Ahmadinejad's message to Democrats

[Cylinder]

In his letter (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/29/ahmadinejad.letter/) to all Americans published today (or at least the noble ones), Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad' included a special message to US Democrats:

The United States has had many administrations; some who have left a positive legacy, and others that are neither remembered fondly by the American people nor by other nations.

Now that you control an important branch of the US Government, you will also be held to account by the people and by history.

If the US Government meets the current domestic and external challenges with an approach based on truth and Justice, it can remedy some of the past afflictions and alleviate some of the global resentment and hatred of America. But if the approach remains the same, it would not be unexpected that the American people would similarly reject the new electoral winners, although the recent elections, rather than reflecting a victory, in reality point to the failure of the current administration's policies. These issues had been extensively dealt with in my letter to President Bush earlier this year.

To sum up:

It is possible to govern based on an approach that is distinctly different from one of coercion, force and injustice.

It is possible to sincerely serve and promote common human values, and honesty and compassion.

It is possible to provide welfare and prosperity without tension, threats, imposition or war.

It is possible to lead the world towards the aspired perfection by adhering to unity, monotheism, morality and spirituality and drawing upon the teachings of the Divine Prophets.

Then, the American people, who are God-fearing and followers of Divine religions, will overcome every difficulty.

What I stated represents some of my anxieties and concerns.

I am confident that you, the American people, will play an instrumental role in the establishment of justice and spirituality throughout the world. The promises of the Almighty and His prophets will certainly be realized, Justice and Truth will prevail and all nations will live a true life in a climate replete with love, compassion and fraternity.

The US governing establishment, the authorities and the powerful should not choose irreversible paths. As all prophets have taught us, injustice and transgression will eventually bring about decline and demise. Today, the path of return to faith and spirituality is open and unimpeded.

We should all heed the Divine Word of the Holy Qur'an:

"But those who repent, have faith and do good may receive Salvation. Your Lord, alone, creates and chooses as He will, and others have no part in His choice; Glorified is God and Exalted above any partners they ascribe to Him." (28:67-68)

I pray to the Almighty to bless the Iranian and American nations and indeed all nations of the world with dignity and success.

[senorpogo]

Say what you will about him, but the man does look good in a tan windbreaker.

[mr rosewater]

Do they still hang homosexuals in Iran?

[hgc]

Do they still hang homosexuals in Iran?
Yeah. Apparently that's what God-fearing followers of Divine religions are supposed to do. Not hanging homos shows insufficient fear of God.

[Darth Rotor]

Do they still hang homosexuals in Iran?

With dignity . . . if Allah wills it. :p

By the way, dear atheist friends, Mahmoud seems to have a case of attitude about you, if analysis by omission is a valid tool:

Then, the American people, who are God-fearing and followers of Divine religions, will overcome every difficulty.

Perhaps a return letter to him, from a suitably dignified and high profile atheist, would be in order?

DR

[Garrette]

With dignity . . . if Allah wills it. :p

By the way, dear atheist friends, Mahmoud seems to have a case of attitude about you, if analysis by omission is a valid tool:I suppose if GHWB can get away with doing it explicitly, we shouldn't be surprised at M.A. doing it implicity.

Perhaps a return letter to him, from a suitably dignified and high profile atheist, would be in order? Were I dignified enough and high profile enough, I might give it a shot. Alas, I am neither.

[LawnOven]

I'll bet he was wearing a silly clown hat and farting on a chicken when he wrote that.

Oh, Ahmadinejad you so crazy.

[Polaris]

Dear Mohammad Ahmadinejad,

Got your letter. Thanks for the sentiment.

I have Iranian friends. Yes, they live in Iran. We all think Bush is an idiot and you should hang from a lamp-post. I encourage Iranian/American friendship of this sort as well, and have beat you to the punch well before Khatami was unappointed by the Council.

Kill yourself.

Polaris.

PS: I'm going to contribute some money to a Baha'i church as a physical response to your letter.

[Huntster]

....By the way, dear atheist friends, Mahmoud seems to have a case of attitude about you, if analysis by omission is a valid tool:

Then, the American people, who are God-fearing and followers of Divine religions, will overcome every difficulty......

I'll go a step further; it is the freedom of atheists, homosexuals, Hollywood producers, etc. which the radical and fundamentalist Islamic people oppose so much.

Yet it is the work of a conservative administration and military that fights to keep the atheists, homosexuals, Hollywood producers, etc. free.

Ironic.

[senorpogo]

Yet it is the work of a conservative administration and military that fights to keep the atheists, homosexuals, Hollywood producers, etc. free.

Ironic.

Don'tcha think?
It's like raining on your wedding day....

[grayman]

PS: I'm going to contribute some money to a Baha'i church as a physical response to your letter.

You can't. They don't take money from outside their faith.

Here's how the Iranian government treats Baha'i's (http://www.bahai.org/persecution/iran).

[Kopji]

I read through the three pages of his letter to me looking for something new or of substance, and was disappointed once again.

It is possible to lead the world towards the aspired perfection by adhering to unity, monotheism, morality and spirituality and drawing upon the teachings of the Divine Prophets.

I for one, have been throughly convinced by forum arguments that the problems of the world have nothing to do with religion or God. I just don't know what he's talking about here. What does Joseph Smith have to do with the Mideast?

Then, the American people, who are God-fearing and followers of Divine religions, will overcome every difficulty.

He watches too many westerns.

We should all heed the Divine Word of the Holy Qur'an:

"But those who repent, have faith and do good may receive Salvation. Your Lord, alone, creates and chooses as He will, and others have no part in His choice; Glorified is God and Exalted above any partners they ascribe to Him." (28:67-68)

Ah, now here's his real message. If we would just all agree with him the world would be a better place. Hardly a new idea.

[Pardalis]

Dear Mohammad Ahmadinejad,

Got your letter. Thanks for the sentiment.

I have Iranian friends. Yes, they live in Iran. We all think Bush is an idiot and you should hang from a lamp-post. I encourage Iranian/American friendship of this sort as well, and have beat you to the punch well before Khatami was unappointed by the Council.

Kill yourself.

Polaris.

PS: I'm going to contribute some money to a Baha'i church as a physical response to your letter.

Or more direct:


Dear M. Ahmadinejad,

Screw you.


Pardalis

[RandFan]

Dear Mohammad Ahmadinejad,

Got your letter. Thanks for the sentiment.

I have Iranian friends. Yes, they live in Iran. We all think Bush is an idiot and you should hang from a lamp-post. I encourage Iranian/American friendship of this sort as well, and have beat you to the punch well before Khatami was unappointed by the Council.

Kill yourself.

Polaris.

PS: I'm going to contribute some money to a Baha'i church as a physical response to your letter.:D There is usually at least one post every day at JREF that makes my day. This was the one.

Carry on my brother.

[a_unique_person]

I'll go a step further; it is the freedom of atheists, homosexuals, Hollywood producers, etc. which the radical and fundamentalist Islamic people oppose so much.

Yet it is the work of a conservative administration and military that fights to keep the atheists, homosexuals, Hollywood producers, etc. free.

Ironic.

But not too free.... no marriage for gays.

[steverino]

But not too free.... no marriage for gays.

THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT HERE!!!! America can protest and debate and vote and change and grow and progress WITHOUT HANGING Americans IN DECENT, aka, gay partners fighting for civil unions, marriage, etc. They don't do that in Iran.

[Mycroft]

Do they still hang homosexuals in Iran?

Unless they are stoned to death.


Please, no pot jokes.

[Mycroft]

But not too free.... no marriage for gays.

Oh, I didn't realize Gays were free to marry in Iran. How very progressive of them.

[TragicMonkey]

THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT HERE!!!! America can protest and debate and vote and change and grow and progress WITHOUT HANGING Americans IN DECENT, aka, gay partners fighting for civil unions, marriage, etc. They don't do that in Iran.

Yeah, those uppity gays should shut up and accept whatever they get because it's worse somewhere else!

[TragicMonkey]

Yet it is the work of a conservative administration and military that fights to keep the atheists, homosexuals, Hollywood producers, etc. free.

What makes you think the military is conservative? For the last couple of decades Republicans have often said they "support the military". They certainly talk about it a lot. But what do they actually do?

There seem to be just as many ex-military Democrats in office as Republicans.

And I know many military people. Some vote one way, some vote another. The military is large, and draws people from all backgrounds and political opinion.

And I'm pretty sure the gay military men and women I know aren't "conservative" in the sense that some Republicans use the word.

[Darat]

"Ahmadinejad's message to Democrats"

Are you referring to the USA political party - if so can you point out where the message to just them is?

ETA - Ah right found it - the line in the article that says "I'd also like to say a word to the winners of the recent elections in the US:" line - mind you it again shows that he's not quite the brightest pin - as far as I am aware there were a lot of Republicans that also won in the recent elections.

[Darat]

Oh, I didn't realize Gays were free to marry in Iran. How very progressive of them.

a_u_p never said that gays were free to marry in the Iran.

[fuelair]

I'll bet he was wearing a silly clown hat and farting on a chicken when he wrote that.

Oh, Ahmadinejad you so crazy.

I assumed the chickens' head was blocking the fart.

[Crossbow]

In his letter (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/29/ahmadinejad.letter/) to all Americans published today (or at least the noble ones), Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad' included a special message to US Democrats:

This looks like the annual peace offering that Muslims are supposed to do when they are war with someone.

If I recall, when a Muslim is at war with someone, or some nation, or something or another, at least once per year that a Muslim is supposed to make a public peace offering.

I expect that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is just doing the same sort of thing and that he does not expect any serious reply other than to claim credit for following the conventions of this religion.

Ugh!

[Darth Rotor]

This looks like the annual peace offering that Muslims are supposed to do when they are war with someone.

If I recall, when a Muslim is at war with someone, or some nation, or something or another, at least once per year that a Muslim is supposed to make a public peace offering.

I expect that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is just doing the same sort of thing and that he does not expect any serious reply other than to claim credit for following the conventions of this religion.

Ugh!
I am guessing it took about 8 (16?) of those to finally stop the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980's. :p

DR

[Ziggurat]

Say what you will about him, but the man does look good in a tan windbreaker.

I'm afraid I have to disagree, and I call as a witness the super-fabulous Manolo:
http://politicscentral.com/2006/09/07/the_chics_of_the_dictators.php

"Briefly and remarkably, the President of the Iran wears the same khaki windbreaker, wrinkled trousers, cheap oxford shirts, scruffy beard and wild eyes favored by the aging high school chemistry teachers everywhere."

[Darth Rotor]

I'm afraid I have to disagree, and I call as a witness the super-fabulous Manolo:
http://politicscentral.com/2006/09/07/the_chics_of_the_dictators.php

"Briefly and remarkably, the President of the Iran wears the same khaki windbreaker, wrinkled trousers, cheap oxford shirts, scruffy beard and wild eyes favored by the aging high school chemistry teachers everywhere."
And he wears no tie.

