tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post5512950112903201306..comments2024-03-18T17:09:55.964-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Win Over Those Conservatives Who Still ThinkDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger181125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-53464321181148948302008-08-04T13:52:00.000-07:002008-08-04T13:52:00.000-07:00Dewhirst: nobody claimed Clinton's military action...<I>Dewhirst: nobody claimed Clinton's military action in Kosovo would prevent rapes that already happened. They did prevent rapes that would have happened if nobody had done anything.</I><BR/><BR/>My contention is that it caused rapes that wouldn't have happened. As you feel no need to present evidence in support of your contention, I feel no need to present evidence in support of mine.<BR/><BR/><I>As for proving that Clinton used military action to prevent more rapes and murders...get real. Some conclusions are so obvious you make a fool of yourself by trying to deny 'em.</I><BR/><BR/>As for providing evidence that this military action was a war crime, I've already presented evidence of this fact. It is immediately apparent that when one wages a war, one causes unnecessary deaths. As others have indicated, the actions of coalition forces are at best "ambiguous" based on the admissions of those directly involved.<BR/><BR/>Others have addressed your remark wrt WWII-- while this may be why soldiers fought, things such as Operation Gladio suggest alternate motivations for our leaders. We entered WWII because Japan bombed our airbase and Germany declared war against us. I'm attempting to focus on a single conflict, and so may decline to respond to further questioning along this line.<BR/><BR/><I>Dewhirst, you're just making yourself look ridiculous when you spout this kind of crap.</I><BR/><BR/>Zorgon, you're making yourself look less credible. Standards of law and <B>evidence</B> apply to everyone. If anything, you're making yourself <I>sound</I> like a racist-- why consider only Croat claims of harm? Mustn't both the Croat and Serbian populations be comprised of both soldiers and civilians?<BR/><BR/>Even if Clinton had had the saintliest intentions in the above, surely you will admit that the public was presented a massaged account-- the media information you absorbed included or constituted partisan propaganda. Your derision for alternate sources suggests you haven't even pursued them-- which is a part of my motivation in not doing a lengthy search to find you some. They're out there.<BR/><BR/>Here is what you're missing:<BR/><BR/><B>I don't have to be for Serbians to stand up for international military courts</B>, any more than the ACLU has to be for Nazis to protect their rights to freedom of speech.<BR/><BR/>Nobody needs to protect the freedom of speech of things everyone agrees with... similarly, laws of warfare need to apply to victorious superpowers acting in supposed humanitarian capacities.<BR/><BR/><I>We don't have to confect bizarre imaginary nonexistent war crimes to accuse Bill Clinton of, the current crew in the White House have committed plenty of war crimes. Let's get our priorities straight here: we need to run the sociopaths in control of the White House and the Senate out of politics, out of Washington, and out of control of the media. Then we need to start working about hauling the lunatics currently in the White House and their enablers into the world court in The Hague for crimes against humanity.<BR/><BR/>That's what we should be worrying about right now. Not some wacky conspiracy theory centering on Bill Clinton's humanitarian military action in Kosovo. </I><BR/><BR/>What we need are moral standards and standards of evidence. The Kosovo intervention is a -precedent- for the 'sociopaths' humanitarian intervention.<BR/><BR/>Every US President does this-- current trends continuing, every -future- US President will do this. (Especially when they select Albright as their adviser.)<BR/><BR/>Treating the Bush administration as exceptional -protects- these monsters in the future... "Surely McCain wouldn't be that bad... surely -Clinton- never did such a thing..."<BR/><BR/>Bush is really bad, worse, yes... but it is a continuum, and he sticks out more for his callous disregard for -covering his ass- more than for just what he has done.B. Dewhirsthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07949715179057866177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-55568753875344741422008-07-31T13:46:00.000-07:002008-07-31T13:46:00.000-07:00I'll be addressing your remarks later, Z... busy a...I'll be addressing your remarks later, Z... busy at work.<BR/><BR/>Very short one-liner for now:<BR/><BR/>So, you're willing to completely accept the testimony of Croats and completely unwilling to accept the testimony of Serbs, and unwilling to provide evidence to substantiate your position? And I'm the one who has been propagandized and is subscribing to a conspiracy theory?B. Dewhirsthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07949715179057866177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-64859232006015670982008-07-31T12:56:00.000-07:002008-07-31T12:56:00.000-07:00"If your ostrich claims to be too busy, start them..."If your ostrich claims to be too busy, start them off with this handy chart." <BR/><BR/>I guess my main objection would be that it's difficult to imagine that one thing -- a party in power for 8 years -- could so profoundly affect so many things everywhere on Earth. Are there no other factors involved? What if you added "massive terrorist attacks" to the column: would 9/11/01 be the sole responsibility of the GOP? Did depletion of resources have nothing to do with the price of gasoline? The current collapse of the housing industry and mortgage crisis must also be the fault of Republican mismanagement as well.<BR/><BR/>Was the Democratic party so effectively muzzled by the Republicans that they were able to do NOTHING to stave off the collapse of America?