Article

2006-09-20 Home Front: WoT

Bush assures Muslims US not at war with Islam

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2006-09-20 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11132 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 That headline is missing a word...

Posted by Tony (UK) 2006-09-20 00:37|| 2006-09-20 00:37|| Front Page Top

#2 It all depends on the meaning of "is".

Posted by 3dc 2006-09-20 01:04|| 2006-09-20 01:04|| Front Page Top

#3 Bush assures Muslims US not at war with Islam

Texas-Taqiyya

Posted by RD 2006-09-20 01:15|| 2006-09-20 01:15|| Front Page Top

#4 Tony(UK), the missing word is "yet".

Posted by RWV 2006-09-20 01:36|| 2006-09-20 01:36|| Front Page Top

#5 Unfortunately, GWB's speech won't change a single Muslim opinion. Freedom of electoral choice, in the context of the Islamofascist majority in the Middle East, will only advance aggression. Not all noble ideas are executable.

Posted by Snease Shaiting3550 2006-09-20 07:32|| 2006-09-20 07:32|| Front Page Top

#6 Cap the Pope and watch

Posted by Chereng Omulet2048 2006-09-20 09:31|| 2006-09-20 09:31|| Front Page Top

#7 Well, we SHOULD be damnit. Especially since Islam has declared war on us.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2006-09-20 09:32|| 2006-09-20 09:32|| Front Page Top

#8 Righton, Darth. He's gotta keep that smile on 'is face till election day.

Posted by wxjames 2006-09-20 09:34|| 2006-09-20 09:34|| Front Page Top

#9 The President isn't speaking to Muslims, I don't think. He is speaking to the non-Muslim world, assuring them that they aren't about to be dragged into open war against their internal Muslim population, and therefore it is safe for them to join our side. (Yes, I know they are supposed to already be with us fighting against Islamic terrorists, but they keep forgetting.)

Posted by trailing wife 2006-09-20 09:44|| 2006-09-20 09:44|| Front Page Top

#10 TW is right. I know it doesn't look like it, but compared to the total number of Moslems in the world, it's actually a very small number/percentage causing all the ruckus. If we're "at war with Islam" the rest of the people who are sitting this out will be compelled to join the "jihad." GWB is just leaving the light on.

Posted by ex-lib 2006-09-20 11:28|| 2006-09-20 11:28|| Front Page Top

#11 Our lips say 'no', but our smart bombs says YES!

Posted by Iblis">Iblis 2006-09-20 11:42|| 2006-09-20 11:42|| Front Page Top

#12 If we're "at war with Islam" the rest of the people who are sitting this out will be compelled to join the "jihad."

The Muslims "sitting this out" are not sitting it out. They are the silent majority of muslims who do not condemn what the "minority" are doing. They are, in effect, taking a side. They would be perfectly happy to see the minority win and are doing nothing to stop it.

Bush wishes this not to be a clash of civilizations not because he fears the rest of the muzzies joining the action but because of what will happen when the rest of the west does. It will make the march of death in the 20th century look like a stroll in the park. But that is what has been coming for centuries.

The Pope and the former Archbishop of Canterbury have taken the protective cover of PC sensibility off the debate. The gloves are going to come off. Ahmedinajihad made sure it would happen with his sermon yesterday. We will start to read discussions like those we have been having here in the MSM soon. Perhaps not as entertaining, but as apocalyptic.

Then the people sitting on the fence will have to decide which side of that fence they want to fall on. And fall they will.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-09-20 12:00|| 2006-09-20 12:00|| Front Page Top

#13 Texas-Taqiyya

Good one, RD!

tw, your observation is one of the only acceptable explanations as to why Bush has not yet widened the scope of this war. After five long years of Thundering Silence from the Mythical Moderate Muslim this conflict is rapidly becoming A War With Islam. Not Islamists, not Islamofascism, Islam, plain and simple.

This is not something we have chosen. Our choice was made for us by the unwilling silent majority of Islam that absolutely refuses to join with us in salvaging this trainwreck of a religion. If we are expected to target only the radicals, then those who disagree with them must dinstinguish themselves from such fanatics. Their deafening silence can only be construed as consent. As Tony UK asked; Where are the Muslim demonstrations condemning all these death threats against the Pope? If ever there was a green light to go out and begin sanctioning Islam's leaders, this is it.

