On 2002-07-16 22:26, cbailey wrote:
I would imagine that Strauss and Howe are delighted that the number of Millies and Millie postings are growing at T4T.

They probably are, and I hope the forum continues for the duration of the 4T, and will see Millies become a powerful voice here during the course of said 4T, even as Homelanders begin to appear here, as well.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-07-17 08:44 ]</font>

On 2002-07-17 08:04, Justin '77 wrote:



Now, into the fray...
Calling the current 'Troubles' (I like the British term) a "War on Islam" is not much more helpful than calling it a "War on terrorism". The enemy is somewhat better defined, but unless you are interested in religion-based genocide on a scale way surpassing Hitler, Stalin, and Mao together, I'd recommend you add more modifiers.


What do you have against Islam, anyway? Have you read the Qu'ran (or even parts of it)? As you appear to be a Christian, are you aware that Islam is the only other religion that recognizes the divinity of Christ, and that the muslim God is the same one you worship? The fundamental dogmatic breach between Islam and Christianity is, in fact, smaller than the one between Christianity and Judaism. Briefly, the first commandment states "You shall have no other Gods but me" (or something like that). Christ being the Son of God, a man (never explicitly identified as God himself) muslims believe that worshipping him goes against God's own commandments. That is the basic message Mohammed brought to Christians ("There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his messenger"). Not terribly unreasonable, if you ask me.

Not terribly relevant, either.

Boy, this is some "chat," eh, Croaker. Or have you opted for the Stonewall Goebbels method of chatsterizing? Respond only to those that agree with you. :smile:

On 2002-07-17 08:46, Croaker'39 wrote:

Not terribly relevant, either.

Croaker, I was addressing justmom's claim that we are in a war against Islam. Given your fairly well-expressed views on religion in general (with which I am generally in accord), I see how you find it fairly irrelevant. Remember, however, that to a large portion of the people contemplating mass murder and other generally bad things it is quite relevant. My hope is that, by addressing some of the misunderstandings present on the belligerents' side, I can help them remove religion from the debate and focus on the real issues at hand -- such issues generally requiring much less of a 'scorched-earth' solution.

"To be honest, though, we have been attacked by the equivalent of a group of anarchists. How do you declare war on something with no identifiable structure? This is a cabal of super criminals, but that's ALL they are. Our response has been in a like vein. If a national entity joins the fray, then Congress should declare war, and off we go."

Obviously, the destruction of September 11, 2001 is of little consequence to you (and you have much company to keep you warm and cozy, too).

No doubt you, and yours, would have responded to the attack on Pearl Harbor by merely suggesting it's probably time to give the Japanese the oil they want. Or, more recently, the Palestinians the land they want.

Standard liberal stuff and fluff: Terrorism works!

On 2002-07-17 05:39, Virgil K. Saari wrote:

On 2002-07-17 00:03, justmom wrote:


The war on Terror is the "War on Islam", just nobody will call it that. We have to be sensitive or we have to be sly like a fox. Can't yet figure out what their doing.

What if they come about in a few years and say they are sorry as the IRA terrorists did yesterday; would that make them acceptable to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as it seems to have at #10 Downing Street; would we allow them in the House of Representatives (to sit with the likes of Ms. Cynthia McKinney)?

Some dude said," You shall know them by their deeds."
If you are "sorry" lets see the manifestation of the sorrow.

Justin, I plan on responding. I have to assimilate my thoughts. Also I have been terribly irresponsible and have pinched a nerve in my "mouse shoulder" no posting today I'm afraid.

On 2002-07-17 10:05, Justin '77 wrote:

Croaker, I was addressing justmom's claim that we are in a war against Islam. Given your fairly well-expressed views on religion in general (with which I am generally in accord), I see how you find it fairly irrelevant. Remember, however, that to a large portion of the people contemplating mass murder and other generally bad things it is quite relevant. My hope is that, by addressing some of the misunderstandings present on the belligerents' side, I can help them remove religion from the debate and focus on the real issues at hand -- such issues generally requiring much less of a 'scorched-earth' solution.