<BR/><BR/>Seeing that one party has so much power to affect growth and decay, I will clearly vote a straight Democratic ticket this November.<BR/><BR/>Then everything will get fixed up the way it was eight years ago.GuyStewarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01268114053763665577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-46302317924238231162008-07-31T00:29:00.000-07:002008-07-31T00:29:00.000-07:00"Criticizing Clinton's military actions in the Bal..."Criticizing Clinton's military actions in the Balkans puts you in the position of having to defend mass rape and torture, B. Dewhirst. Are you absolutely sure you want to go there?"<BR/><BR/>False dichotomy, and beneath you, Zorgon. This statement is akin to saying that anyone who didn't support busting in the front the Waco Branch Davidian compound with a tank and filling it with flamable tear gas must support child molestors.<BR/><BR/>That said - Clinton made a choice to minimize American NATO casualities in Kosovo by using tactics which greatly increased "collateral damage". You might think that was the right choice. I am somewhat ambivelant.<BR/><BR/>The idea that we entered WWII to to prevent attrocities is laughable. Hitler declared war on us, not the other way around. <BR/><BR/>Our response to the massive atrocities of the Japanese, untill they attacked us, was the Flying Tigers. One Squadron.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-29349633483109002252008-07-30T08:57:00.000-07:002008-07-30T08:57:00.000-07:00Dewhirst: nobody claimed Clinton's military action...Dewhirst: nobody claimed Clinton's military action in Kosovo would prevent rapes that already happened. They did prevent rapes that would have happened if nobody had done anything.<BR/><BR/>As for proving that Clinton used military action to prevent more rapes and murders...get real. Some conclusions are so obvious you make a fool of yourself by trying to deny 'em.<BR/><BR/>Prove America entered WW II to stop Nazi atrocities. Oh, you don't have proof (because it's so flaming obvious only a fool would even question it)? Whoops! Looks like the Allies are guilty of war crimes for invading Germany in June 1994!<BR/><BR/>Dewhirst, you're just making yourself look ridiculous when you spout this kind of crap. You make some good points, but you're now going off the deep end trying to paint the NATO military excursion that stopped rape and torture and put an end to those concentration camps on the cover of NEWSWEEK as some kind of cockamamey "crime against humanity."<BR/><BR/>Wake up, Dewhirst. There are <B>real</B> crimes against humanity going on. Darfur, anyone? Use of white phosophorus against Iraq civilians?<BR/><BR/>We don't have to confect bizarre imaginary nonexistent war crimes to accuse Bill Clinton of, the current crew in the White House have committed plenty of war crimes. Let's get our priorities straight here: we need to run the sociopaths in control of the White House and the Senate out of politics, out of Washington, and out of control of the media. Then we need to start working about hauling the lunatics currently in the White House and their enablers into the world court in The Hague for crimes against humanity.<BR/><BR/><B><I>That's</I></B> what we should be worrying about right now. Not some wacky conspiracy theory centering on Bill Clinton's humanitarian military action in Kosovo.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10994509912655287453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-19490900870799644422008-07-30T08:47:00.000-07:002008-07-30T08:47:00.000-07:00Tony Fisk, you're kidding yourself if you think yo...Tony Fisk, you're kidding yourself if you think you're going to learn anything by playing a ventriloquist's dummy for a crackpot.<BR/><BR/>What have we "learned" from a far-right kook?<BR/><BR/>We're learned that far-right kooks deny documented facts, that they lie, and that they avoid answering questions or countering logical arguments which debunk their contrafactual claims.<BR/><BR/>Guess what? We already knew that. That's been standard operating procedure for the kooks who've been running this country into the ground from the last 14 years. <BR/><BR/>Letting a kook deny facts and ignore your arguments and not calling him on it because it would be "impolite" just gives the kook a superficial appearance of legitimacy -- which is what the kook wants. You've been duped, Tony. Wake up and smell the latte.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10994509912655287453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-86202623442904491192008-07-29T23:28:00.000-07:002008-07-29T23:28:00.000-07:00huxley,still I think tony and I have highlighted t...huxley,<BR/><BR/>still I think tony and I have highlighted the picture that the sum of the poll questions portray and it carries a different image than the one you are suggesting David address. Otherwise we already know what david would say - something to the effect of <BR/><BR/>"yes that study does indeed support my opinion"<BR/><BR/>although probably in harsher words.Geniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624496692217466430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-40114743435186299882008-07-29T23:14:00.000-07:002008-07-29T23:14:00.000-07:00its a bit late but this gem from scott adams blog ...its a bit late but this gem from scott adams blog highlights my point (thanks rick in china)<BR/><BR/>"Imagine this:<BR/><BR/>Billy thinks David is telling lies about him in class. Billy goes over to David's house when David is alone, and beats David up. While he's beating David, who doesn't put up much of a struggle, his friend phones him and says "You should really leave, David's parents (ie, the world pointing fingers) may come home soon." Billy, being smart, decides he has punished David enough for the lies he thought David had told about him in class. So Billy picks up his backpack, accepts the scratches on his arm from pummeling David and making sure he can never really walk again, and goes home.