As I have mentioned before, in no way are we obliged to delicately winnow out Islam's psychotic killers. That we are even doing this job at all is a stunning bit of shirking by Muslims. Islam must clean its own house or finally come to expect that we may just end up throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-20 12:01|| 2006-09-20 12:01|| Front Page Top

#14 Great post, NS.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-20 12:03|| 2006-09-20 12:03|| Front Page Top

#15 silence implies assent.

But to what?

Does the ordinary Jordanian who goes about his business and does nothing to protest Hamas, and nothing to protest Israel, give his assent to Hamas? Or to Israel? Does the afghan farmer give his implied assent to the Taliban, or to Kharzai?

Silence implies assent is a legal doctrine of limited utility. Its certainly not very useful in politics. In fact it violates the principles of democracy and classical liberalism - one is held responsible for what one does, not for what one does not do.

Some of the silent ones are against us, but afraid to take up arms. Some are FOR us, but afraid to even speak up for us. Some are genuinely neutral, and some are simply too premodern to have a sense that they are in any way part of this struggle. We have an interest in keeping those who are neutral, neutral. Or We have an interest in those that dislike us, but are unwilling to take up arms against us, continuing to remain passive. We have an interest in those who silently support us, moving more openly to our side.

And yes, our interests in some cases need to be narrowly defined. There are millions in Afghanistan who hate the Taliban, but arent real interested in say, legalizing conversion from Islam, or equal inheritance rights for women. We dont have the resources to conduct a crusade to reform every aspect of culture in every muslim country, nor do we need to. Bush has it right. Lets stay focused, balance our strategies with our resources.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-09-20 12:56|| 2006-09-20 12:56|| Front Page Top

#16 "As I have mentioned before, in no way are we obliged to delicately winnow out Islam's psychotic killers. That we are even doing this job at all is a stunning bit of shirking by Muslims. Islam must clean its own house or finally come to expect that "

Yes, the pope of Islam should sent the global Islamic police to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan. Or, in the absence of a pope of Islam, the head of Al Ahzar university in Cairo should do so. What, you say, the head of AAU doesnt have battalions, and isnt really on our side anyway? And the Egyptian govt is not interested in sending any troops to Afghan, which Mubarak considers a foreign country, despite the Ummah rhetoric thats not uncommon in Egypt? So, the only muslims cleaning the Taliban out from Helmand, are, you know Afghans? Responsible to the Afghan govt, which, for all its manifold weaknesses and problems, at least exists as an actual organizational entity, unlike "Islam". Unfortunately the Afghan govt doesnt have the resources to win on its own. Now if the Pakistani govt was really on our side, that might work, without our help, or the mythical battalions from Cairo. Unfortunately about 25% of the population of Pakistan is really, truely against us, and probably 40% more dont care one way or the other, but dont want our troops on their soil - at least not openly on their soil. And we dont have the troops to occupy Pakistan. We could nuke it, but that would probably make the world just a tad less stable over the next few decades. Unless you think it would actually make the world more stable. Which I understand a few folks think is so, but obviously Bush doesnt. And Id have to agree with him.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-09-20 13:03|| 2006-09-20 13:03|| Front Page Top

#17 #13 Texas-Taqiyya

Good one, RD!

I'd second that! Two can play the same game. Not as if the muz have monopoly on anything.

Posted by Duh! 2006-09-20 13:13|| 2006-09-20 13:13|| Front Page Top

#18

[IDIOT DELETED]

Posted by mrGOD 2006-09-20 13:30|| 2006-09-20 13:30|| Front Page Top

#19 I'm not quite 5' tall yet, but even I can tell mrGod isn't tall enough for this ride.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-09-20 13:35|| 2006-09-20 13:35|| Front Page Top

#20 lh, you don't understand the difference between law inforcement and war. We are still not at war. We will be at war. In war, innocents get killed and it's unfortunate, but that's war. Ask Sherman. He didn't sort out the southerners who advocated secession from those who didn't.

* War is the remedy our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want.

* I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no symptoms of tiring till the South begs for mercy.