He should accept, per the Manolo's comment, fashion advice from successful Muslim rabble rousers.

Say what you like about Muhumar, Col Khaffi's Killer Chicks are hot! :eye-poppi

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10962456f2e6b8485f.jpg
DR

[marksman]

Thank you for that blog. That was one of the more enjoyable analyses of international politics that I have read in years!

[Merko]

The letter is very consistent with Ahmadinejad's speech to the UN. I quite disagree with the idea that he'd be crazy. His strategy, including this letter and the policy it is based in, shows great intelligence and considerable insight into the global political situation.


The bit about the 'divine prophets' is probably a very subtle hint that he probably does not want to include the Jews in his proposed monotheistic alliance.

However, the basic message is to present an alterantive to the (extremely silly) western notion of a perceived global clash between Christians and Muslims. That notion is absurd considering that many of the world's most deadly recent conflicts have been predominantly intra-Christian (Rwanda, Congo, fmr Yugoslavia) or intra-Muslim (Iran/Iraq).

Ahmadinejad apparently wants to replace it with a similarly absurd
imagined conflict between monotheists and polytheists (I'm afraid atheists are not considered the major target here). In other words, an alliance between the west and the muslim powers against the emerging superpowers India and China.


As much as I reject his ideals, Ahmadinejad is clearly also intelligent enough to understand that the message of force and threats that has become increasingly more popular in recent years, is in fact deeply impopular throughout most of the world.

[RyanRoberts]

However, the basic message is to present an alterantive to the (extremely silly) western notion of a perceived global clash between Christians and Muslims.


Western notion? You might want to look up Sayeed Qutb sometime.



Ahmadinejad is clearly also intelligent enough to understand that the message of force and threats that has become increasingly more popular in recent years, is in fact deeply impopular throughout most of the world.

Indeed, you might want to read more of his speeches that are not for consumption by credulous westerners.

[senorpogo]

"Briefly and remarkably, the President of the Iran wears the same khaki windbreaker, wrinkled trousers, cheap oxford shirts, scruffy beard and wild eyes favored by the aging high school chemistry teachers everywhere."

And that's what I love about him. So confident is he in his ability to change the political and social landscape of the world, he takes a *yawn* fashion and attempts to create a whole new trend. He's like the first guy who ever dared to wear a sport coat with jeans - ridiculed at first, but eventually followed by millions.

Mark my words - world leaders the world round will soon be going with the business casual look and it shall be called the Ahmadinejad.

Also, I predict that Ratzenberger will be the next world leader fashion trendsetter. How can you argue? (http://espresso.repubblica.it/multimedia/486999//7)

[Merko]

Ryan Roberts: Oh sure, the idea of a Muslim/Christian clash definitely also exists in many muslim countries, no doubt about it. It's no less silly there, though. I'm mainly referring to the western notion though, which is slightly different from the Muslim version (especially on the point of which are the most important crimes, and 'who started it').

Regarding Ahmadinejad's hateful iranian speeches, I think you missed my point completely. It is not that Ahmadinejad is a peaceful man full of love for his fellow beings. It is that he is intelligent and knowledgeable enough to know that a message of peace is much more likely to go down well throughout most of the world.

The strategies for messages to his home country is of course very different, here he is putting on a face of defiance to a hostile outer world.

[Darth Rotor]

Also, I predict that Ratzenberger will be the next world leader fashion trendsetter. How can you argue? (http://espresso.repubblica.it/multimedia/486999//7)
Did he get a free bowl of soup with that hat?

His chapeau looks like the hats a local high school drill team -- they use a cowgirl theme -- use in their costumes at HS football game half time shows. At least he's not wearing a short skirt.

DR

[Ziggurat]

And that's what I love about him. So confident is he in his ability to change the political and social landscape of the world, he takes a *yawn* fashion and attempts to create a whole new trend. He's like the first guy who ever dared to wear a sport coat with jeans - ridiculed at first, but eventually followed by millions.

But that was Manolo's whole point: it's NOT actually new at all, it's just coppied from people (namely disillusioned highschool chemistry teachers) whom one should not be getting fashion advice from.

Mark my words - world leaders the world round will soon be going with the business casual look and it shall be called the Ahmadinejad.

Even if that turns out to be the case, it's still a fashion disaster.

Also, I predict that Ratzenberger will be the next world leader fashion trendsetter. How can you argue? (http://espresso.repubblica.it/multimedia/486999//7)

It's Benedict XVI now, but his former name was Ratzinger, not Ratzenberger.

[Polaris]

:D There is usually at least one post every day at JREF that makes my day. This was the one.

Carry on my brother.

I try!

Did he get a free bowl of soup with that hat?

His chapeau looks like the hats a local high school drill team -- they use a cowgirl theme -- use in their costumes at HS football game half time shows. At least he's not wearing a short skirt.

DR

Pope Panzertruppen is only reinforcing Denis Leary's hypothesis that Catholicism is based on the size of hats and that God must be wearing a huge ******* Los Lobos sombrero.

[senorpogo]

It's Benedict XVI now, but his former name was Ratzinger, not Ratzenberger.

:p That's right. I got the pope confused with this guy. (http://img.consumating.com/photos/15240/large/98443.jpg)

[Darth Rotor]

Pope Panzertruppen is only reinforcing Denis Leary's hypothesis that Catholicism is based on the size of hats and that God must be wearing a huge ******* Los Lobos sombrero.
He doubtless drinks maple nut crunch coffee as well.

Lock and Load!

DR

[Art Vandelay]

However, the basic message is to present an alterantive to the (extremely silly) western notion of a perceived global clash between Christians and Muslims. Are you claiming that there is no such clash? And the claim is not a clash between Muslims and Christians, but Muslims and the West/secularism. Most of the Islamist issues (sexual morality, blasphemy, graven images, etc.) are in the Bible.

That notion is absurd considering that many of the world's most deadly recent conflicts have been predominantly intra-Christian (Rwanda, Congo, fmr Yugoslavia) or intra-Muslim (Iran/Iraq).The fact that there are other clashes hardly contradicts that the Western-Muslim clash exists. And are you seriously claiming that the conflict in the former Yugoslavia didn't involve Muslims?

In other words, an alliance between the west and the muslim powers against the emerging superpowers India and China.I don't think it's "alliance" so much as "do whatever we tell you".

Don'tcha think?
It's like raining on your wedding day...."Rain", not "raining".

But not too free.... no marriage for gays.There's a difference between freedom and being able to tell other people what to do.

By the way, dear atheist friends, Mahmoud seems to have a case of attitude about you, if analysis by omission is a valid tool:

Then, the American people, who are God-fearing and followers of Divine religions, will overcome every difficulty.Was what we are reading written by him? Because if a comma is deleted, it has a completely different meaning: "Then, the American people who are God-fearing and followers of Divine religions, will overcome every difficulty." If what we are reading is a translation or a transcription, then we can't know whether he intended for that comma to be there.

[Merko]

Art: There are many clashes between Muslims and Christians, but not 'a' clash (and note that I wrote about a 'global' clash, too). Positing such a global clash makes no sense when it completely fails to explain most of the most notorious conflicts in recent years, by any objective definitions.

I'm not a friend of Islam (in fact I dislike it almost as much as I dislike Christianity), but I do believe that westerners are often too quick in attributing negative aspects of Muslim societies as being funtamental to Islam, even when that is not warranted. Islam during Muhammed was relatively enlightened, and much of ancient science would not have survived the Christian dark ages had it not been preserved by muslim scholars. But Christianity eventually got out of its dark age, and there is no reason to believe Islam could not get out of its current 'dark age'.

While there are certainly Muslims in fmr Yugoslavia, I don't think it makes any sense at all to define that war as a clash between Christians and Muslims. The two major contrahents were both Christian, the Muslims sort of got caught in the middle of it. Oh, and there were Muslims in Rwanda too. They gained a whole lot of supporters by actually taking action against the genocide, something most Christians did not do.


But my point is that there is an in my opinion very bogus theory positing that the most important thing on the geopolitical agenda over the next fifty years or so would be this perceived 'clash'. See Huntington etc. And what Ahmadinejad is trying to do, in my opinion, is to launch an alternative to this mindset. Unfortunately that alternative is just as bogus and dangerous as the first one.

[Merko]

Art: Oh, and I forgot to address the claim about secularism (and secularism as a western phenomenon). I'm not so sure about that. The four most popolous Muslim nations are all secular: Indonesia (secular democracy), Pakistan (secular dictatorship), Bangladesh (secular democracy) and Egypt (secular dictatorship). The two democracies have both had female presidents or prime ministers, something that would supposedly be impossible according to the standard western perception of Islam, but which few Christian/western states can claim even after a century of democratically elected leaders.


My point here is that the issue of Islam and enlightenment is just as complex as the issue of Christianity and enlightenment. While we may perhaps agree that all religion is contrary to enlightenment, there are clearly a lot of gray shades here.

[Mycroft]

a_u_p never said that gays were free to marry in the Iran.

Yet, in context, he must have meant his comment about the US to be a comparison/contrast to Iran, wouldn't you agree? Since he selectively criticized the US with no mention of Iran, the implication is clear that in that one area Iran is superior to the US.

Either that or it was just mindless US bashing.

[LawnOven]

My high school chemistry teacher didn't look like that. Then again, she was a woman.

[Gurdur]

.....Yet it is the work of a conservative administration and military that fights to keep the atheists, homosexuals, Hollywood producers, etc. free.
Ironic.
Just a huge pity that that same conservative admin that won't allow homosexuals to defend themselves, by allowing them in the military.

Kind of spoils the point you're trying to make, doesn't it?
Ironic. :p

[pipelineaudio]

Just a huge pity that that same conservative admin that won't allow homosexuals to defend themselves, by allowing them in the military.

Kind of spoils the point you're trying to make, doesn't it?
Ironic. :p

wasnt that Bill Clinton?

[Merko]

Uh-huh. I don't really get what you are arguing about, but it seems to be some idea that when the US military are killing some iraqis, they are really standing up for the rights of american gays.
Sorry, but this makes as much sense to me as saying that Hezbollah firing rockets into Hebron are actually fighting for the religious freedom of the Lebanese.

[Darth Rotor]

Uh-huh. I don't really get what you are arguing about, but it seems to be some idea that when the US military are killing some iraqis, they are really standing up for the rights of american gays.
Sorry, but this makes as much sense to me as saying that Hezbollah firing rockets into Hebron are actually fighting for the religious freedom of the Lebanese.
Funny you mention that, but I was under the impression that it was Hamas PLO sorts who shoot at Hebron (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-12-01T151441Z_01_L29522779_RTRUKOC_0_US-PALESTINIANS-ISRAEL.xml&pageNumber=1&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage1).
Early on Friday, Israeli forces shot dead a Palestinian in the West Bank city of Hebron after he threw a petrol bomb at Israeli border police manning a roadblock, the army said. His family said he had gone to pray and was not a militant.
This while Condi was in Jordan nearby, declaring that she saw progress in the Isr/Pal dispute.