<BR/><BR/>It's not surrendering, Dave, it's pulling out. "Winning" -- well, was there ever any doubt there would be a loss? It's won. Saddam is dead. How many more Americans do you think need to die before a clear "victory" is reached, and what do you consider a clear victory? Americans like you stick the country in a bad position, geopolitically, and give internationalized Americans a bad rep for being supporters of warmongering. Uh huh, brilliant."Geniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624496692217466430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-23459132746963529902008-07-29T14:22:00.000-07:002008-07-29T14:22:00.000-07:00Pick a particular point of minutiuae -- e.g. a pub...<I> Pick a particular point of minutiuae -- e.g. a public opinion poll among Iraqis who happen to cooperate with some corrupt pollsters -- and worry that narrow topic to death...</I><BR/><BR/>Dr. Brin -- Actually I cited four polls with links from 2003 - 2006, if you had bothered to read my posts carefully before dismissing them.<BR/><BR/>Two of these polls were from Gallup. It is intellectual dishonesty, and nothing less, on your part to claim that all such poll results must be the result of corruption if they contradict your narrative for Iraq.<BR/><BR/>I'm not surprised. I have encountered this dishonesty, dismissiveness, incivility, derision, and SHOUTING DOWN (you really need to disable your caps-lock key) repeatedly from my former comrades on the left and it is no small part of why I left the left.<BR/><BR/>You will never win over conservatives in this manner--assuming that's your intention.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-7862224520837198872008-07-29T09:44:00.000-07:002008-07-29T09:44:00.000-07:00Every nation in NATO is also in the UN, I believe....Every nation in NATO is also in the UN, I believe... and all are obligated to uphold article VI. <BR/><BR/>From where I sit, you're the one who has bought partisan propaganda from Clinton et al.<BR/><BR/>The United States will not always be a world power. Even if you believe our international conduct to be saintly, and that of NATO to be likewise... are you so sure that the next unilateral world power will be so as well?<BR/><BR/>Allowing large states and coalitions to unilaterally decide when to violate the UN Charter is not the sort of thing you want around when the next Nazi Germany emerges.<BR/><BR/>It is also worth considering how we would have responded to the USSR if it had acted in such a unilateral fashion, for instance, to intervene after we started bombing South Vietnam. <BR/><BR/>We (the United States and the UN) made it very clear after WWII that when one instigates aggression against another state, and "bad things happen" as a result... the outside aggressor is responsible for those subsequent consequences.<BR/><BR/>By the Nuremburg principle, Clinton and Clark would be before a firing squad. A trial is the -least- they should face. (I happen to be opposed to capital punishment.)<BR/><BR/>Unless of course we're <B>just</B> hypocrites with nuclear weapons. In which case, there is precious little to suggest to Iran (say) that they shouldn't obtain their own nukes as soon as possible for defensive purposes.B. Dewhirsthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07949715179057866177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-29273263531699687662008-07-29T02:43:00.000-07:002008-07-29T02:43:00.000-07:00This is probably a dead thread now, but I feel it ...This is probably a dead thread now, but I feel it is the proper place to respond to BD anyway. Hopefully he is still checking in.<BR/><BR/>Kosovo was a very messy situation. I do actually remember what was going on. Bosnia in many ways was even more complicated, largely because intervention came so late and in such a peicemeal fashion.<BR/><BR/>The 'ethnic cleaning' you are so fixated on is stretching the meaning of the term very far. Yes, population division did happen... but the international forces mitigated it to a much greater extent than the exacerbated it.<BR/><BR/>For the NATO intervention in Kosovo, keeping the kosovar-albanian forces in check was a major difficulty, but remarkably successfully accomplished.<BR/><BR/>I think you need to detox a bit from the slant (propaganda) you've been reading on the topic. There really is a whole 'other side' to it. Even some of the major players (Clark and Albright come to mind) have spoken and written quite candidly about some of the complications and even some of the outright mistakes.<BR/><BR/>As for the war crimes angle...<BR/>I do not think Clinton or Clark should actually stand trial. I do think that an investigation (a sort of grand jury) would be called for under the auspices of the UN. Unless there are some really big facts I'm unaware of, the results of this investigation would conclude that the NATO did violate UN obligations, but did so under reasonable cause.<BR/><BR/>BTW: At least with respect to Kosovo, it is every country of NATO which acted.Travchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12790548845692414891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-24106172532477141092008-07-28T22:04:00.000-07:002008-07-28T22:04:00.000-07:00... and I see the front has moved on...tony fisk -...<I>... and I see the front has moved on...</I><BR/><BR/>tony fisk -- Thanks for the response to Zorg and thanks in general. It was brave of you to do so. <BR/><BR/>I get the impression that the front has moved on too. You brought up good points and good questions. In a less scattered, contentious forum, I would like to have pursued them with you.