* This war differs from other wars in this particular: We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make young and old, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war.

* You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out.

* You cannot have peace and a division of our country. If the United States submits to a division now it will not stop, but will go on till we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war.

* My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

* War is, at its best, barbarism.

That's how an honest man describes we fight amongst ourselves. Ask the Germans and Japanes how we fight with our enemies.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-09-20 13:44|| 2006-09-20 13:44|| Front Page Top

#21 Some of the silent ones are against us, but afraid to take up arms. Some are FOR us, but afraid to even speak up for us. Some are genuinely neutral, and some are simply too premodern to have a sense that they are in any way part of this struggle. We have an interest in keeping those who are neutral, neutral. Or We have an interest in those that dislike us, but are unwilling to take up arms against us, continuing to remain passive. We have an interest in those who silently support us, moving more openly to our side.

Three years ago, I would have agreed with you, liberalhawk. Now, I simply do not. The central issue is boiling down to one of simple survival. No, the barbarians are not storming the gates. What they are doing is getting ready to smuggle atomic bombs into America, if they haven't already.

That is what changes the perspective of this issue. The radical component of Islam has become so dangerous that we can no longer afford to tiptoe about in our enforcement missions. Regardless of whether or not Muslims will only respect overwhelming force, it is something that needs to, at least appear on the table - in the case of nuclear arms, or begin to be applied against truly intractable situations like Iran.

And yes, our interests in some cases need to be narrowly defined. There are millions in Afghanistan who hate the Taliban, but arent real interested in say, legalizing conversion from Islam, or equal inheritance rights for women. We dont have the resources to conduct a crusade to reform every aspect of culture in every muslim country, nor do we need to. Bush has it right. Lets stay focused, balance our strategies with our resources.

Your strategy implies that we have the luxury of time. I argue against that and believe that only by exerting some significant deterrents will we have any chance of avoiding truly horrendous attacks upon American soil. Some examples need to be made por enourager les autres. No, we do not need to obliterate any countries with nuclear weapons. That would be ham-fisted at best and inviting terrorist nuclear attack at worst.

What we do need to do is begin employing our weapons and materiel to make significant alterations of the political landscape in the Middle East. Iran is the pluperfect example. There is no possible regime that could replace the current Ahmadinejad-mullahcracy combination and be any worse and, quite possibly, even remotely as bad. We take no risk creating a power vacuum in Tehran. All we must do is keep sufficient force of arms stationed nearby to discourage an entity like communist China from meddling. Same goes for Syria and, eventually, Pakistan.

While you may not be willing to admit it, the day has arrived for the gloves to come off. While our administration cautiously probes and interdicts Muslim tyranny, nearly all the remaining world's governments prink about with triangulation, outright treachery or idiotic neutrality in this critical conflict. This only forces our hand all the more and obliges us to play the strong suit that we hold. It is time to lay down some trump cards in the form of openly discussing the nuclear option and making it crystal clear that this is what awaits further Islamic atrocities.

You may whine about how decentralized Islam is with respect to not having a Pope or other major authority figure. We are not to blame for that and Islam can no longer hide behind this flimsy excuse for its deafening silence. All we are obliged to do is survive. One sure route towards that is by killing the majority of Islam's jihadist clergy and putting the ummah on notice that nuclear fire awaits their continued assault on the Western world.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-20 13:45|| 2006-09-20 13:45|| Front Page Top

#22 We will not sort out Islam's psychotic killers. A couple more mass casualty attacks or a school or two in the west, and all bets are off. It will be analogous to "nuke the site from space - it's the only way to be sure."

The Pak reporter that has contacts with al Qaeda was interviewed on the radio today about their next attacks in Washington and NY. He thinks they will bigger than 911 and soon because they have "completed thier cycle of warnings."

The problem is not with a few extremists. The problem is with the ideology. The longer we wait to respond forcefully, the higher the butcher's bill will be.

Posted by SR-71 2006-09-20 13:50|| 2006-09-20 13:50|| Front Page Top

#23 Once again, great post, NS. War is Hell. We need to ensure it is Hell for our enemies and not us.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-20 13:51|| 2006-09-20 13:51|| Front Page Top

#24 You hit it, Zen. These guys just never have understood what they are really dealing with. And we tried to tell them.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-09-20 13:57|| 2006-09-20 13:57|| Front Page Top

#25 Back at ya, NS. Your last post was spot on!