Irony.

DR

[Merko]

Darth: Sorry, I don't know where I got Hebron from, should have been 'northern Israel' really. Hebron is way off. I don't think there's such a thing as an 'Hamas PLO' sort though, a Republican Democrat sort sounds very plausible in comparison!

[Gurdur]

wasnt that Bill Clinton?
Sheeeeeesh, you should know your own country's history better than that.

Bill Clinton tried getting around the ban on gays joining the USA military by advocating a policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". The original ban was not his idea. He tried ameliorating it.

Sheeeeeesh. What is it with some people? Like they see Clinton as an ever-present Satan all the time, lurking behind every bush, apple in hand, responsible for all the Evil In The World. Bit of OCD there really, isn't it?

[Morrigan]

It is possible to govern based on an approach that is distinctly different from one of coercion, force and injustice.

It is possible to sincerely serve and promote common human values, and honesty and compassion.

It is possible to provide welfare and prosperity without tension, threats, imposition or war.

So, why doesn't Iran do any of those things?

[Gurdur]

...
Irony.

DR
If nothing else, real life and the JREF will provide for a constant stream of irony; I guess we just take our fun where we can in that.

[steverino]

Sheeeeeesh, you should know your own country's history better than that.



Well well well another personal attack from "get-a-grasp-on-reality-Gurdur," with nothing important to add to the forum.

[steverino]

Yeah, those uppity gays should shut up and accept whatever they get because it's worse somewhere else!

My post said the opposite, that gays should protest, and they should not shut up.

[steverino]

THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT HERE!!!! America can protest and debate and vote and change and grow and progress WITHOUT HANGING Americans IN DECENT, aka, gay partners fighting for civil unions, marriage, etc. They don't do that in Iran.

Tragic Monkey: Here I say-AMERICAN'S CAN PROTEST, CAN PROTEST, CAN PROTEST.

[Darth Rotor]

Darth: Sorry, I don't know where I got Hebron from, should have been 'northern Israel' really. Hebron is way off. I don't think there's such a thing as an 'Hamas PLO' sort though, a Republican Democrat sort sounds very plausible in comparison!
Good point, I should have said "Hamas or PLO" sort.

DR

[Art Vandelay]

Well well well another personal attack from "get-a-grasp-on-reality-Gurdur," with nothing important to add to the forum.To be fair, it isn't quite accurate to blame Clinton for dont-ask-don't-tell. He's responsible in the sense that he could have established a more inclusive policy, but not in the sense of creating it in the first place.

[Darth Rotor]

To be fair, it isn't quite accurate to blame Clinton for dont-ask-don't-tell. He's responsible in the sense that he could have established a more inclusive policy, but not in the sense of creating it in the first place.
He tried to arrogate to himself the Congress' job (the rules for the Military) and got called on it. Even so, he got a compromise: no more witch hunts, so he made progress toward the larger aim.

DR

[TragicMonkey]

He tried to arrogate to himself the Congress' job (the rules for the Military) and got called on it. Even so, he got a compromise: no more witch hunts, so he made progress toward the larger aim.



Are there no more witch hunts? There seems to have been an increase in the number of military men and women discharged for being gay, despite the need in wartime to keep trained personnel.

[a_unique_person]

Tragic Monkey: Here I say-AMERICAN'S CAN PROTEST, CAN PROTEST, CAN PROTEST.

Sure, but Huntster raised the issue of them being ungrateful. Should they be? At the moment, under Bush, the trend has been towards anti-gay rights, not pro gay rights. There are laws against gay sex.

[TragicMonkey]

Sure, but Huntster raised the issue of them being ungrateful. Should they be? At the moment, under Bush, the trend has been towards anti-gay rights, not pro gay rights. There are laws against gay sex.

Those laws have been rendered pointless by the Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v Texas. That particular problem has therefore been dealt with, but others remain, in the areas of legal discrimination. It is perfectly legal, in some places, for people to be fired or evicted or denied custody of their own child simply because they are gay.

[Ziggurat]

Are there no more witch hunts?

I really don't like most modern applications of this term. One of the important aspects of genuine witch hunts is that there never were any witches, so every accusation was actually false. However unfair the persecution of gays in the military, and however wrong any particular accusation might be, there most certainly are real gays in the military. Perhaps "inquisition" might be a better term (since there certainly have been pagans and heretics), but I think "witch hunt" should really be reserved for cases where the thing being sought does not exist.

Pet peeve, I know, but hey.

[TragicMonkey]

I really don't like most modern applications of this term. One of the important aspects of genuine witch hunts is that there never were any witches

Maybe there were, but they used their unholy powers to avoid prosecution!

[Art Vandelay]

I really don't like most modern applications of this term. One of the important aspects of genuine witch hunts is that there never were any witches, so every accusation was actually false.Well, there were witches. They just didn't have supernatural powers.

It is perfectly legal, in some places, for people to be fired or evicted or denied custody of their own child simply because they are gay.Well, the first two are examples of people exercising their right to be a**holes. The last is an example of judges being given too much power.

He tried to arrogate to himself the Congress' job (the rules for the Military) and got called on it. Even so, he got a compromise: no more witch hunts, so he made progress toward the larger aim.He was the Commander in Chief. And do you have cite for that the original ban was due to Congress?

Art: Oh, and I forgot to address the claim about secularism (and secularism as a western phenomenon). I'm not so sure about that. The four most popolous Muslim nations are all secular: Indonesia (secular democracy), Pakistan (secular dictatorship), Bangladesh (secular democracy) and Egypt (secular dictatorship).I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that not all Muslims are opposed to secularism? Not all Germans were opposed to Russia, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a clash between them.

[Ziggurat]

Well, there were witches. They just didn't have supernatural powers.

If you don't have supernatural powers, you're just a pagan, or wiccan, or whatever - but you're not a witch. That's what they meant by witch - they weren't simply having pagan trials, after all.

[Darth Rotor]

Are there no more witch hunts? There seems to have been an increase in the number of military men and women discharged for being gay, despite the need in wartime to keep trained personnel.
Dear ignormous: You can still be discharged for being openly gay without a witch hunt. It does not take a witch hunt (the deliberate seeking out of persons homosexual in order to discharge them) to determine that a person is homosexual, and in the 10+ years that I was around after that rule change, after "the don't ask don't tell" policy was implemented, the guidance on leaving people alone unless the facts of homosexual behavior basically leaped onto your desk, was explicit from the top down.

You presume a witch hunt is necessary in order to find out that a person is homosexual, with one of the key distinctions being "actively homosexual." You are incorrect in that assumption, and your logic breakdown is hopefully evident to you.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

He was the Commander in Chief. And do you have cite for that the original ban was due to Congress?

What are you talking about? It is codified in the UCMJ. That is a rule written to administer the US military, and is under Congressional, not Executive, authority. Any and every regulation in the Military, other than some strictly legal rules codified in the MCM, is subject to Congressional approval, review, and or adjustment. That authority comes straight out of Article 8, the US Constitution.

Were you around during that debate? Congress got very much involved, both parties. Congress is where the hearings were held. Without Congressional approval, the rules were not going to change at all. The attempt to side step Congressional authority by Executive Order was caught, and countered.

DR

[TragicMonkey]

Dear ignormous: You can still be discharged for being openly gay without a witch hunt. It does not take a witch hunt (the deliberate seeking out of persons homosexual in order to discharge them) to determine that a person is homosexual, and in the 10+ years that I was around after that rule change, after "the don't ask don't tell" policy was implemented, the guidance on leaving people alone unless the facts of homosexual behavior basically leaped onto your desk, was explicit from the top down.

You presume a witch hunt is necessary in order to find out that a person is homosexual, with one of the key distinctions being "actively homosexual." You are incorrect in that assumption, and your logic breakdown is hopefully evident to you.

DR

Dear Sweetie Darling,

It helps, when calling someone an ignoramus, to spell it correctly. Secondly, the use of witch hunts in finding out gays in the military does not necessarily imply that only the use of witch hunts will find out gays in the military, and I never said it did. Which, if you were sufficiently grounded in logic to justify lecturing upon it, you would have noticed. I realize that my second sentence, in conjunction with the first, might have created the impression that I was suggesting there was a necessity to the connection; however, anybody with any sort of manners would have simply suggested that if that were in fact my suggestion, it was likely incorrect. And thirdly, we're all very impressed by your anecdotal personal experience on the topic. However, please rest assured that one doesn't have to have been in the military "10+ years" to know something of the matter. For instance, despite your length of service, I've probably slept with more gay military men than you have, and have thereby gained quite a lot of perspective on the topic. From many angles. In any event, my experience has taught me not to call people "ignormous". Let civility be our watchword, sweetie darling honeykitten.

Love Always (and twice on Thursdays),
TM

[Pardalis]

Guys, you're missing the point.

Ahmadinejad is a head of state who is openly a Holocaust and 9/11 denier, he is set to have nuclear weapons...

Who the [rule 8] does he think he is telling people what to do?

[TragicMonkey]

Guys, you're missing the point.

Ahmadinejad is a head of state who is openly a Holocaust and 9/11 denier, he is set to have nuclear weapons...

Who the [rule 8] does he think he is telling people what to do?

He thinks he's a head of state who's on his way to having nuclear weapons! That's like having a Hall Monitor sash when you're seven years old. Intoxicating power...hey! No running in the hall!! BOOM!

It'd be funnier if it weren't likely to lead to the Apocalypse.

[Darth Rotor]

Dear Sweetie Darling,
However, please rest assured that one doesn't have to have been in the military "10+ years" to know something of the matter. F or instance, despite your length of service, I've probably slept with more gay military men than you have, and have thereby gained quite a lot of perspective on the topic. From many angles.

Love Always (and twice on Thursdays),
TM
Thanks for catching my typo, ignoramus. I was addressing your assertion of witch hunts for homosexuals in the military. Your claim is false.

Sleeping with gay military men doesn't qualify you to know wtf you are talking about in terms of policy, nor the policy guidance on how it was to be implemented. Are there still people in uniform who treat homosexuals with disdain? Yes. Did the rule change that? No.

I suspect you had much fascinating pillow talk regarding the frustrations of the constraints to being a practicing homosexual in uniform. That is irrelevant to the point, which is the policy, and the core change in policy that the "don't ask, don't tell" decision had on the process.

The rules still state that if one engages in homosexual activity, and it is known and proven, that the service member is separated from the service. (Whether or not the rule should be that way is a separate topic, and one that I can see being re opened. I don't think "don't ask don't tell" is the final word.)

I sincerely hope you practiced safe sex.

DR

[TragicMonkey]

Thanks for catching my typo, ignoramus.

Sleeping with gay military men doesn't qualify you to know wtf you are talking about in terms of what the change was, or how it was implemented.

I hope you practiced safe sex.