<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/>HuxleyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-90431582158227826712008-07-28T21:05:00.000-07:002008-07-28T21:05:00.000-07:00Correction:Above, I implied Yugoslavia broke up be...Correction:<BR/><BR/>Above, I implied Yugoslavia broke up between '94 and '96. Oops.B. Dewhirsthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07949715179057866177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-71518580194605667482008-07-28T20:56:00.000-07:002008-07-28T20:56:00.000-07:00Zorgon:A 1999 invasion cannot prevent rapes in 199...Zorgon:<BR/><BR/>A 1999 invasion cannot prevent rapes in 1992, nor liberate a prisoner who escaped in 1993, which took place in a country which didn't exist by 1999-- thus making them difficult to invade.<BR/><BR/>Do you have any better evidence that Clinton <I>et al.</I> were invading to stop -present- crimes?<BR/><BR/>When a police officer is involved in a shooting where civilians are killed, it is quite reasonable to insist they be investigated and perhaps tried... even if circumstances suggest they <I>may</I> have had cause.<BR/><BR/>Tacitus2:<BR/><BR/><I>When we asked the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden they basically said, "who?"</I><BR/><BR/>When we asked the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden they said "We would like to see some evidence, please."<BR/><BR/>I imagine the US would do much the same before handing over hypothetical curling terrorists.<BR/><BR/><I>Could you clarify which terrorist we are currently harboring and supporting?</I><BR/><BR/>Bush asked Congress for 400 Million to, in part, fund terrorists in Iran... organizations that the US State Dept has branded as terrorist organizations have received funds. Some work with al Qaeda.<BR/><BR/>We're harboring Luis Posada Carriles.<BR/><BR/>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/world/americas/08posada.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin<BR/><BR/>Travc: If you don't understand it, that doesn't mean it is baseless. Look up Operation Storm, for a start. Even if 'genocide' is uncalled for, 'ethnic cleansing' is. These folk you don't understand don't believe in the benign intent you suggest.<BR/><BR/>Given your torture analogy, we seem to be agreed Clinton et al. should stand trial.B. Dewhirsthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07949715179057866177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-72813304212158960822008-07-28T17:01:00.000-07:002008-07-28T17:01:00.000-07:00I think it might be CITOKATE time:At a certain lev...I think it might be CITOKATE time:<BR/><BR/>At a certain level, I am finding the current discussion rather hilarious.<BR/><BR/>After several hundred kilobytes, Zorgon makes this observation:<BR/><I>The troll refuses to engage in argument because he never responds to any of Brin's or my facts or arguments. Instead, he simply monotonously continues to repeat scripted neocon talking points.<BR/><BR/>That's not an "argument." It's a fanatic hijacking this forum as a soap box for a far-right monologue. </I><BR/><BR/>Actually, I find the 'troll' in question has, so far, conducted himself with civility and restraint. Furthermore, he *has* responded to a few questions. We may have a *lot* more questions than he is prepared to answer in a given time frame. You might think this time frame excuse is a 'typical tactic' to concentrate on the minutiae. You may not agree with the answers he does give, and that's fine: I don't necessarily, either. Unlike you, however, I have not been ignoring his points, and I think you'll find I have been refuting them as I can.<BR/><BR/>He probably hasn't answered because he doesn't see the need to respond to 'soap box for a far-left monologue.'<BR/><BR/>I don't know what the problem is, Perhaps eight years of neocon ascendency have made you a bit hyper-sensitive? Come on, guys, you're smarter than this.<BR/><BR/>Think of it this way: you have beliefs you hold to passionately. So does Huxley. Neither of you are going to persuade the other. The best you can do is lay out your respective arguments: answer them as you can, point out where arguments are evaded (ie defaulted on) and leave it for other readers to decide.<BR/><BR/><BR/>... and I see the front has moved on...Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-15632697846065026632008-07-28T16:33:00.000-07:002008-07-28T16:33:00.000-07:00None mentioned:There are ways and then there are w...None mentioned:<BR/><I>There are ways and then there are ways of engaging in an argument.</I><BR/><BR/>Thank you for making my point for me. The troll refuses to engage in argument because he never responds to any of Brin's or my facts or arguments. Instead, he simply monotonously continues to repeat scripted neocon talking points. <BR/><BR/>That's not an "argument." It's a fanatic hijacking this forum as a soap box for a far-right monologue. <BR/><BR/>B. Dewhirst suggested:<BR/><BR/><I>NATO acted without UN approval. Why aren't they before a (the) war crimes tribunal? </I><BR/><BR/>Here's why:<BR/><BR/><I> Paramilitaries loyal to Arkan, the Serbian ultranationalist later indicted for crimes against humanity, came to the home Jasmina shared with her husband and extended family to search for valuables and weapons. When they found no guns they started beating her husband, said Jasmina who asked CNN not to use her last name to protect her children.<BR/>"Then they started torturing me. I lost consciousness. When I woke up, I was totally naked and covered in blood, and my sister-in-law was also naked and covered in blood. ... I knew I had been raped, and my sister-in-law, too." In a corner, she saw her mother-in-law, holding her children and crying. (..)<BR/>"Every day we were raped. Not only in the house -- they would also take us to the front line for the soldiers to torture us. Then again in the house, in front of the children," Jasmina said through a translator, remembering the 10 other women who were brutalized with her.<BR/>"I was in such a bad condition that sometimes I couldn't even recognize my own children. Even though I was in a very bad physical condition they had no mercy at all. They raped me every day. They took me to the soldiers and back to that house.