Somehow we must communicate to Islam that this is their "Golden Hour" (per "The Three Conjectures"). The sands of Islam are running rapidly through the hourglass. When the grains finally run out there may not be a single hand left alive to upend their escape.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-20 14:12|| 2006-09-20 14:12|| Front Page Top

#26 Islam is a major part of the problem, but the enablers are the Saudi "princes" and their billions of dollars from oil, and a few extremists in Iran with similar billions from the same source. Take out these two sources of funds and encouragement and half or more of the mideast problems would disappear. We're once again fighting a war where there are "safe areas" for the enemy to flee to, and where the supporters that fund the war are considered "off limits". I thought we actually LEARNED something from Vietnam - I know I, and most other Vietnam vets, thought so. We're fighting this "war" with both feet in buckets and one arm tied behind us. That's a sure-fire recipe for failure. Unbind the giant, and let him crush our opponents mercilessly.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2006-09-20 14:26|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2006-09-20 14:26|| Front Page Top

#27 Doesn't matter if we cut off the money, they'll be pissed at us because we did, and there's still more than enough to go around and the lefties won't let them starve or return to the mo conditions of the 600s.

Posted by anonymous2u 2006-09-20 14:41|| 2006-09-20 14:41|| Front Page Top

#28 Gawd, Zenster, you're so full of crap. You've never agreed with any concept, AT ALL, of moderate Islam. You never would have agreed with liberalhawk. You never have. I mean, am I going to have to go back in the archives and retrieve your opinions? It's really a concern that you keep saying "how much you've changed" when you haven't. Why are you claiming this? Hoping to garner more people to your way of thinking? Gathering followers? You're a Bush-hater from way back as well. So just come off it and be proud of your opinions--stop backwashing.

"We have an interest in keeping those who are neutral, neutral."

This is politics 101.

"We have an interest in those that dislike us, but are unwilling to take up arms against us, continuing to remain passive."

Part B, politics 101.

"We have an interest in those who silently support us, moving more openly to our side."

Well, duh.

This fight doesn't lend itself well to black-and-white thinking. Do you really think we can take on the whole Islamic world at once?

Posted by ex-lib 2006-09-20 15:46|| 2006-09-20 15:46|| Front Page Top

#29 all about the short guy from Iran

Bush was smart in his UN speech to seperate the people in Iran, Syria, etc. from their rulers--by telling the people they're being lied to, oppressed, and abused by their rulers, he refuses to play into their propaganda mills. By saying we're not at war with Islam, he removes one of the extremists best cards. No Moslem likes hearing that the US is making war against Islam, which is what the imams and radicals claim. It just confuses them.

to order the dvd Obsession

Posted by ex-lib 2006-09-20 16:03|| 2006-09-20 16:03|| Front Page Top

#30 Maybe. but they are at war with us.

In a hundred years people will have to go to the museum to see a muslim.

Either we will destroy them, or they will destroy us and then destroy themselves shortly thereafter.

Either way, islam is doomed.

The omly question is the the cost, and it seems like there are a lot of people who want that cost to be a high as humanly possible.

Posted by kelly 2006-09-20 16:05|| 2006-09-20 16:05|| Front Page Top

#31 If he'd said "We are at war with Islam." How would things have changed anywhere except Dearborn?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-09-20 16:06|| 2006-09-20 16:06|| Front Page Top

#32 May I add that the silent moderate muzzies were in the street against Danish cartoons and Papal quotes. The radicals don't march, they kill. Moderate muzzies burn churcges.

Posted by wxjames 2006-09-20 16:06|| 2006-09-20 16:06|| Front Page Top

#33 #28,
Do you really think we can take on the whole Islamic world at once? - well ex-lib, I think the answer to that question is quite categorically, yes.

And I believe GWB and the current US administration knows that very well, which is why they have spent huge sums of money, used up vast amounts of political capital, and several thousand servicemen and women have given their lives in this war. Why? because they have to show that they've done everything honourable to try and find a way to bring Islam into the 21st Century. We all know what some of the other options are.