DR

Dear Sweetie Darling Honeyroasted Marshmallow Peep,

What is your deal? If you want to bicker with someone, why not try Claus? He's always good for a few thousand rounds.

All I did was point out that discharges seem to have risen, despite having a war on, which suggests that the purported easy-going ways of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" are largely illusory. Of course, it's also a running joke, because you can't throw a brick around here without hitting a gay military guy. Enforcement of the policy seems to run in fits and starts, and vary extremely widely depending on what branch you're in, where you're posted, and who your superiors are at any given point. Which makes the whole anti-gays-in-the-military regulations either extremely half-assed, or merely a hollow gesture to appease some political elements. I hope it's the latter, because the former would suggest a terrifying incompetence.

[Ziggurat]

All I did was point out that discharges seem to have risen, despite having a war on, which suggests that the purported easy-going ways of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" are largely illusory.

You seem to be discounting the possibility that people are using this as a means of getting themselves out of the military before their service agreement ends.

[TragicMonkey]

You seem to be discounting the possibility that people are using this as a means of getting themselves out of the military before their service agreement ends.

Are they? I would assume that the ones doing this would not be complaining about their discharge afterward.

I suppose it is a convenient way out for anyone who wanted it...a little less messy than the Navy women who deliberately get pregnant before a long deployment. Although I wonder what the standards of evidence are for people claiming to be gay. Do they accept their word for it, or do they have to provide witnesses, or a practical demonstration?

[steverino]

Dear Sweetie Darling,... despite your length of service, I've probably slept with more gay military men than you have,
TM


EVIDENCE?
:D :D :D

[Ziggurat]

Although I wonder what the standards of evidence are for people claiming to be gay. Do they accept their word for it, or do they have to provide witnesses, or a practical demonstration?

I don't know about that kind of detail, but if you ARE gay, you've basically got a method to bail from service any time you want to. And sometimes people are going to want to bail from service before their term expires. So we can't really use total numbers to figure out whether or not the military is really increasing or decreasing any "hunt" for gays, since we would need to split that number up into those who come forward with that information on their own and those who get "hunted", and we can't.

[TragicMonkey]

I don't know about that kind of detail, but if you ARE gay, you've basically got a method to bail from service any time you want to. And sometimes people are going to want to bail from service before their term expires. So we can't really use total numbers to figure out whether or not the military is really increasing or decreasing any "hunt" for gays, since we would need to split that number up into those who come forward with that information on their own and those who get "hunted", and we can't.

So, it's impossible to gauge whether the military is expelling a given number of gays against their will because of a theoretical possibility that some of them are not unwilling to be expelled?

Wow. Do you use this method to throw out any statistical evidence involving people, because they are capable of deception, or just the statistics you don't like?

[steverino]

So, it's impossible to gauge whether the military is expelling a given number of gays against their will because of a theoretical possibility that some of them are not unwilling to be expelled?

Wow. Do you use this method to throw out any statistical evidence involving people, because they are capable of deception, or just the statistics you don't like?

OK Tragic, You have attacked Ziggurat, Darth, and me on this topic with the same strategery, tweaking our premise from a prior post, then nailing the flaws of the newly created premise. I am guessing their reaction is the same as mine, "I never said that." Then we go down the "Yes you did," "No I didn't," road.

This will sound so awfully un-PC of me, but here goes...Your recent posts flaunt your personal lifestyle and experience of being sexually promiscuous with other men in the military to buttress your point of view of your contempt for America's policy of gays in the military.

I have been (rightly) criticized on this forum on Israel discussions because I felt that, as a Jew, and as someone who spent a semester in Israel, I had more of a "right" to my opinion than non-Jews, and that those who disagreed with me were anti-semitic.

You are feeling that "we" are attacking homosexuality for questioning your opinions, and in some strange extention of that questioning, attacking your sexuality. I don't believe anybody here actually is doing this.

[TragicMonkey]

OK Tragic, You have attacked Ziggurat, Darth, and me on this topic with the same strategery, tweaking our premise from a prior post, then nailing the flaws of the newly created premise. I am guessing their reaction is the same as mine, "I never said that." Then we go down the "Yes you did," "No I didn't," road.

This will sound so awfully un-PC of me, but here goes...Your recent posts flaunt your personal lifestyle and experience of being sexually promiscuous with other men in the military to buttress your point of view of your contempt for America's policy of gays in the military.

I have been (rightly) criticized on this forum on Israel discussions because I felt that, as a Jew, and as someone who spent a semester in Israel, I had more of a "right" to my opinion than non-Jews, and that those who disagreed with me were anti-semitic.

You are feeling that "we" are attacking homosexuality for questioning your opinions, and in some strange extention of that questioning, attacking your sexuality. I don't believe anybody here actually is doing this.

No, actually. You're projecting your opinions onto me. Who I choose to sleep with has nothing to do with the accuracy of a claim, in this case, that the number of military personnel discharged for being gay has risen. And I never said it had. As far "flaunting" goes, I was merely countering the implied claim to authority of the poster who mentioned his or her "10+ years" in the military. I have no notions that anybody's opinion on any topic matters more than the arguments made. If you like, I can argue the opposite side equally well. (I would have said, for example, that any recent increase in discharges under DADT was due not to an increasingly conservative atmosphere or homophobic "witch hunts" but due to the increased time and more confined quarters the military experience in war zones. A gay solider would be more noticeable, I mean, if he were spending 24 hours a day with the same people rather than being on-base stateside. Or suggested that the numbers are actually exaggerated in order to make the current administration's policies more appealing to the increasingly disaffected religious right, whereas under Clinton they might have underreported the issue to appear more liberal.)

I don't think anyone is attacking me for being gay. I think it would lead to a highly unproductive atmosphere if people start second-guessing the motives of particular posters. I would no more dismiss an argument because of personal feelings that the poster is biased than I would dismiss an argument because of personal feelings that the poster has personal feelings of bias. We're (mostly) grown-ups here, and we're capable of addressing topics directly. If I wanted to debate the ethics of sexuality, I'd do it directly, not as a "hidden agenda" to remarks quibbling over other remarks which are themselves a divergence from the topic.

One of the points of this place is that nobody's entitled to a opinion that carries more weight than another without evidence or argument to back it up.

[JamesM]

now we're on the subject of pillow talk with soldiers, "ignormous", "length of service" and "buttress" are taking on extra meaning.

[TragicMonkey]

now we're on the subject of pillow talk with soldiers, "ignormous", "length of service" and "buttress" are taking on extra meaning.

Not to mention "dishonorable discharges" and "troop withdrawal".

[steverino]

No, actually. You're projecting your opinions onto me. Who I choose to sleep with has nothing to do with the accuracy of a claim, in this case, that the number of military personnel discharged for being gay has risen. And I never said it had. As far "flaunting" goes, I was merely countering the implied claim to authority of the poster who mentioned his or her "10+ years" in the military. I have no notions that anybody's opinion on any topic matters more than the arguments made. If you like, I can argue the opposite side equally well. (I would have said, for example, that any recent increase in discharges under DADT was due not to an increasingly conservative atmosphere or homophobic "witch hunts" but due to the increased time and more confined quarters the military experience in war zones. A gay solider would be more noticeable, I mean, if he were spending 24 hours a day with the same people rather than being on-base stateside. Or suggested that the numbers are actually exaggerated in order to make the current administration's policies more appealing to the increasingly disaffected religious right, whereas under Clinton they might have underreported the issue to appear more liberal.)

I don't think anyone is attacking me for being gay. I think it would lead to a highly unproductive atmosphere if people start second-guessing the motives of particular posters. I would no more dismiss an argument because of personal feelings that the poster is biased than I would dismiss an argument because of personal feelings that the poster has personal feelings of bias. We're (mostly) grown-ups here, and we're capable of addressing topics directly. If I wanted to debate the ethics of sexuality, I'd do it directly, not as a "hidden agenda" to remarks quibbling over other remarks which are themselves a divergence from the topic.

One of the points of this place is that nobody's entitled to a opinion that carries more weight than another without evidence or argument to back it up.

I appreciate your post very much. I like your tone. As this is a computer forum, I think that we all project our opinions onto the others to a greater degree than if, God forbid, we were debating in person.:eek:

Regarding the poster who, as you say, mentioned "his or her 10+ years in the military," (sorry Darth,) that's 10 years more than I have under my belt and I deem both of you far more insightful in all matters military than my cowardly azz.

[Darth Rotor]

Dear Sweetie Darling Honeyroasted Marshmallow Peep,

What is your deal? If you want to bicker with someone, why not try Claus? He's always good for a few thousand rounds.

All I did was point out that discharges seem to have risen, despite having a war on.
Monkey, if that is what you meant, why didn't you simply say that? :confused: What is unknown, and what I think the military does not want to dig into, is if any of this increase in discharges were arrived at like the old draft dodge: don't want to go to war, confess to being homosexual. Similar to the rise in cases of CO filing, AWOL, missing movement, desertion, etc. Given the size of the military, and a presumed percentage being homosexual (pick a number 5%, 20%, whatever) the increase I've seen reported does not seem to indicate some mass defection of homosexual service members. (No surprise.)
easy-going ways of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" are largely illusory.
"Easy going?" What the policy did was make half a sandwich, at best. It didn't change the core rule, that open homosexual activity and military service are, by rule, incompatible. It also didn't address, IMO, the long standing issue of the whole security clearance process. There is in that system a presumed susceptibility of persons to blackmail if they lead "secret lives" of one sort or another. This ruling didn't change that in any way I can see, since a background investigation that anyone and everyone goes through for a high level clearance could, without malice, uncover such a "secret." What then? Service member didn't tell.
Enforcement of the policy seems to run in fits and starts, and vary extremely widely depending on what branch you're in, where you're posted, and who your superiors are at any given point.
The key change was "don't go looking for it." Can you or I expect zero defects out of people? No. Is it possible that some officials were more willing than others to adhere to the spirit and the letter than others? Likely.
Which makes the whole anti-gays-in-the-military regulations either extremely half-assed, or merely a hollow gesture to appease some political elements.
The previous regulations were very simple, if easily presented as unfair. The new deal most certainly was an explicit appeal to political elements. The initial, by the Pres to his target audience, and he final, by the Congress and the Joint Chiefs, to anothe audience.

Like many compromises, plenty of disappointed expectations were left on the table. I think we'd agree that nothing was "solved" in any final sense. My own experiences post "don't ask don't tell" (which is anecdotal, of course) is that leadrship was allowed to apply "live and let live" without being forced into an inquiry without significant evidence. Discrete people were left the hell alone.

For the homosexual service member, that's doubtless cold comfort. From a unit cohesion and team building perspective, for some service members, there are some conversations one simply can't have with one's comrades in arms.

DR

[TragicMonkey]

Regarding the poster who, as you say, mentioned "his or her 10+ years in the military," (sorry Darth,) that's 10 years more than I have under my belt and I deem both of you far more insightful in all matters military than my cowardly azz.