<BR/>"The only conversation we had was when I was begging them to kill me. That's when they laughed. Their response was 'we don't need you dead.' "<BR/>Once at the front line, there were female soldiers who tortured her with a bottle and then slashed at her throat and wrist when it broke. Then the troops cut one of her breasts with a bayonet, said Jasmina, now looking older than her 35 years.<BR/>"It lasted for a year. Every day. ... Not all the women survived."</I><BR/><BR/>CNN: <A HREF="http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/07/22/sarajevo.rape/index.html" REL="nofollow">SEX SLAVE: `EVERY DAY WE WERE RAPED'</A><BR/><BR/>Clinton's bombing in Kosovo put a stop to this. Common sense suggests you don't indict people for stopping mass rape and torture and mass murder.<BR/><BR/>Criticizing Clinton's military actions in the Balkans puts you in the position of having to defend mass rape and torture, B. Dewhirst. Are you absolutely sure you want to go there?<BR/><BR/>B. Dewhirst went on to aver:<BR/><BR/><I>I don't believe [U.S. military force] is used in a humanitarian capacity, although this is often trotted out as a casus belli, and sometimes might even be a side-effect.</I><BR/><BR/>U.S. military force was used in an attempt to support humanitarian aid in Somalia. The attempt failed because it proved impossible to safeguard humanitarian workers in Somalia. Shipments of food and medicine were getting hijacked by Somali warlord Mohammed Adid and sold on the black market. Reagan used military force to rescue hostages in Grenada and Carter used military force to try to rescue the hostages in the American embassy. <BR/><BR/>As far as the use of U.S. military force in our other conflicts, you're right, though. Although the 27 percenters now try to trot out claims of "humanitarian aid" as justification for the Iraq invasion in 2003, the fact remains that prior to and during the invasion, no one raised humanitarian assistance as a reason for invading Iraq. I was there: I remember what people were saying. I remember what the media was reporting. It was all WMDs, WMDs, WMDs. Only when the WMDs turned out not to exist did the 27 percenters start talking about humanitarian assistance to Saddam's victims. <BR/><BR/><BR/>B. Dewhirst remarked:<BR/><I><BR/>Suppose, in 1900, the Ottoman Empire invaded the US. It flattened half of Washington DC, killed 1 in 30 people (ref: Lancet study), drove 1 in 15 to Canada or Mexico, detained Americans without charge and subjected them to torture...<BR/>How would red-blooded Americans react?</I><BR/><BR/>Current figures show that <A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/03/AR2007020301604.html" REL="nofollow">8 percent of the prewar population has fled Iraq</A>, not 7 percent. Also, <A HREF="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/103/story/23159.html" REL="nofollow">one in 5 Iraqis who've fled to Syria has been tortured</A>.<BR/><BR/>That equates to 1 out of 12 Americans fleeing to Canada, but 1 out of 5 of those who flee get tortured by the Canadians. <BR/><BR/>Also, to accurately reflect current conditions on the ground in Iraq, we'd have to posit that the Ottoman empire set up random checkpoints throughout occupied America and then shot entire American families to death for no discernible at those checkpoints. Also, Ottoman troops would kick in the doors of American homes every night and drag out family members to be tortured and killed. When the family members turned out to be innocent, which is often the case, the Ottoman troops would toss a handful of Ottoman currency at the family and walk away. At the same time, the Ottomans would hand out weapons to American Protestants and tell them to go murder Catholic families in their bed, and then, when the Protestants get too politically influential, the Ottoman troops would hand out weapons to American Catholics and urge them to start torturing Protestant children with acid and power drills.<BR/><BR/>So we should back up and ask how red-blooded Americans would react to that kind of treatment. That's a more accurate description of what America would be going through if we want a close parallel to what's going on in Iraq.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Tacitus2 remarked:<BR/><I>I think international communism in 1919 and militant Islam in 2001 have similarities.</I><BR/><BR/>This seems like a faulty analogy for several reasons.<BR/><BR/>The Qur'an is <A HREF="http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch1.html" REL="nofollow">a mishmash of mutually contradictory garbled ancient texts, all assembled centuries after the death of the alleged prophet Mohammed</A>. Consequently, in order to make any sense of the Qur'an at all, a great deal of interpretation is required. <BR/><BR/>By contrast, Marx's <I>Das Kapital</I> is entirely straightforward. Little interpretation is required to discern Marx's meaning. He is specific about the inevitability to the collapse of capitalism, etc. <BR/><BR/>Because Islamic beliefs depend so completely on interpretations of garbled mutually contradictory ancient religious texts, Islam's attitude toward nonbelievers has changed drastically throughout history. Thus, as others have pointed out, Islam has often coexisted peacefully with nonbelievers in the past. Islamic caliphates have also renounced efforts to conquer and forcibly convert other countries to Islam, depending on the historical period. At other times, Islamic Caliphates have pursued expansionist polices and murdered or tortured nonbelievers who refused to convert. <BR/><BR/>So the behavior of even the most radical Islamists differs wildly according to the historical period. A militant Moslem in the 10th century was a moslem who believed they should tax unbelievers, whereas a radical moslem in the 18th century was a moslem who believed he needed to lay siege to Vienna in the army of the Grand Turk. In Cordova from the 10th to the 11th centuries, for example, Jewish and Christian scholars were welcomed alongside Islamic scholars, and were not subject to onerous restrictions or fines. At other historical periods, Jews and Christians were tortured or murdered by expansionist Islam. It's not a "one size fits all" situation, so you can't talk about militant Islam as a single monolithic entity that behaved the same way throughout history.