As for 'moderate Islam', I for one have totally given up on that, as I simply don't believe that such a concept exists - if so, we would surely have seen one, just one demonstration whereby some 'moderate muslims' would have squared up against another group of 'radical' muslims who are; calling for the beheading of the Pope, or the killing of cartoonists, or killing nuns, or burning churches, or shrieking for the destruction of America or Israel or Britain or Australia or any one of a dozen other 'seething' events that have become so commonplace.

I have not heard of one, not one. In the last five years. Not one event.

This is not good...

Posted by Tony (UK) 2006-09-20 16:38|| 2006-09-20 16:38|| Front Page Top

#34 Oh by the way RD, Texas-Taqiyya is sooo-perb!

Posted by Tony (UK) 2006-09-20 16:39|| 2006-09-20 16:39|| Front Page Top

#35 Something tells me it's not a 'Texas-Taqiyya' (BTW, I love the term!), but that the President actually believes it.

That's a real problem. Islam will continue to destroy the lives of it's followers and non-followers alike, until the west diagnoses the disease correctly.

Islam is utterly incompatible with freedom. Wishing it were otherwise doesn't change it.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-09-20 16:52|| 2006-09-20 16:52|| Front Page Top

#36 I suspect Bush will understand in September of 2009 as will we all.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-09-20 16:59|| 2006-09-20 16:59|| Front Page Top

#37 " . . . As for 'moderate Islam', I for one have totally given up on that, as I simply don't believe that such a concept exists - if so, we would surely have seen one, just one demonstration whereby some 'moderate muslims' would have squared up against another group of 'radical' muslims . . . I have not heard of one, not one. In the last five years. Not one event."

Well, you could always do your homework (regarding Moslems' protests against Islamo-terrorism).

try here, for example

or here

hey, here's one

lots of them

On the 21. of November 2004 about 25.000 mostly moslem people demonstrated in Cologne, Germany, against terrorism and the pre-conception that the religion of islam would support terror and vilonce. The demonstration was a reaction to the murder of the artist Van Gogh in the netherlands on November 2nd.

interesting info

the general anti-terrorism sentiment among Moslems

what about this one?

a march

piece through this for more

all this just for starters

So, it's out there. There are links to websites sponsored by Iranians and Iraqis that routinely denounce these idiot extremists. By saying that there are no Moslems who are against terrorism, you play into the hands of the extremists who want a world-wide jihad to usher in their false mahdi, and the leftist press, which doesn't often report the truth about all of this. Don't do that, because it's stupid.

Posted by ex-lib 2006-09-20 17:16|| 2006-09-20 17:16|| Front Page Top

#38 This fight doesn't lend itself well to black-and-white thinking.

While Dar al-Harb and and Dar al-Islam aren't binary in the least. Noooooooooo.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-20 17:17|| 2006-09-20 17:17|| Front Page Top

#39 P.S. The last link on my list above is the best for a quick perusal. Let's get real and try to understand the complexities of the world.

Posted by ex-lib 2006-09-20 17:18|| 2006-09-20 17:18|| Front Page Top

#40 Shut up Zenster, and educate yourself. You're just another type of extremist if you don't.

Posted by ex-lib 2006-09-20 17:19|| 2006-09-20 17:19|| Front Page Top

#41 And, of course, let's not forget all those times where moderates have ousted their jihadist imams and showed up at the extremist rallies to kick some jihadi ass. How could any of us possibly forget those huge Muslim blood drives to help the hospitalized 9-11 victims? [spit]

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-20 17:20|| 2006-09-20 17:20|| Front Page Top

#42 Oooooh. "Shut up, Zenster." Now there's a winning debate technique. I mean, it works so well in all the Islamic countries. Why not try it here. So civil. So polite. So erudite. So pathetic.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-20 17:22|| 2006-09-20 17:22|| Front Page Top

#43 Then, GROW up, Zenster and stop agitating on this board. Have you educated yourself yet, or are you still helping the terrorists by your uninformed rhetoric?