Don't mistake experience with authority on a subject. My grandmother has been cooking meals for more than sixty years, yet she is not an expert chef like my thirty year old cousin is. And neither would be an authority on nutrition like a nutritionist would be. And yet a nutritionist wouldn't be an authority on growing the food as a farmer would be. I think most areas of knowledge are approached from many different perspectives.

And while serving in the military might indicate bravery, not serving in the military doesn't indicate the reverse.

[TragicMonkey]

Monkey, it that is what you meant, that why didn't you simply say that? :confused:

Because I post in six threads at once at random intervals during the day, and am easily distracted?

"Easy going?" What the policy did was make half a sandwich, at best. It didn't change the core rule, that open homosexual activity and military service are, by rule, incompatible. It also didn't address, IMO, the long standing issue of the whole security clearance process very effectively. There is in that system a presumed susceptibility of persons to blackmail if they lead "secret lives" of one sort or another. This ruling didn't change that in any way I can see, since a background investigation that anyone and everyone goes through for a high level clearance could, without malice, uncover such a "secret."

From what I've read, one of the old reasons for a policy against tolerating homosexuality in the military (the pre-WWII regulations) wasn't that it was inherently bad for service, but out of fear that a commanding officer would take sexual advantage of his subordinates. What you wrote above sounds more like the old policies against having homosexuals in government positions during the early Cold War; apparently the fear was of Soviet blackmail. (An interesting question arises: did this ever actually happen? I remember there were some coverups of some politicians' gay affairs in that era, but I don't recall reading about actual blackmail by foreign powers.)

Like many compromises, plenty of disappointed expectations were left on the table. I think we'd agree that nothing was "solved" in any final sense. My own experiences post "don't ask don't tell" (which is anecdotal, of course) is that leadrship was allowed to apply "live and let live" without being forced into an inquiry without significant evidence. Discrete people were left the hell alone.

For the homosexual service member, that's doubtless cold comfort. From a unit cohesion and team building perspective, for some service members, there are some conversations one simply can't have with one's comrades in arms.


"Live and let live" seems to be the prevailing attitude, judging by the number of pretty-openly gay military men. As long as they avoid discussing their boyfriends in front of their CO, even the most flaming soldiers seem to be fairly secure in their jobs. Remember a couple of years ago, when the Army got rid of several Arabic translators all at once? The specificity of the job does suggest a particular commander or chain of command that suddenly got less tolerant. (Or else a public translator orgy in the mess hall, although from what I've heard, some fairly shockingly public stuff can go on in the military.)

[steverino]

And while serving in the military might indicate bravery, not serving in the military doesn't indicate the reverse.

Hey, thanks!

[Art Vandelay]

My own experiences post "don't ask don't tell" (which is anecdotal, of course) is that leadrship was allowed to apply "live and let live" without being forced into an inquiry without significant evidence. Discrete people were left the hell alone."Post" is not a preoposition.

[steverino]

"Post" is not a preoposition.

? What's a preoposition? Dang I is confuzid.

[Merko]

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that not all Muslims are opposed to secularism? Not all Germans were opposed to Russia, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a clash between them.

No, but I'm saying that if Bavaria, Baden-Wuerttemberg, North Rhine-Westphalia and Lower Saxony had opted to stay out of the war, it would be questionable to call it a clash between Germany and Russia. It would have been even more questionable to put the German/Russian clash as THE main clash of WW2 if that was the case, while simultaneously many more people were killed on other fronts. We see the German/Russian clash as the main clash because that is supported by objective criteria, such as the numbers killed, the size of land areas affected by war or changing hands, the number of tanks, bomber planes, artillery units etc that were employed.

To sum up my point:
1. There are many clashes between Muslims and Christians, and some between Muslims and Western countries.
2. Most Muslims and Christians/Westerners are however not involved in any such clash.
3. The large majority of the most important clashes in the world today, at least when defined by any objective criteria, are not between Muslims and Christians/Western countries.

[thaiboxerken]

Yet it is the work of a conservative administration and military that fights to keep the atheists, homosexuals, Hollywood producers, etc. free.

Ironic.

The military, yes. The conservative administration, no.

[Art Vandelay]

2. Most Muslims and Christians/Westerners are however not involved in any such clash.Seeing as how more than three fourths of Palestinians voted for terrorist organizations, I disagree with that.

3. The large majority of the most important clashes in the world today, at least when defined by any objective criteria, are not between Muslims and Christians/Western countries.The most important clash for Americans is that between them and Islamists. And one of the most important clashes internationally, the genocide in Darfur, is a clash between a Muslim group and Western ideals.

[thaiboxerken]

Seeing as how more than three fourths of Palestinians voted for terrorist organizations, I disagree with that.

I like how the Bush administration pays lip-service to the importance of democracy... except when a country's people vote for the wrong party.

[Merko]

Seeing as how more than three fourths of Palestinians voted for terrorist organizations, I disagree with that.


Palestine is a really tiny part of the Muslim world. I doubt Hamas won the elections because of their terror. If they did, how come they scaled it back massively since the start of their elections campaign, and to this day? Hamas, like Hezbollah, are not a pure terrorist organisation. The bulk of their work, in terms of funds, man-hours or (Palestinian/Lebanese) public recognition, is perfectly acceptable stuff. Therefore the goal should be to transform these organisations, rather than wiping them out, as must be done with pure terrorist organisations such as al Qaeda.


The most important clash for Americans is that between them and Islamists.


Only because Bush and his think-a-likes like to say so. Objectively, faulty electrical appliances are a greater threat to the American public than Islamists are. I'd like to see the politician that declared war on faulty electrical appliances, though. It doesn't fill the role of the ever-so-useful External Enemy quite so well.


And one of the most important clashes internationally, the genocide in Darfur, is a clash between a Muslim group and Western ideals.

No it is not. It is a clash between a Muslim government and a Christian population in a dirt-poor area that has little in common with Western ideals.

But I actually agree this conflict belongs on the top-10 list. The thing is that the list as a whole consists mainly of conflicts that have nothing to do with any clash between Islam and Christianity/the West.

[Art Vandelay]

I like how the Bush administration pays lip-service to the importance of democracy... except when a country's people vote for the wrong party.Democracy is the right of a people to rule themselves, not the right of a people to rule someone else. For a government to prohibit terrorism, even if the majority of people are in favor of it, is not undemocratic.

Palestine is a really tiny part of the Muslim world.I'm supposed to believe that it is completely unrepresentative? When you join an organization that is known for supporting X, and you do not actively work against X, and make an effort to make it known that you oppose X, you are supporting X. Every terrorist who believes that Islam means killing infidels is emboldened every time someone speaks out in favor of Islam, but does nothing to oppose terrorism.

I doubt Hamas won the elections because of their terror. What is certain is that they did not lose because of it. I would guess that "let's round up all Jews and kill them" wasn't the determining factor that led to the Nazis winning elections, but that doesn't mean that people who voted for the Nazis were innocent.

If they did, how come they scaled it back massively since the start of their elections campaign, and to this day?Cite?

Hamas, like Hezbollah, are not a pure terrorist organisation. The bulk of their work, in terms of funds, man-hours or (Palestinian/Lebanese) public recognition, is perfectly acceptable stuff. And the Nazis were not just about killing Jews. The bulk of their work was spent building up Germany and doing social work. Killing Jews was a tiny part of the budget.

The impact is more important than simply looking at time spent. Five minutes spent engaging in a terrorist attack affects the world more than five years building schools.

Therefore the goal should be to transform these organisations, rather than wiping them out, as must be done with pure terrorist organisations such as al Qaeda.But the Taliban... we should keep them? Why should we start with fatally flawed orgazinations, and try to change their basic nature, rather than supporting other organizations? Does seniority take precedence over morality?

Only because Bush and his think-a-likes like to say so. Objectively, faulty electrical appliances are a greater threat to the American public than Islamists are.That's not a clash. Do I need to explain to you why more money is spent investigating deaths due to homicide rather than cancer?

I'd like to see the politician that declared war on faulty electrical appliances, though. It doesn't fill the role of the ever-so-useful External Enemy quite so well.More importantly, it doesn't fill the role of "sane" so well. Toasters aren't out to take over the country.

No it is not. It is a clash between a Muslim government and a Christian population in a dirt-poor area that has little in common with Western ideals.So respect for the rights of minority populations is not a Western ideal? Nor is the idea of peaceful coexistence?

[thaiboxerken]

Democracy is the right of a people to rule themselves, not the right of a people to rule someone else. For a government to prohibit terrorism, even if the majority of people are in favor of it, is not undemocratic.

This includes the right of a people to decide who they want to run their government, even if it's the "bad" guys.

[Art Vandelay]

No, that's not what's meant by "democracy". That's what's known as "tyrrany of the majority".

[Darth Rotor]

EVIDENCE?
:D :D :D
"Inquiring minds want to know?" :confused:

DR

[Darth Rotor]

"Post" is not a preoposition.
You seem to suggest that the "post game show," or perhaps the "postgame shoe," and Post Hoc as a fallacy, post partum as a syndrome, do not connote "after," which is a preposition. Then there is the post-war period.

I looked at that sentence again. I should have used a hyphen.

Moving to dictionary.com, it appears that this usage, as a Latin interjection into an English structure, would probably be best done with italics.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

I'd like to see the politician that declared war on faulty electrical appliances, though. It doesn't fill the role of the ever-so-useful External Enemy quite so well
Why do you hate Americans? :cool:

Look at how the vaunted War on Drugs has gone: not well. :( Do you really want the government increasing the death rate of average Americans, adding to overhead costs, and ultimately gumming up electrical safety?

I don't. :p

If the external enemy isn't used, there is the risk that "an enemy within" will be targeted. I'm not too keen on that, either.

DR

[Merko]

I'm supposed to believe that it is completely unrepresentative?


The palestinians have lived under brutal occupation for over 50 years. There is every reason to believe this would make them more inclined towards extremism.

I provided you with two counterexamples - Indonesia and Bangladesh. This is the largest and third largest Muslim country in terms of population, and the two largest Muslim democracies. Neither have voted terrorists into power.

So, I'm supposed to believe that the largest Muslim populations are completely unrepresentative, but a really tiny Muslim country tells us everything about what Muslims really think?


Cite?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hamas_suicide_attacks#2005


But the Taliban... we should keep them? Why should we start with fatally flawed orgazinations, and try to change their basic nature, rather than supporting other organizations? Does seniority take precedence over morality?


Because you *can't* wipe them out. It is just completely impossible, unless you want to round up every man, woman and child in the area and liquidate them. So your choice is, either transform them, or keep up the fight forever, or conduct mass genocide.


That's not a clash. Do I need to explain to you why more money is spent investigating deaths due to homicide rather than cancer?


Cite?


More importantly, it doesn't fill the role of "sane" so well. Toasters aren't out to take over the country.


So what? Islamists stand about as much of a chance of doing it as toasters do.