<BR/><BR/>However, you <I><B>can</B></I> talk about Marxist Leninists in Russia as a monolithic entity. They never renounced their avowed aim of global revolution until the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. There was never any point between 1919 and 1989 when Russian Marxist-Leninists permitted freedom or religion or freedom of assembly or any of others freedoms Islamic Caliphates allowed nonbelievers during various historical periods.<BR/><BR/>Last but far from least, Islam is a religion, while Marxism is a wholly secular belief system. History shows that secular conflicts tend to get resolved more readily than religious conflicts, mainly because religious beliefs involve claims that can't be tested. I.e., how do you disprove that 72 virgins await you in heaven if you blow yourself up with a suicide bomb in an Israeli pizza parlor? <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, you <I><B>can</B></I> test the predictions of secular belief systems like Marxism, and the predictions turned out to be uniformly disconfirmed by observed reality. This makes it easy to point out that Marxism fails to describe reality. Whereas it's not easy to prove that Islam fails to describe reality, since we would need access to things that in principle are impossible to observe -- viz., god, heaven, etc.<BR/><BR/>Too, militant Islam represents even today only a small percentage of overall Islam, while revolutionary Marxism has always been a core belief of Russian communism. <BR/><BR/>These differences seem more significant than the similarities, and consequently the analogy twixt Russian communism and militant Islam seems faulty. <BR/><BR/>On the point that Russian communists had no nuclear weapons in 1919, that's a rhetorical evasion. Russian communists have always had access to the most lethal weapons available at that era. In 1919, Russian communists had access to poison gas, the ultimate terror weapon of mass destruction of WW I.<BR/><BR/>Talk about an Islamic caliphate armed with nuclear weapons puts quite a few carts before quite a few horses.<BR/><BR/>First, in order to create an Islamic caliphate, Islam would have to unite quite a few diverse branches of its faith and conquer quite a number of countries. For instance, the Saudis would have to conquer the Shia in Iraq and Iran and they'd also have to conquer the secular moslems in Turkey before they could reconstitute a new caliphate. <BR/><BR/>Second, militant Islamists would have to wipe out the borders and submerge the cultures of a lot of modern nation-states including Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Iraq and so on in order to form a modern-day caliphate with supremacy over local middle eastern governments.<BR/><BR/>Third, a militant Islamic caliphate would need the technological and scientific expertise to assemble and then maintain nuclear weapons. (Nuclear weapons become non-functional if you don't maintain 'em. All nuclear warheads today use tritium as a trigger, and the tritium decays over time, so nuclear warheads must be subjected to constant hi-tech supervision and overhaul in order to keep working.) This seems like a Catch-22, because any Islamic caliphate scientifically and technologically adept enough to build and maintain nuclear warhead would be marinated in so much secular humanistic rational scientific worldview that it wouldn't be a caliphate and certainly couldn't stay militantly Islamic.<BR/><BR/>The rise of the modern nation-state in the mid to late 19th century forced the collapse of the Ottoman Empire because the Islamic caliphate as a political organizing principle predates modern nationalism and is much weaker than nationalism as a method of social organization. Religion as a political unifying principle has gotten trumped by nationalism for the last 150 years because societies organized around religion rather than secular nationalism tend to be inimical to science, while nation-states are hospitabale to science. Science yields technology, which generates military and industrial power. Thus, nation-states tend to overpower socities organized around religion over the last 150 years.<BR/><BR/>Globally, the trend worldwide is toward secular humanism and away from fundamentalist religion. This puts militant Islam on the wrong side of history. Given that secular nationalism has so greatly trumped religious militancy as a political organizing principle over the last 150 years, it's hard to discern how in an increasing more secular humanist world, a militant Islamic caliphate could re-form itself.<BR/><BR/>Last but far from least, if we <I><B>did</B></I> get a resurgent militant Islamic caliphate stretching from Turkey to Iran across a dozen national borders and armed with nuclear weapons, it seems overwhelmingly likely that the first (and probably only) use of those nuclear weapons would be by Shia against Sunnis and Sunnis against Shia. We have so much precedent for this in Western history, where the main victims of violence by religious states in Europe were dissenting sects of Christianity, and in Iraq, where prominent targets of armed Iraqi militias are other Iraqis of the dissenting sects of Islam, that it seems all but certain that a nuclear-armed militant Islamic caliphate would wind up nuking other moslems for religious dissent. That would leave a militant Islam in radioactive ruins and no threat to the West.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10994509912655287453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-67511815620137873262008-07-28T15:10:00.000-07:002008-07-28T15:10:00.000-07:00tacitus2 I can think of the child slavery in Ivory...tacitus2 I can think of the child slavery in Ivory coast and racism toward outsiders and Muslims and how their leader publicly blesses Bush and how we fail to condemn his regime.