Posted by ex-lib 2006-09-20 17:36|| 2006-09-20 17:36|| Front Page Top

#44 You, who hurl all the insults, accuse me of "agitating". Hilarious.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-20 17:50|| 2006-09-20 17:50|| Front Page Top

#45

[DIOT DELETED]

Posted by Exxon 2006-09-20 17:55|| 2006-09-20 17:55|| Front Page Top

#46 What insults, Zenster?

"You who hurl all the insults?"

Wow, that sounds, so . . . I dunno, Middle Eastern-ish.

Hey guys . . . Rantburgians! . . . ex-lib "HURLS ALL the insults."

Are you really that offended that I told you to "shut up?" Maybe, since I'm a woman. (But then, you've probably also forgotten that I never fail to compliment your better points made here, when you do make them--or maybe you've just discredited them for the same reason?).

Thanks "Zenster."

Get ready for a big rant from Mr. "Z" in 3, 2, 1 . . .

Posted by ex-lib 2006-09-20 18:01|| 2006-09-20 18:01|| Front Page Top

#47 Islam as disorganized as it is is having a revolution.
We all can see by reading the material we get here the trend around the world of more "Islamic republics" more democratically elected regimes that, to us , seem isane and criminal, more islamic immigrants in formerly civilized countries pronouncing themselves to be downtrodden and oppressed and calling for a separate law for them, or even institution of said "law" for all.
The general rage and seething of the "muslim street", the world over, may not represent the full or majority opinion and for darn sure we here aren't representing all the range of opinions just putatively on our side ( moonbattery).
To make matters worse, dictators of all stripes and denominations seem to have made careful note of this seeming cultural shift toward Islam and have lined up behind it, whether
because they see it as the coming thing or because they just want to knock off the USA. So now, in addition to the international criminal terrorist groups waging Holy Jihad, we have a fair sized group of countries (or leaders thereof),
going this way, and it looks well threatening to us our way of life, and whatever visions of the future you or I might have had.
A leader of a foriegn nation just concluded a thouroughly insulting speech directed at our president ( not my guy , but still the president) and referred to him as "El Diablo".
This alignment of the non-aligned with the Islamists coupled with the national quality that the jihad is taking on, added to the verbal abuse and pretty obvious power bid to restructure the UN all show that this cancerous ideology has spread
much further than extremist groups and international terrorists.
While it is obvious that "they can't all be evil" , it is getting harder to really believe that there are a billion innocent bystanders, when I know that the vision of "World of Islam" cannot help but be attractive to Muslims of an average temperament.
Something must be able to shock all of these pidgeons back into their holes.
Some force must be available that would cancel the world leading plans of the leader
of the BAsiji, and frighten the rest of the pack enough to change their ways.
Because otherwise they aren't. They will keep coming and keep attacking and keep making us follow their rules even as they are now.
We know what that is.
So if we cannot take on the whole ISlamic world+nonaligned dictators, should we just capitulate now ? Let them have their way ? Change the rules of the UN ?
Follow their rules of public discourse and polity ?
No. An example must be made. Maybe more than one.

PS this rambling crap is why i usually don't write such long things.

Posted by J. D. Lux 2006-09-20 18:03|| 2006-09-20 18:03|| Front Page Top

#48

LISTEN UP, IDIOT POSTING FROM IP 86.129.34.251: WE DON'T TOLERATE SPOOFING OTHER PEOPLE'S NAMES HERE.

STOP IT.

Posted by Zenster 2006-09-20 18:05|| 2006-09-20 18:05|| Front Page Top

#49 ex-lib, Seems like you'd rather flame Zen than answer the simple question, "If Bush had said 'We are at war with Islam.' How would things have changed anywhere, except Dearborn?"

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-09-20 18:06|| 2006-09-20 18:06|| Front Page Top

#50 There are moderate Muslims around, but they are certainly outgunned, and probably also outnumbered if recent polls are anything to go by. (Only 17% of UK Muslims think their co-religionists were responsible for 9/11.) At some point, people might start to ask themselves if it's worth continuing to pussyfoot around in order not to offend the minority of decent, moderate Muslims, who appear to have approximately zero chance of bringing about change in the Islamic world.