So respect for the rights of minority populations is not a Western ideal? Nor is the idea of peaceful coexistence?

Nice reasoning. So we define "Western ideals" as basically everything that is good and sensible. Never mind that this is the ideal of hundreds of philosophical and religious schools from all over the world. Then you say that everytime something bad happens it is a clash with this ideal, and so a clash with us. Sorry, but this doesn't hold.

[Merko]

Look at how the vaunted War on Drugs has gone: not well. :( Do you really want the government increasing the death rate of average Americans, adding to overhead costs, and ultimately gumming up electrical safety?


No, but I'd like to see them handle terrorism (and drugs for that matter) the way they are supposedly handling electrical safety: Considering it as a serious problem that must be taken care of expediently and rationally. Not going out on some wild chase, throwing all sense overboard in the name of urgency, breaking every principle you claim to hold dear in the process.

[Darth Rotor]

I provided you with two counterexamples - Indonesia and Bangladesh.
In the past year or so, Bangladesh has hardly become more liberal. Some recent coverage in The Economist points to a rising incidence of anti Indian activity, and some increase in Islamisn, though perhaps the Economist's perspective isn't purely objective.

DR

[Merko]

In the past year or so, Bangladesh has hardly become more liberal. Some recent coverage in The Economist points to a rising incidence of anti Indian activity, and some increase in Islamisn, though perhaps the Economist's perspective isn't purely objective.


I agree all is not rosy about either of these two countries. Religious (Hindu) extremism has made progress in India too. And I dare say that violent Christian sentiments have also been on the rise in the West, as evidenced by the strong support for violent 'solutions' shown even in this forum.

[Darth Rotor]

I agree all is not rosy about either of these two countries. Religious (Hindu) extremism has made progress in India too. And I dare say that violent Christian sentiments have also been on the rise in the West, as evidenced by the strong support for violent 'solutions' shown even in this forum.
Are you trying to play the "moral equivalency of all religions" card? In the past 10 years, how many terror bombings, suicide bombings, kidnappings and hijackings have Christian activists undertaken? I suspect you will find some traced to Irish activists (both Green and Orange), some by Maronite and Armenian Christians. Are any of those actions taken to pursue a religious aim, or a nationalist/chauvinist aim?

When was the last Fatwa (or something like it) issued by the Pope? By the head of the C of E? The closest I can get to anything like that was Pat Roberston's suggestion, not order, to take out Hugo Chavez.

DR

[Merko]

Are you trying to play the "moral equivalency of all religions" card? In the past 10 years, how many terror bombings, suicide bombings, kidnappings and hijackings have Christian activists undertaken?


Why limit it to terror bombings, kidnappings and hijackings? But I would guess at least 15,000 kidnappings for the LRA alone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army

Then we have the war in Congo, which reportedly has claimed 3.8 million lives, although that includes indirect deaths. All the major contrahents are Christians.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/congo/story/0,12292,1370528,00.html

I know you said 10 years, but that conveniently leaves out about 800,000 killed in the Rwanda genocide. We also miss the war in fmr Yugoslavia by a thin margin.

I could list many more, but I think I have already surpassed the death toll and suffering from all combined Muslim terrors and wars in the period. Mind you, I'm not saying Muslim terrorism is not a major problem. I'm just saying that it is completely erroneous to portray it as THE problem.

Remember how Osama bin Laden started as a US funded mercenary against the Soviet? Because the Soviet was by that time labeled as THE problem, the US didn't care if they educated an islamist terrorist. Now the same mistakes are repeated, only the object of the obsession changed.


Are any of those actions taken to pursue a religious aim, or a nationalist/chauvinist aim?


How do you separate them? Osama bin Laden supposedly wants to create a pan-Muslim nation, and their rallying call everywhere is to drive out US forces from 'their' country/countries. Iran and their related terror groups are no doubt extremely nationalistic by their nature.

[Garrette]

Remember how Osama bin Laden started as a US funded mercenary against the Soviet? Because the Soviet was by that time labeled as THE problem, the US didn't care if they educated an islamist terrorist. Now the same mistakes are repeated, only the object of the obsession changed..I won't comment on the rest of the post, but this bit is off.

bin Laden had his own funding. He went to Afghanistan already wealthy. The US funded/supplied mujahadin and thereby may also have been the source of some additional resources for bin Laden, but the US did not create him or his organization, indirectly or directly.

[Darth Rotor]

Why limit it to terror bombings, kidnappings and hijackings? But I would guess at least 15,000 kidnappings for the LRA alone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army
Then we have the war in Congo, which reportedly has claimed 3.8 million lives, although that includes indirect deaths. All the major contrahents are Christians.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/congo/story/0,12292,1370528,00.html
Your assertion that this is a religiously founded animosity does not hold water. . . . "who proclaims himself a spirit medium, and apparently wishes to establish a state based on his unique interpretation of the Acholi religious syncretism and Biblical millenarianism."

That isn't Christian, nor even an analogue to the various Islamist movements.

I know you said 10 years, but that conveniently leaves out about 800,000 killed in the Rwanda genocide.
What does the racially based genocide and ethnic cleansing of Rwanda have to do with Islamists, Christians, and your attempt at moral equivalency? Are the goal posts moving a bit here? I'll also point out that what was going on in Rwanda was no threat to the world at large, nor was its effect global in reach and grasp. It was and is confined to that part of Sub Saharan, Eastern Africa (Uganda, Burundi, Rwanda Congo primarily.)
We also miss the war in fmr Yugoslavia by a thin margin.
Good point, I hadn't considered that, I picked 10 years off the top of my head. How much of that civil war was terrorism? The break up of Yugoslavia was not a transnational movement, nor was it aimed at having transnational efects, nor was it characterized by terroristic activity. It was a local land grab. Neither the Serb ethnic cleansing policy nor the Hutu ethnic cleansing effort fit the discussion of terrorist activity. The both are far more simple, old fashioned exercises of an intertribal war.
How do you separate them? Osama bin Laden supposedly wants to create a pan-Muslim nation, and their rallying call everywhere is to drive out US forces from 'their' country/countries. Iran and their related terror groups are no doubt extremely nationalistic by their nature.
The terrorist groups sponsored by Iran operate under the banner of a particular brand of Islam, which makes them more similar, it seems, to the Orange and Green crowd in Ireland, who were local, not global, in their political aims.

DR

[Merko]

bin Laden had his own funding. He went to Afghanistan already wealthy. The US funded/supplied mujahadin and thereby may also have been the source of some additional resources for bin Laden, but the US did not create him or his organization, indirectly or directly.

I agree, and that is why I didn't claim that they did.

[Garrette]

I agree, and that is why I didn't claim that they did.I don't want to put words in your mouth, and I apologize for misreading (it's a frequent failing of mine), but given what you are saying now, I don't follow this earlier statement of yours:

Remember how Osama bin Laden started as a US funded mercenary against the Soviet?

[Art Vandelay]

No, but I'd like to see them handle terrorism (and drugs for that matter) the way they are supposedly handling electrical safety: Considering it as a serious problem that must be taken care of expediently and rationally. Not going out on some wild chase, throwing all sense overboard in the name of urgency, breaking every principle you claim to hold dear in the process.That's a false dichotomy. Problems that involve intelligent actors should be handled differently.

The palestinians have lived under brutal occupation for over 50 years. There is every reason to believe this would make them more inclined towards extremism.It is hardly "brutal" in terms of occupations in general. And their extremism is the cause, not the effect, of the occupation.

I provided you with two counterexamples - Indonesia and Bangladesh. This is the largest and third largest Muslim country in terms of population, and the two largest Muslim democracies. Neither have voted terrorists into power.But how many support terrorism?

So, I'm supposed to believe that the largest Muslim populations are completely unrepresentative, but a really tiny Muslim country tells us everything about what Muslims really think?Given that one is unconclusive, and one gives rather obvious conclusions, the latter should be given significant weight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hamas_suicide_attacks#2005That's hardly conclusive evidence. Is that saying that there were no attacks from 1998 to 2000? Then some attacks is hardly scaling back from none. Plus 2006 isn't listed, nor are unsuccessful attacks, nor non-suicide attacks.

So your choice is, either transform them, or keep up the fight forever, or conduct mass genocide.No, that's not the choice. Transforming them doesn't eliminate the hard-liners. The fight last forever, no matter what you do. We are still dealing with Neo-Nazis. Does that mean we should have worked with the Nazis and tried to "transform" the party rather than wage war against them?

Cite?In case I wasn't clear, I am saying that investigations of deaths due to homicide receive more funding, per death, than deaths due to cancer.

So what? Islamists stand about as much of a chance of doing it as toasters do.When they get us to take off our shoes every time we get on a plane, they win. When they make us think twice about selling a book critical of Islam, they win.

Nice reasoning. So we define "Western ideals" as basically everything that is good and sensible. As we are Western, of course what we consider good and sensible and Western ideals will be largely identical.

Never mind that this is the ideal of hundreds of philosophical and religious schools from all over the world.So each conflict can only be a clash between two ideologies?

Then you say that everytime something bad happens it is a clash with this ideal, and so a clash with us. Sorry, but this doesn't hold.Are we an island, entire to ourselves? Are we not diminished when others are killed? Shall we say "When they came for those in Darfur, I said nothing, for I was not in Darfur"?

[Merko]

Your assertion that this is a religiously founded animosity does not hold water. . . . "who proclaims himself a spirit medium, and apparently wishes to establish a state based on his unique interpretation of the Acholi religious syncretism and Biblical millenarianism."

That isn't Christian, nor even an analogue to the various Islamist movements.


Uh, a movement based on the Bible and the biblical Ten Commandments is not Christian? Then who exactly *is* Christian? It is a complete analogue to al Qaeda and their reinterpretation of Islam.


What does the racially based genocide and ethnic cleansing of Rwanda have to do with Islamists, Christians, and your attempt at moral equivalency?


I thought you were saying that Christians would not behave as badly as Muslim terrorists do. In my book, slaughtering your neighbours with machetes is every bit as bad as anything Muslim terrorists did. It does not matter why you do it. If Christians do this, then it is irrefutable proof that Christians can be every bit as brutal and murderous as Muslims can be.


Are the goal posts moving a bit here? I'll also point out that what was going on in Rwanda was no threat to the world at large, nor was its effect global in reach and grasp. It was and is confined to that part of Sub Saharan, Eastern Africa (Uganda, Burundi, Rwanda Congo primarily.)


What, so murdering hundreds of thousands is no issue, as long as they don't do it in whatever part of the world you happen to live in?

I am discussing global problems. I am not talking about some problems pertaining only to some part of the world where you happen to live. I don't know where you live, and frankly I don't care.


How much of that civil war was terrorism?


So what? Why would only terrorism count? Talk about moving the goal posts!