OK, Justin, I?m on board with you and Aldous. You?re as relevant as I, in this new age of designer germs. And I?m not forgetting that our American ancestors used their own cabin-incubated smallpox viruses against the Indians, and with splendid success, too. But no measly little smallpox virus will compare to an inevitable pandemic of The Perfect Bug.

On 2002-07-17 07:28, David '47 wrote:
To be honest, though, we have been attacked by the equivalent of a group of anarchists. How do you declare war on something with no identifiable structure? This is a cabal of super criminals, but that's ALL they are.

David is apparently unaware of the now quite old term state-supported terrorism.

Some terrorist groups, including most significant ones, are supported by nation-states as a means to achieve goals through war-like means while simultaneously distancing themselves from the activities.

As should be obvious to all by now, Al Qaeda and the Taliban regime of Afghanistan had become indistinguishable, for example.

A myriad of Middle Eastern terrorist organizations are openly supported my Middle East nation states.

There are also examples outside the Middle East. The IRA, for example.

David is repeating the old "terrorist organizations are like ghosts" myth, but in reality, to be effective, terrorist organizations need bases, money, material, and all of these are frequently supplied by states.

When this is the case, terrorist acts become indistinguishable from inter-state warfare.

Our response has been in a like vein.

Huh?

If a national entity joins the fray, then Congress should declare war, and off we go.

According to the Democrats, Congress did declare war. Where were you?

To reiterate, according to all major Congressional leaders, including the Democratic ones, when Congress authorizes the use of military force, it is the modern equivalent of declaring war, even if the word "war" is not included in the almost-unanimously-passed act.

This silly "But we didn't declare war" gripe is pretty stupid. The reason it is stupid is because it is raised by people who really have other problems with what is happening, and they are dumb to pretend that their only problem is that Congress didn't use the word "war" when it authorized the use of military force, because some day Congress could easily use this magic word, and then where would your arguments be?

It is better to say what you REALLY think than to hide behind the red herring "but we didn't declare war".

This debate tactic is similar to the silly argument that Saudi Arabia is getting a free ride because they have oil. "We will believe this is really a War against Terrorism when Saudi Arabia is held accountable", they say. Well, again, that just could happen. U.S. - Saudi relations have never been worse then they are now, and if more attacks occur, you just might see open hostilities. Then, those who said "We will believe this is really a War against Terrorism when Saudi Arabia is held accountable" will have to backtrack.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-07-17 10:55 ]</font>

On 2002-07-17 10:50, firemind wrote:
As should be obvious to all by now, Al Qaeda and the Taliban regime of Afghanistan had become indistinguishable, for example.

As it is not obvious to me how the Talibs and Al Q'aeda are 'indistinguishable' (except perhaps through a bombsite from 30,000 feet, to which we can add unaffiliated Pashtun wedding guests, if we are so inclined), please elaborate on the above statement.

Thanks in advance.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Justin '77 on 2002-07-17 11:03 ]</font>

Where are the bodies?

Actually, the word "war" DID appear in the act that Congress passed almost unanimously:

link

<font color=blue>
Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
</font>

Meaning that Congress was EXPLICITLY granting the President "War Powers".

This is why I consider it a silly argument to say "But we didn't declare war." Yeah, pull the other one...

Like, all would be well and good with the world if Congress had included the sentence:

"Specific Constitutional authorization.--Consistent with Clause 11 of Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute a declaration of war."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-07-17 11:40 ]</font>

On 2002-07-17 11:02, Justin '77 wrote:


As it is not obvious to me how the Talibs and Al Q'aeda are 'indistinguishable'

I was referring to the fact that the two were joined through common leadership. However, in retrospect I fear I only weakened an otherwise strong post by overstating the case.

No, they were not "indistinguishable", i.e., while many Taliban leaders were also Al Qaeda leaders, not all were.

However, the Taliban regime WAS supporting the Al Qaeda organization in significant ways.

On 2002-07-17 08:00, Marc Lamb wrote:


"My take on this is that ordinary people work their asses off in the form of indentured servitude to the banks."- Croaker


I must've missed that one. When did Congress make it illegal to not put your money in the bank? What's the penalty for breaking this law? Jail? A large fine?

