Libya was quietly Bush's Twofer. Qaddafi coughed up 3 days after Saddam was dragged out of his spider hole, when almost 20 years of sanctions failed.  2004 IAEA Report detailing Libya's WMD programs, and Libya was often accused of being Saddam's offshore host. A virtually ignored event in this country because of domestic politics.)    How many times was Pol Pot dismissed as a 'merely agrarian Marxist', as if all that fresh air spoiled the intent, even though the outcome was once again several million corpses rotting under the Sun?   Most folks are surprised to hear the full name of Saddam's party.  Why?  Count the times Pol Pot was ever grudgingly referred to as a 'communist' by our own press.    Then, some low level Austrian politico running for school board or whatever makes a passing reference to trains running in Hitler's Germany, and our suddenly paying press is breathlessly plastering "Right Winger" and "Nazi" into every third sentence and reporting it for days.

It has been like watching really shabby Soviet era street theatre.   Again, for the same really, really good cause, as outlined in the Berkley thread, for our own good..

regards,
Fred



Post 37

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 12:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred: I know exactly what you were saying: "Let's just all try to get along."

Until Islam can concede that we should be allowed to exist in a society where "our" concept of freedom prevails there is no common ground.

Sam


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 38

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 2:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sam:

Fred: I know exactly what you were saying: "Let's just all try to get along."
I'm an exceptionally poor writer.  I do this mainly as a cheap substitute for much needed therapy.

I didn't mean to imply that we should all just try to get along.   If that is what you got out of my therapy, then one of us took a decidedly wrong turn.

The gist of my anecdote is, this struggle is intractable.  They, the old men in robes, correctly perceive this to be "us or them" in this world.  We, in the West, are 180 degrees apart much less cognizant of that.  For us, in fact, that is not the case at all.   For instance, you and I are perfectly happy with life as it is, day to day, in the stink of Bangladesh, with religious politicos there desperately and futily trying to hold on to their gig.   They, on the opther hand, correctly recognize, "Gee, we're going to lose our gig, unless we can show pictures of the Great Satan regularly bleeding from the a$$, as opposed to, going to the Moon and opening up another new DisneyLand and Dancing with the Stars.   We can't exist in their world, if our path is resulting in our kids fighting for scraps of food undwer piles of rusty RPM while the West openly angsts over its too fat kids eating too much junkfood."

I sure as Hell am not advocating that we surrender our 1st Amendment, turn ourselves into a theocracy, and join in all the reindeer fun.   The 8 year old kid under rusty pile of RPM fighting off older kids to eat a scrap of mystery meat in the heat and stink of subtropical Bangladesh is a factual memory, forever seared into my brain, among hundreds of others, and I dont' even live there.  I am not someone who blames America for this set of outcomes, but I can guarantee you, the foaming at the mouth local old men in robes desperate to cling to their gig are blaming America for those outcomes, directly to the people they are trying to hold in thrall, and they are succeeding in selling that, they are winning that P.R. war, and they are in fact aided by our own left in that total nonsense, as well as by selective abuse of the imagery that we so readily and blithly supply for them 24/7/365.

I'll just repeat what I said.  We do not get that they do not get us.   For them, this is "us or them."   They are absolutely correct, in their political context.  They will push this until we finally take their struggle seriouslly, and not only assert our right to our way of life, but defend it.  Our signs of weakness, our continuing weak demonstrations of propitiation and indecisiveness and unwillingness to engage or take them seriously in their "Death To America" struggle enrages them.

Are we willing to wake our clueless selves up and see it that way?   Or, are we really willing to negotiate/compromise  our 1st Amendment, to make political life more tractable for the old men in robes?

Somalia: Project Restore Hope.  "Excuse us, we didn't really mean it. It was a PR exercise only."

Rwanda: "Even when the West deploys from over the horizon to project justice and defend a worldview, we don't really mean it.  We deploy, in force, to defend only ourselves, rudely, in front of helpless folks desperately needing protection. Then, flee.   So, never mind, we find it in our 'self-interest' to surrender the world to the whim of thugs, and to demonstrate that megapolitics is unstoppable, anywhere.  Want something? Take it.  Lesson learned?  Sure. The result was, the AU, aka Africa realizing 'We're on our own, nobody is going to so much as cross that street when three thugs are beating the crap out of one of us."

Kurds in Northern Iraq in 1996?  Hey, we'll take pictures from $30M jets patrolling "noFlyZones."  Why?  We don't care if Saddam 'rolls up' thousands if Kurds who we told 'we'd have your back, do it.'  We just don't want Saddam to use fixed wing aircraft when doing so, to sully Wilbur and Orvilles coming centennial.   See, there is no collective coming bill to pay for all of this failing Gesture Politics.

I mean, why cross the street to confront a thug having his way with some stranger? "We shouldn't a been over there?"   We all choose to surrender the world to whatever vision we will tolerate.  Force ultimately determines intractable political struggle, so the only choice we ever have is, what use of force will we accede to, towards what political ends?  This is serious, and we are all still playing.  It's not like '80 when we got to smugly vote for Clark on principle and instead got Reagan.

Well, maybe thugs know what we don't.  Like, what can't be faced down in Somalia or Rwanda or Baghdad can't be faced down in Madrid or London or Baltimore, either.

Seriously, consider that.  If we are unwilling/unable to face down these tactics in Baghdad, for fear of collateral heavy handed damage, or excesses of state power, or loss of civil liberties, or abuse of power by the state, etc., etc., then what the Hell do we think is going to enable us to do same in the streets of Baltimore?  Concrete battleships patrolling those insurmountable oceans?   So, all that remains is, the whim of the next group of thugs willing to bring the battle here.

Does anybody objectively think that they'll get a better deal under whatever group of thugs decides to ask once again the forever asked question? 

Lessons are being taught and some are being learned and some others won't be learned until it way too late.

I mean, why cross the street to confront a thug?  Some say, better to look down, avert the eyes, scurry away?

I guess we'll see how that works.

regards,
Fred


Post 39

Saturday, July 14, 2007 - 11:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Four intended victims of islum: shameless publically unveiled alcohol-drinking infidels.


(Edited by Ted Keer
on 7/14, 12:06pm)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.