Right, so every bit of cruelty, murder and rape is completely irrelevant, as long as it is not terrorism. Because you have decided that terrorism is the major problem in the world today, so anything else doesn't count. And so you have proven that terrorism is the major problem in the world today. Err, circular logic?

[Merko]

I don't want to put words in your mouth, and I apologize for misreading (it's a frequent failing of mine), but given what you are saying now, I don't follow this earlier statement of yours:

He was funded by the US when he started. Right, he'd probably have done something very similar even without the US. I could have been clearer with that. However, that wasn't my point. My point was that the US didn't think twice about supporting this maniac, because at this time the official doctrine was that the Communists were the first, second and third priority, so you could support every crazy fanatic or brutal dictatorship as long as it was perceived to harm the Communist powers.

Now Islamic terrorists are the first, second and third problem, and you know what.. I think this tunnel vision will create problems for the future, just like it did the last time around. This need to always divide the world in two is not rational.

[Ziggurat]

He was funded by the US when he started.

I don't even think that's true. Most of the money for the Mujahedeen came from Saudi Arabia and, to a lesser extent, Pakistan. Our primary contribution was not money at all, but Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, which were a key weapon in countering Soviet helicopters. I don't think any were ever given to bin Laden directly, and they had limited shelf lives anyways (I don't think any were operational by 2001).

[Merko]

Are we an island, entire to ourselves? Are we not diminished when others are killed? Shall we say "When they came for those in Darfur, I said nothing, for I was not in Darfur"?

You're completely missing my point. I am saying that we SHOULD care about Darfur, we SHOULD care about Congo, we SHOULD care about every serious conflict in the world, and we should NOT be so blind as to believe that only conflicts between Muslim terrorists and Christians/Westerners are important. Looking at all these conflicts, we should realise that conflicts involving Muslims are not even the majority of problems. They don't deserve being singled out. Osama bin Laden does not deserve the role as the leader of "them". There is in fact no "them". It's a multidimensional web, with many evildoers, with wildly varying motives, often fighting each others.

[Merko]

I don't even think that's true. Most of the money for the Mujahedeen came from Saudi Arabia and, to a lesser extent, Pakistan. Our primary contribution was not money at all, but Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, which were a key weapon in countering Soviet helicopters. I don't think any were ever given to bin Laden directly, and they had limited shelf lives anyways (I don't think any were operational by 2001).

This is completely irrelevant. That's like saying it's ok to fund Fatah as long as you don't send your weapons and money directly to the al Aqsa brigades.

[Ziggurat]

This is completely irrelevant. That's like saying it's ok to fund Fatah as long as you don't send your weapons and money directly to the al Aqsa brigades.

Uh, no. The Mujahedeen were a much more diverse group, with much less unified structure, than your comparison would indicate. And at the time, none of them WERE engaged in terrorism against the west, and most of them didn't afterwards either (note that both Al Qaeda AND the Taliban formed after the soviets were driven from Afghanistan and our support for the mujahedeen had already ended). A more appropriate comparison is having given money to the Palestinian Authority in the beginning, before it became clear that they were complicit in terrorism.

[Garrette]

I was going to respond, Merko, but Ziggurat beat me to it, and I agree with him. So you may assume his answers to the point about bin Laden are equivalent to mine.

[Merko]

Uh, no. The Mujahedeen were a much more diverse group, with much less unified structure, than your comparison would indicate. And at the time, none of them WERE engaged in terrorism against the west,

You are totally missing my point. Totally. The error was precisely that, assuming that as long as it is not directed towards the west, you can support every possible evil in the world.

It will backfire.

[Garrette]

You are totally missing my point. Totally. The error was precisely that, assuming that as long as it is not directed towards the west, you can support every possible evil in the world.

It will backfire.Where were the indications of bin Ladin evilness in the 80's? The muj were not, and still are not, directing ire toward us. The Taliban was a minor player at the time.

[Thunder]

its clear to me that ahmenijad wants a fight. he thinks the apoclypse is coming and if a confrontation with the usa and israel brings it closer...so be it.

i just wish this guy would come clean about his nuclear program. if he really seeks peace, he would allow the inspectors full access to do their job.

a true leader, puts the welfare of his people and nation above personal pride.

[Merko]

Where were the indications of bin Ladin evilness in the 80's? The muj were not, and still are not, directing ire toward us. The Taliban was a minor player at the time.

Who the heck is 'us'?

Evil is evil. It depends on the deeds, not whom it is directed towards.

[Darth Rotor]

So what? Why would only terrorism count? Talk about moving the goal posts!

Right, so every bit of cruelty, murder and rape is completely irrelevant, as long as it is not terrorism. ?
My remarks addressed terrorism. You chose to add tribal warfare to the conversation. You moved the goalposts, not me. They are both "bad things" but they are different in structure, intent, and means. Baseballs and basketballs are both balls, but they are different in size, scope, and use.

I am not interested in a discussion about apples being moved to a discussion about engine blocs.

I am curious at why you assert, or imply, that the Rwandan combatants were fighting under a Christian banner? Where is your evidence for that? What about the animists? I'd be interested to see you support that implication.

DR

[thaiboxerken]

No, that's not what's meant by "democracy". That's what's known as "tyrrany of the majority".

Which is another form of democracy.

This is also not too much different than votes to ban gay marriage.

[steverino]

This includes the right of a people to decide who they want to run their government, even if it's the "bad" guys.

Funny. It is clear that Bush won the (second) election and the Libs never were willing to let go and let the government, and "bad-guy-Bush" run the show.

Irony :o

[thaiboxerken]

Funny. It is clear that Bush won the (second) election and the Libs never were willing to let go and let the government, and "bad-guy-Bush" run the show.

Irony :o

Really? What did the libs do to change things?

In a pure democracy, the majority can rule tyrannically. I'm glad we don't live in a pure democracy. I'm glad the minority here can still speak against the majority, that the minorities' rights (most of the time) can't simply be voted away.

Now, looking at Palestine, how are the minority in Palestine being tyrannized?

[Merko]

My remarks addressed terrorism. You chose to add tribal warfare to the conversation.


I don't understand why it should be your privilige to set the topic. It should have been pretty clear from my posts that you chose to reply to, that I was debunking the idea that the major geopolitical problem for the next generation or so would be some perceived 'clash' between Muslims and Christians/Westerners. You tried to limit the discussion to terrorism only, and I replied that I did not agree with this limitation. There is absolutely no reason to presuppose that the major geopolitical problem could only be terrorism.


I am curious at why you assert, or imply, that the Rwandan combatants were fighting under a Christian banner? Where is your evidence for that? What about the animists? I'd be interested to see you support that implication.


According to the CIA World Fact book, 'indigenous beliefs' (that would be where the animists could be found) amount to a whopping 0.1% of the Rwandan population. Christians, on the other hand, account for 93.6%. I could give you a link that supports the claim that the Muslims (4.6%) stood out as opponents of the genocide, but really.. If you want to claim that they or the 1.7% 'no religion' folks did it, I think it is up to YOU to prove this rather unlikely proposition that this small minority somehow managed to spread their hateful propaganda all over the mainstream radio stations etc.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/rw.html

[WildCat]

According to the CIA World Fact book, 'indigenous beliefs' (that would be where the animists could be found) amount to a whopping 0.1% of the Rwandan population. Christians, on the other hand, account for 93.6%. I could give you a link that supports the claim that the Muslims (4.6%) stood out as opponents of the genocide, but really.. If you want to claim that they or the 1.7% 'no religion' folks did it, I think it is up to YOU to prove this rather unlikely proposition that this small minority somehow managed to spread their hateful propaganda all over the mainstream radio stations etc.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/rw.html
You misunderstood the point. Were those responsible for the Rwandan massacres doing so in the name and because of their religion? Or was it a tribal thing?

[thaiboxerken]

Probably due to religion.

[Art Vandelay]

Really? What did the libs do to change things? What did Bush do to overthrow Hamas?

In a pure democracy, the majority can rule tyrannically. That's not what Bush means when he says that he supports democracy, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Now, looking at Palestine, how are the minority in Palestine being tyrannized?They're being murdered.

This is also not too much different than votes to ban gay marriage.You are seriously comparing genocide to defending traditional marriage? You are truly disgusting.

Evil is evil. It depends on the deeds, not whom it is directed towards.And what exactly are these evil deed?

You are totally missing my point. Totally. The error was precisely that, assuming that as long as it is not directed towards the west, you can support every possible evil in the world.YOU are missing the point. Totally. The US was not supporting evil.

A more appropriate comparison is having given money to the Palestinian Authority in the beginning, before it became clear that they were complicit in terrorism.An even better one would be blaming the Marines for the assassination of JFK, becase they trained Oswald.

You're completely missing my point. I am saying that we SHOULD care about Darfur, we SHOULD care about Congo, we SHOULD care about every serious conflict in the world, and we should NOT be so blind as to believe that only conflicts between Muslim terrorists and Christians/Westerners are important. Who is saying that?

They don't deserve being singled out.What movement poses as big of a threat?

[thaiboxerken]

What did Bush do to overthrow Hamas?

He stopped peace talks with palestine.


That's not what Bush means when he says that he supports democracy, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

I know. What Bush means when he says that he supports democracy is that he supports majority rule, as long as that majority votes "correctly." A democracy isn't a democracy unless the majority HAS the option to vote wrongly.


They're being murdered.

I doubt it.


You are seriously comparing genocide to defending traditional marriage? You are truly disgusting.

Genocide in palestine? I doubt it. Also, gay people are being murdered in the USA simply for being gay as well.

[Garrette]

Who the heck is 'us'?The United States.

Evil is evil.Please define it.

It depends on the deeds, not whom it is directed towards.Please list bin Ladin's deeds in the 80s that indicated he was evil. Deeds the United States knew about or should have known about.

Then be specific about how the United States funded him.

[Darth Rotor]

I don't understand why it should be your privilige to set the topic.
I don't see why you want to engage in the hand wringing approach inherent in inserting all of the world's problems. The key difference between the tribal warfare category of troubles, and the Islamist movement, is the global nature of the Islamist movement. Tribal warfare, like politics, is manifested as a local problem.
I am curious at why you assert, or imply, that the Rwandan combatants were fighting under a Christian banner? Where is your evidence for that? What about the animists? I'd be interested to see you support that implication.
According to the CIA World Fact book, 'indigenous beliefs' (that would be where the animists could be found) amount to a whopping 0.1% of the Rwandan population. Christians, on the other hand, account for 93.6%. I could give you a link that supports the claim that the Muslims (4.6%) stood out as opponents of the genocide, but really.. If you want to claim that they or the 1.7% 'no religion' folks did it, I think it is up to YOU to prove this rather unlikely proposition that this small minority somehow managed to spread their hateful propaganda all over the mainstream radio stations etc.
You didn't answer the question. Thanks for the cite to give us a demographic sense of what it going on, but it does not answer the motivation, which for the Islamists is pretty clear. You have yet to make the case, in your attempt at moral equivalency, that a "Christianist" cause is what the Rwandan Hutus fought under. It was a race war, and to some extent a class war, which you attmpted to characterize as a religious war.