<BR/><BR/>I book I just read about it shows a depravity worse than Sandams that we are silent about.<BR/> <BR/> Carol Off, Bitter Chocolate:Investigating the Dark Side of the World's Most Seductive Sweet. Random House Canada (2006), 336 pages, hardcover. ISBN 978-0-679-31319-9 (0-679-31319-2) <BR/><BR/>-----<BR/>By the way Jester I generally agree with what you said. I was just seeing how far the troll would go to defend an unsupportable position and did not have time to put all that background into my post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-19310973345852713892008-07-28T14:56:00.000-07:002008-07-28T14:56:00.000-07:00Huh, the Caliphate. Not going to be coming back. ...Huh, the Caliphate. Not going to be coming back. Do you really think the governments of all Islamic (or even Arab) countries are going to give up their power and bow to a single king?<BR/><BR/>I could imagine a modernized version of the Caliphate arising, where the Caliph is more like the modern Pope than a king. But that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing at all.<BR/><BR/>Anyways, it is a bit like Sharia Law... Some fundies imagine it as return to the good old dark-ages, but it means something completely different to general populace. Even in the middle-ages, Sharia Law modernized and evolved in much the same way as common law does... because that is what the general populace demands (the only way laws actually work).<BR/><BR/>Funny how the right-wing views things through the same lens as the Islamist fundies. Gotta have a bogyman I suppose.Travchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12790548845692414891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-26573561260536402392008-07-28T14:39:00.000-07:002008-07-28T14:39:00.000-07:00The "war on terror" is much more like the "war on ...The "war on terror" is much more like the "war on drugs" than the Cold War.<BR/><BR/>The 'other side' in both is really international criminal syndicates. Pretending otherwise is profoundly counterproductive.Travchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12790548845692414891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-18355436961328759992008-07-28T14:35:00.000-07:002008-07-28T14:35:00.000-07:00BD... I really don't understand the outrage by so...BD... I really don't understand the outrage by some ostensibly left-leaning people about the bombing of Serbia and Kosovo intervention. Accusing Clinton (or NATO more generally) of 'genocide' is utterly ridiculous. Just look up the definition of the word please.<BR/><BR/>The Kosovo intervention was certainly arguable. Relying on a bombing campaign (intrinsically not limited to military targets) is ethically and legally highly questionable. The precedent of NATO attacking another country without UN approval is also potentially a very bad one. But it wasn't in any sense genocidal.<BR/><BR/>My personal opinion in the war crime aspect is that NATO should have pressed the UN harder. Failing to get approval, they could have gone ahead with a clear stance of 'we feel this must be done'. Afterward (and during), NATO should have continued to engage with the UN, and in a sense 'thrown itself on the mercy of the court'.<BR/><BR/>In a way, it is a bit like the sane stance on torture... Torture should always be illegal, but in the highly improbable (but possible) event that someone determines they must engage in torture to prevent a much larger harm, they should do so. Afterward, they should also be tried, convicted, and (if their ethical assessment is shared by others) *not* punished.<BR/><BR/>IMO, The members of NATO did indeed violate their agreements with the UN. However, they have a strong case that it was indeed the right thing to do. At least a reasonable person (or state) could have come to the same conclusion... which is the standard after all.<BR/><BR/>I guess "law rules supreme", except when it doesn't. However, the law should always be respected, even when broken for good cause.Travchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12790548845692414891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-11194876055735916552008-07-28T14:26:00.000-07:002008-07-28T14:26:00.000-07:00DewhirstGuess we are just hoggin' the forum!OK, an...Dewhirst<BR/>Guess we are just hoggin' the forum!<BR/>OK, anti curling radicals is cute. Lets assume they have actually bombed a few curling rinks in Canada and killed some people. Canada tells the US to round 'em up and ship em over. And as a civilized nation we do so. When we asked the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden they basically said, "who?". Not a fair comparison really, never mind that Bin and Co. were substantial financial supporters of that government.<BR/>I have already said that Iraq was a most unwise thing to do. If you like I can keep saying it.<BR/>Bombing Saudi would also be very unwise, which is probably why we have not done so. Or at least part of why. It may be that the selection of 911 hijackers was done partly with the intent of provoking this. We do not fall for every stupid trap out there...<BR/>Could you clarify which terrorist we are currently harboring and supporting?<BR/>There are a few Free Cuba types kicking around and any number of shifty exiles whose talk to action ratio approaches infinity. And overseas I guess we have connections with various warlords in Somalia among other places. I do want to understand your points as fully as possible.<BR/>I agree that quite a few violent groups have an amalgam of religious and political motivation. Usually one or the other is a flag of convenience. <BR/>That there have been relatively few Madrids, 911, Bali, London underground outrages is probably due to the fairly small numbers of jihadis with both motive and means to take violent action, and to the efforts of Western counterterrorism, which is probably more effective than it is generally being credited.