Avoid "paying banks for anything"? Why would anyone pay anyone for something they don't want or need? Like Mohair, for example. Did Congress pass a law requiring that folks buy things like this, Croaker? Are you aware of what the penality on violating this law is? Can you share this information with the rest of us?

I sure wouldn't want to go to jail for not paying the bank for something I didn't get.

Geez Marc,
I believe Croaker was trying to address excess of the Boomers on down.
From the Boomers down we all think we need a house with a room for every child. We need a car "no less than 5 yrs. old". We need this seasons latest fashion. We need 8 pair of shoes ( at the minimum). We need cable.We need at least 2 T.V's. We need the latest in computer technology, We need cell phones, etc, etc, etc, None of these are needs. But somehow, we have come to believe they are.

My daughter was in 5th grade last year. Some one asked to borrow her cell phone. She replied, " I don't have one." The response, "Oh, did you leave it at home today?"

Croaker is absolutely correct, we have sold our souls to 'credit', to live "the dream".

On 2002-07-17 08:04, Justin '77 wrote:
What do you have against Islam, anyway? Have you read the Qu'ran (or even parts of it)?...

Et cetera.

Just to prove that it IS possible for me to agree with Justin, if I go out of my way to do so...

John Derbyshire of National Review Online has distinguished himself in the unlikely position of defending Islam recently.

Today, he has a great historical anecdote, which, as is much of the rich and fabled history of the great land of China, was news to me:

link

<font color=blue>
Consider, for example, the case of Hong Xiu-quan, who founded the 19th-century Chinese peasant rebellion called Taiping Tian Guo. He got his start by reading some Chinese-language pamphlets handed out by Christian missionaries, and the spiritual energy of his movement was provided by his very eccentric interpretation of Christianity. The number of people who died in the subsequent rebellion and its suppression is so large it is not known even to the nearest ten million. (The full Chinese name of the movement translates as: "Heavenly Kingdom of Perfect Peace.") Does this tell us anything about Christianity? I have never thought so; but there is pretty general agreement that it tells us a lot about China.
</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-07-17 12:40 ]</font>

firemind,



Entertaining as it was, I don't see the point of your link. :???:

"Croaker is absolutely correct, we have sold our souls to 'credit', to live 'the dream'."

Thanks for the clarification... but, Croaker also implied that banks were somehow guilty as well in this arrangement. Nadda, says a Boomer (me), nobody has forced this lifestyle choice on people. We make our beds, we sleep in them.

But, you see, Croaker's a fine liberal, well schooled in the advantages of blaming the evil, greedy capitalists and corporatist that rape and pilliage our fair children. Ah, if it weren't for those rotten sob's, we'd probably wouldn't need the "opium of the masses" (religion) either.

You know, Christmas sales and all that stuff. :smile:




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-07-17 13:05 ]</font>

Perhaps the point was so small that you can't make it out. Try adjusting your monitor settings:

<font size=-3>If Hong Xiu-quan and his follower's behavior are not representive of Christianity, perhaps Osama Bin Laden and his follower's behavior are not representative of Islam.</font>

I included the link merely to properly credit the source.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-07-17 13:10 ]</font>

...which brings us back to the point I was making, in response to justmom's assertion that we are 'at war with' Islam.

What's truly unsettling about Croaker's take on the people v. bank thing, is that he, and probably most folks out there, never would hold the government (my point about Congress) to this level of responsibility and civic virtue.

Congress passes a bad law, makes matters worse (like price-fixing energy in California) and still it must be the fault of some evil, greedy capitalist out there. But never the government.

Yet, banks compete with one another, and thereby serve the interests of the consumer.

But who competes with the damn governemnt, huh? Well, we do have free and open elections, right? Wrong, Congress just passed Campaingn Finance Reform making it illegal to run a TV ad critical of an incumbent politician sixty day before an election.