By the way, it was clearly spelled out in your link. :)

In 1959, three years before independence from Belgium, the majority ethnic group, the Hutus, overthrew the ruling Tutsi king. Over the next several years, thousands of Tutsis were killed, and some 150,000 driven into exile in neighboring countries. The children of these exiles later formed a rebel group, the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), and began a civil war in 1990. The war, along with several political and economic upheavals, exacerbated ethnic tensions, culminating in April 1994 in the genocide of roughly 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus. The Tutsi rebels defeated the Hutu regime and ended the killing in July 1994, but approximately 2 million Hutu refugees - many fearing Tutsi retribution - fled to neighboring Burundi, Tanzania, Uganda, and the former Zaire. Since then, most of the refugees have returned to Rwanda, but about 10,000 remain in neighboring Democratic Republic of the Congo and have formed an extremist insurgency bent on retaking Rwanda, much as the RPF tried in 1990. Despite substantial international assistance and political reforms - including Rwanda's first local elections in March 1999 and its first post-genocide presidential and legislative elections in August and September 2003 - the country continues to struggle to boost investment and agricultural output, and ethnic reconciliation is complicated by the real and perceived Tutsi political dominance.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Probably due to religion.
If both groups are mostly Christian, per Merko's link to the CIA fact book, I'll suggest to you that the racial/economic/social element is the root source, rather than religion. A modest understanding of the Rwandan matter includes the significant racial/ethnic/cultural differentiation between Tutsis and Hutus, and the historical record of the Tutsis as the tribe/demographic with whom the Belgian Colonial authorities tended to have the most favorable dealings. <== That's a very thin descriptive of a fairly complex political/social conflict.

DR

[Art Vandelay]

He stopped peace talks with palestine.So not having peace talks is "overthrowing"? Yet more evidence that you are completely divorced from reality.

I know. What Bush means when he says that he supports democracy is that he supports majority rule, as long as that majority votes "correctly." NO, what he means is that he supports democracy, where "democracy" is understood to mean "liberal democracy".

A democracy isn't a democracy unless the majority HAS the option to vote wrongly.So America is not a democracy?

I doubt it.You are seriously claiming that Palestinians don't engage in murder? You're either completely ignorant or dishonest.

Genocide in palestine? I doubt it. Attempted genocide. In Israel.

Also, gay people are being murdered in the USA simply for being gay as well.Name one (and if you say "Matthew Shepard" or "Gwen Araju", it will simply be yet another piece of evidence for the proposition that you have no understanding of the subject) . And that's an issue completely different from supporting marriage. (Are you now adding murder to the list of things equivalent to supporting marriage?) And killing homosexuals is not genocide.

[Merko]

I don't see why you want to engage in the hand wringing approach inherent in inserting all of the world's problems.


Because, for the umpteenth time, I'm discussing the silly notion that some 'clash' between Islam and Christianity/the West would be the major geopolitical problem for the next generation or so. But maybe you actually agree with me about that? Then please say so, instead of continuing a pointless discussion. What is your opinion about that? You jumped on me after I argued this point, so I assumed that you disagreed.


The key difference between the tribal warfare category of troubles, and the Islamist movement, is the global nature of the Islamist movement. Tribal warfare, like politics, is manifested as a local problem.


Global? There's no significant terror threats in my part of the world. It seems to be mostly a problem for the US and its allies. That's a pretty small part of the world. And even there, it doesn't seem too significant. Less than one thousand casualties per year on average. That's very sad, but let's get some perspective here.


You didn't answer the question. Thanks for the cite to give us a demographic sense of what it going on, but it does not answer the motivation, which for the Islamists is pretty clear. You have yet to make the case, in your attempt at moral equivalency, that a "Christianist" cause is what the Rwandan Hutus fought under.

I don't believe in morality and thus 'moral equivalence' would be like proving nothing is the same as nothing. The motivation for these evils is completely irrelevant in this discussion. People do what they want to do. If they are Muslim, they will find justifications in Islam. If they are Christian, they will find justification in Christianity. People have always adapted their 'morals' to suit whatever they want to do.

When I judge whether something is agreeable or disagreeable, it is of no consequence whatsoever what that person's motives are. I only care about what they do. If they claim to be my friend, and tell me they did it because they share my opinions, it doesn't sway me one bit if what they are doing is evil.

[Darth Rotor]

Global? There's no significant terror threats in my part of the world. It seems to be mostly a problem for the US and its allies. That's a pretty small part of the world. And even there, it doesn't seem too significant. Less than one thousand casualties per year on average. That's very sad, but let's get some perspective here.
Perspective here.

Some US Allies

Egypt
Jordan
Japan
South Korea
Australia (How many Aussies died in terror attacks in Bali?) ;)
Philippines
Singapore
Thailand
All NATO nations.
Pakistan (tenuous)
India (new)
Various Gulf states
Various African states.
Various South American states
Various Central American states.
Israel

Global.

DR

[Merko]

And what exactly are these evil deed?


Bringing death, terror and destruction over the people of Afghanistan. Oh, I blame the Soviet too. They should never have invaded. I blame them even more than I blame the US for the current tragedy, in fact. The US at least had some semblance of a reason for interfering, even though it hardly justifies the way it was done.


What movement poses as big of a threat?

There is obviously a strong neo-conservative movement in the US that is very eager to start new wars globally. They seem to be losing ground, but I would not count them out just yet. Somalia seems to be on the brink of a large-scale war. The Russians under Putin are rapidly moving away from democracy. Even though they don't seem to be expansionist in a military sense, you never know what can happen. Iran is growing stronger in a worrying sense. They seem unlikely to start a war, but Israel is a bit of a loose cannon and may strike Iran, causing a war. The peace in Congo is still fragile. China may seem like they are going full steam ahead for now, but it is still a totalitarian state, and civil unrest due to the growing inequalities could send the nation in a very dangerous direction. There are strong forces in the EU lobbying for the union to become more militarist and interventionist.

[Merko]

Perspective here.


Err, if some terrorists strike in India, it may likely be Hindus, Muslims or Christians (in order of probability), but it's a completely different conflict. If they strike in Egypt, well sorry, but again that has nothing to do with the US, it's completely domestic. If they strike in Saudi Arabia, well, they will be targeting the US bases, so really the US. Saudis don't really have any reason to worry. It goes like this for nearly every country and region you listed.

But most of all, the risk is very, very low everywhere. Unless you're in one of the war zones.

[Art Vandelay]

Bringing death, terror and destruction over the people of Afghanistan. In what sense did they do that?

There is obviously a strong neo-conservative movement in the US that is very eager to start new wars globally. [etc.]Those are speculative. Islamists are actually endangering the world right now.

Err, if some terrorists strike in India, it may likely be Hindus, Muslims or Christians (in order of probability), but it's a completely different conflict. If they strike in Egypt, well sorry, but again that has nothing to do with the US, it's completely domestic. If they strike in Saudi Arabia, well, they will be targeting the US bases, so really the US. Saudis don't really have any reason to worry. It goes like this for nearly every country and region you listed.So if it's completely not directed against the US, it doesn't count, and if it completely is, that doesn't count either? We're looking for some attack that is sufficiently in between? Saudis have died in terrorist attacks. It's not a matter of attacking the US.

[thaiboxerken]

So not having peace talks is "overthrowing"? Yet more evidence that you are completely divorced from reality.

Did I say that? You are the one that mentioned overthrowing, not me. I don't see libs overthrowing the USA government either.


NO, what he means is that he supports democracy, where "democracy" is understood to mean "liberal democracy".

No, he supports democracy only if the people vote the right way.


So America is not a democracy?

It's not a pure democracy.


You are seriously claiming that Palestinians don't engage in murder? You're either completely ignorant or dishonest.

Are you claiming that the americans don't either?


Attempted genocide. In Israel.

You mean war. There is a difference. I don't think Palestinians want to exterminate the jewish people, just kick them off land they think own.


Name one (and if you say "Matthew Shepard" or "Gwen Araju", it will simply be yet another piece of evidence for the proposition that you have no understanding of the subject) . And that's an issue completely different from supporting marriage. (Are you now adding murder to the list of things equivalent to supporting marriage?) And killing homosexuals is not genocide.

Trying to get rid of the homosexual subset of USA culture with murder is not genocide? You are also claiming that no homosexual in the USA has ever been murdered just for being homosexual? You don't think Shepard was killed for being gay? You don't think hatred of homosexuals has anything to do with banning gay marriage?

[Merko]

Those are speculative. Islamists are actually endangering the world right now.


Err, the US neo-conservatives have brought war, death and destruction to the world on a scale that would take terrorists about a hundred years to match, at the present rate.

But it is pointless to discuss this, we will never agree, there is no real exchange here. I believe that you're trapped in an 'us vs them' world-view where anything can be justified. I think you're trying to convince me that Islam is an evil that can never be reformed, only forcibly apprehended. And I won't buy that.

[Art Vandelay]

Err, the US neo-conservatives have brought war, death and destruction to the world on a scale that would take terrorists about a hundred years to match, at the present rate.Wow, that sure is Orwellian. Neo-cons haven't brought death to the world, terrorists have. What, are you actually claiming that neo-cons have more responsibility for terrorism than the terrorists that actually perform it?

I believe that you're trapped in an 'us vs them' world-view where anything can be justified.I think that you're trapped in the "anyone who doesn't think like me is a bigot" worldview.

you're trying to convince me that Islam is an evil that can never be reformed, only forcibly apprehended.Not Islam. Islamism. If it's reformed, then it isn't Islamism anymore.

Did I say that? You are the one that mentioned overthrowing, not me. I don't see libs overthrowing the USA government either.So what did you mean by Bush not accepting "democracy" that does not respect human rights, that cannot be applied to libs?

No, he supports democracy only if the people vote the right way.You just refuse to debate honestly and acknowledge other people's positions.

Are you claiming that the americans don't either?Not in the contexxt of the majority oppressing the minority, no.

You mean war. No, I mean genocide.

I don't think Palestinians want to exterminate the jewish people, just kick them off land they think own.Their actions aren't consistent with wanting to kick the Jews off the land. On the contrary, their behavior is consistent with wanting the Jews to take over as much land as possible.

Trying to get rid of the homosexual subset of USA culture with murder is not genocide? No. Homsexuals are not an ethnic group.

You are also claiming that no homosexual in the USA has ever been murdered just for being homosexual? I'm sayingthat it's extremely rare. Certainly much more rare than Palestinians killing Jews.

You don't think Shepard was killed for being gay?I don't think he was killed just for being gay.

You don't think hatred of homosexuals has anything to do with banning gay marriage?I think that regardless of whether there is a connection, it is disgusting to equate the latter with genocide. For pro-same-sex-marriage activists to insinuate that their opponents are murderers just convinces anyone who isn't a complete whacko that this is not a rational point of view.