<BR/><BR/><BR/>We really need a better world. One where religions universally ban killing for faith reasons, and where there is a functioning international organization that can arbitrate and intervene for the common good. Hey, its a SciFi site, I can dream....<BR/><BR/>Tacitus2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-8239937690088987622008-07-28T12:03:00.000-07:002008-07-28T12:03:00.000-07:00So, let us suppose that there are 1000 rabid anti-...So, let us suppose that there are 1000 rabid anti-curling terrorists in Northern Maine.<BR/><BR/>Canada invades, bombs roads and bridges, inflicts a great many civilian casualties, displaces<BR/><BR/>And kills the 1000 rabid anti-curlers.<BR/><BR/>How many bloodthirsty anti-Canadians do you suppose are in Maine, to say nothing of New Hampshire, Vermont, etc, after that point?<BR/><BR/>Zero, because you killed the 1000?<BR/><BR/>No.<BR/><BR/>Returning to your example, Militant Islam... <BR/><BR/>How many Islamic militants do you believe live in Saudi Arabia, our ally, and what do you suppose would happen if we bombed the nation holding the most holy sight of one of the world's largest religions? <BR/><BR/><BR/>Would that move the majority of Muslims -closer- to enlightenment values, or further from them?<BR/><BR/>How many Islamic militants do you believe live in Pakistan, our ally? How about Afghanistan, circa 2000, our then-ally?<BR/><BR/>Why do -these- terrorists bother you more than the terrorists the United States is presently funding? How about the one's we're harboring? The one's we've trained?<BR/><BR/>If 10% of Muslims support this, why haven't there been more attacks? (Even allowing that only one in a thousand people is sufficiently radicalized to do something.)<BR/><BR/>What fraction of Americans justifies the use of violence against Iraq, or what fraction justified violence against South Vietnam?<BR/><BR/>I -agree- that the 9/11 terrorists believed they were waging a war on infidels for religious reasons.<BR/><BR/>Where I very strongly disagree is the motivation of a lot of the other groups, and many of those groups have vaguely rational gripes.<BR/><BR/>(Bear in mind I'm an atheist of the Sam Harris/ Richard Dawkins school... I just differ as to the tactics which should be used.)B. Dewhirsthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07949715179057866177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-65195966889977304412008-07-28T11:46:00.000-07:002008-07-28T11:46:00.000-07:00DewhirstYour parallel question is an interesting o...Dewhirst<BR/><BR/>Your parallel question is an interesting one as well. But I will steer clear for the moment.<BR/><BR/>Militant Islam. <BR/><BR/>Over time the attitude of Islam towards non believers has varied a great deal. There has been peaceful coexistance at times. There has been taxation for non believers at other times, i.e. discrimination. There has been violence against non believers at other times, sanctioned by the state/religion. (and one issue of note is the lack of seperation)<BR/><BR/>Militant Islam is that variety that justifies violence against others because of their non belief. 911 for instance. I can see the perspective of those who regard attacks against Americans in Iraq as another matter. Not necessarily agree, but see it. Bombing funerals and religious pilgrimages would be decidedly over the Militant line in my book too.<BR/><BR/>How many? Don't know. I would guess less than 10% of Muslims would support it. Where? No specific geographic location. If anything there is an edge of prosperity to a good number of the jihadis, or maybe just to those who amount to enough that we hear about them. Their goals? I am guessing a bit, but I imagine it to be the hope that the current economic windfall of the Arab world will allow a sort of "Disneyland" where the real world can be ignored. They can live according to some pure moral code (misogynist, racist, anti scientific). The upper classes of the Persian Gulf already live in a kind of unreal state like this.<BR/><BR/>Only time for a quick answer, sorry<BR/><BR/>Tacitus2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-70737076677592531162008-07-28T11:39:00.000-07:002008-07-28T11:39:00.000-07:00>Both left and right are deeply elitist. They b...>Both left and right are deeply elitist. They believe in intellectual elites who know better than the masses.<BR/><BR/>Reminds me a lot of what Bob Altemeyer says in "<A HREF="http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/" REL="nofollow">The Authoritarians</A>".<BR/><BR/>It offers lots of tips for dealing with the neocon base, btw.<BR/><BR/>>time to bring back the Whigs?<BR/><BR/>Now we're talking. Jon Stewart has already taken the reins of the party...now we just need some horses and a wagon to go with.<BR/><BR/>>scratch [Obama's] veneer and it's politics as usual.<BR/><BR/>Erm...his funding structure is much different than usual. I think that will be increasingly and overwhelmingly important over the course of four or eight years.<BR/><BR/>>develop hydrogen fuel cell technology yesterday <BR/><BR/>As an engineer who's worked on automotive energy sources, I say solid oxide fuel cells are a much better bet. They're basically omnivorous.Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16755460714090772432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-16610473624626850642008-07-28T11:21:00.000-07:002008-07-28T11:21:00.000-07:00I think the 'progressives' you're talking about ar...I think the 'progressives' you're talking about are, instead, the representatives of the other faction of what is essentially a one-party state with two factions... both factions of business interests. (Hence my parallel discussion with Zorgon about Clinton.)<BR/><BR/>Define your terms, though... what do you mean by "Militant Islam"?<BR/><BR/>Who are they? How many of them? What are their goals?B. Dewhirsthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07949715179057866177noreply@blogger.com