Liberals, ya gotta love em'. :smile:



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-07-17 13:33 ]</font>

On 2002-07-17 13:32, Marc Lamb wrote:



What's truly unsettling about Croaker's take on the people v. bank thing, is that he, and probably most folks out there, never would hold the government (my point about Congress) to this level of responsibility and civic virtue.

Congress passes a bad law, makes matters worse (like price-fixing energy in California) and still it must be the fault of some evil, greedy capitalist out there. But never the government.

Yet, banks compete with one another, and thereby serve the interests of the consumer.

But who competes with the damn governemnt, huh? Well, we do have free and open elections, right? Wrong, Congress just passed Campaingn Finance Reform making it illegal to run a TV ad critical of an incumbent politician sixty day before an election.

Liberals, ya gotta love em'. :smile:



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-07-17 13:33 ]</font>

hey, *I* would hold the government to that level of responsibility

and that law, i believe, was passed to cover a loophole giving "negative campaigning" pretty much free rein (though it would only be fair if the same protections were also applied to challengers)

On 2002-07-17 13:32, Marc Lamb wrote:

But who competes with the damn governemnt, huh? Well, we do have free and open elections, right? Wrong, Congress just passed Campaingn Finance Reform making it illegal to run a TV ad critical of an incumbent politician sixty day before an election.

So Marc,
Am I correct in understanding that you've gone An-Cap? Good for you! :wink:

Oh, geez Justin, get over to my house, rub my shoulder and vaccum my floors, and I'll answer.
The best I have is anecdotal evidence, but, I think it still needs to be considered.

As a Christian I have for years sat in Church and heard from, time to time, about the evils of Islam.
I won't try to refute why Allah, is not Y'Weh.(Y'weh being the LORD God of the Jews and Christians.) It's doesn't matter.
Not to you this is not a theology page.

My only refrence for Islam was what I was told from the pulpit.

Later, I worked for a girl , Tracy, who ran a home daycare. Tracy hired on Nezah a Suni Muslim from Morocco. Nezah and I worked together for about 9 months. She is kind, considerate, caring, etc... She and I, of course ,would talk about 'religion' and the differnces and similarities. We together studied the Koran, and the Bible interactively. We went through Ramadan working together. It is the custom to read the entire Koran during Ramadan.She earmarked every place in the Koran that refrenced Jesus. ( which is quite extensive)
Through her gentleness and lifestyle my attitude of Islam was changed from one of antagonistic to one of a circumspect respect.

That was before 911.

Once 911 happened can we say more of the 'real beliefs' began to surface.
She watched the Arabic news for all of her information. And now this is what she believes:

Bin Laden is a hero who was blamed by the
U.S. government without cause.

The U.S. is angry at Afganistan for importing
cocaine into the U.S.

The attacks were far to "sofisticated" to
be pulled off by some silly little "outcasts" as Al Quaida.

Bin Laden is a role model Arab, who is widely admired, and has celebrity status.

The attacks were planned, orchestrated, and carried out by Jews. For the purpose of
blaming the Arabs. Their proof is "No Jews were killed in the attacks".

This is the average thinking of the average Muslim. How are we NOT fighting against Islam. ( you cant separate the Mulim from the Islamist, for they themselves can not.)

If we said it was a war against Islam. We would call 100 million angry Muslims down on our heads. And they already live among us. That would be a little fool hearty wouldn't it? Therefore a "War on Terror".

I am a Catholic. I have spoken to a Muslim friend who works at the local library quite often, both before and after 9-1-1. He is quite devout, and quite sensible about politics...both before and after 9-1-1.
So, Justmon, not every Muslim is like the one you met.

On 2002-07-17 16:30, Xer of Evil wrote:

On 2002-07-16 21:22, justmom wrote:
um, yeah XoE there are a lot of "fake" voting Americans.

dead people, undocumented Aliens, ballot stuffing, 100% voter turn out in certain districts ( 100%? wow impressive!), your neighbors dog....

I don't get it. Are you saying that the only liberals in America are dead or canine?

XoE

Nope. But, there is enough proof of fraud to come to the conclusion we really don't know how America votes. Either way.