Posted by Koala 2006-09-20 18:07|| 2006-09-20 18:07|| Front Page Top

#51 I think .com nailed it here in comment #33. It's simply true:

"Lessons B Hard. History is replete with examples, it's hard to locate an exception in fact, of societies which were dragged into war by the most vocal and acrimonious among them - I think of them as the "activated" Muzzies. Shorthand it to Asshats for convenience and clarity. Those not overtly "activated" among them I think of as the "resource pool" for they are either complicit in their support or irrelevant in their silence. Even the most innocent among them, let's call them the LMOOIs (Leave Me Out Of It), will be going to war, sooner or later... dragged there by the majority who fill the other categories. It has always been thus, and always will be so. Tough shit - for all of us."

Indeed, it will be tough shit for them and for us.

Posted by flyover 2006-09-20 18:13|| 2006-09-20 18:13|| Front Page Top

#52 Is ANYONE going to do the homework?

And NS: I've been outing Islam-icks here way before you arrived. Islmofacist is a term I posted here several years ago. It caught on. So shut up. Oops. Oh no. Bet I offended you to.

But, seriously, to answer your question (though I know Zenster won't answer mine), Pres. Bush saying that the "US is at war with Islam" would have completely polarized the current political situation--making it FAR worse than it already is. The general populations of the Islamic countries would be caught in the whilwind the extremists are attempting to create. Remember the Aminahajibs of the world WANT war. They WANT to inflame the West. The extremists must be called out from the mainstream, and the mainstream needs to be defined recognized. Another answer to one of Zenster's miscalculations about the "Moslem street," is that the general populations of these countries are unarmed, and are bullied (to put it mildly) by the guys with the guns.

Posted by ex-lib 2006-09-20 18:14|| 2006-09-20 18:14|| Front Page Top

#53 Koala -- it's not about "pussyfooting" around the moderates. It's about coming down hard on the hardliners while not adding to their numbers. The extremists exert a lot of control over what the people hear. It may not make a difference in the long run, but it's unfortunate that fear seems to be clouding the rationale of reasonable thinkers here. DO THE HOMEWORK, then make up your mind?

About the extremists? Blow them all to hell.

Posted by ex-lib 2006-09-20 18:18|| 2006-09-20 18:18|| Front Page Top

#54

LISTEN UP, IDIOT POSTING FROM IP 86.129.34.251: WE DON'T TOLERATE SPOOFING OTHER PEOPLE'S NAMES HERE.

STOP IT.

Posted by ex-lib 2006-09-20 18:19|| 2006-09-20 18:19|| Front Page Top

#55 flyover: I totally agree with .com, my old buddy.

He said:

"To my mind, the disinformationists are even more deadly and more deserving of death than suicide bombers - they seek to erode and destroy the will to fight, removing all of our intellectual and technological advantages. They seek to drag us down to the level of the barbarians."

There may come a time when hundreds of thousands of innocents will die because of the extremists, but until then, it behooves us to NOT condemn the entire group. I know for a fact that the majority of Iranians are not like the mullah asshats. What a mistake to lump them all together.

A couple of years ago I said that ethnocentrism on our part will win this fight for the Islamofacists. It's still true. As angry as we all are, black and white thinking is for babies. We have to be informed and we have to be shrewd.

Posted by ex-lib 2006-09-20 18:24|| 2006-09-20 18:24|| Front Page Top

#56 This is EX-LIB and I DID NOT POST #54. I'm telling Fred.

All Rantburgians should be aware of the kind of manipulation that can and does go on on this board.

Posted by ex-lib 2006-09-20 18:25|| 2006-09-20 18:25|| Front Page Top

#57

LISTEN UP, IDIOT POSTING FROM IP 86.129.34.251: WE DON'T TOLERATE SPOOFING OTHER PEOPLE'S NAMES HERE.

STOP IT.

Posted by ex-lib 2006-09-20 18:30|| 2006-09-20 18:30|| Front Page Top

#58 Post # 48 was not mine. Moderators, please note. [/big rant]

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-20 18:31|| 2006-09-20 18:31|| Front Page Top

#59 Whoever you are, you're going to feel pretty stupid when Fred gets the note.

Looks like I got to someone and pushed the right buttons . . .

Posted by ex-lib 2006-09-20 18:32|| 2006-09-20 18:32|| Front Page Top

#60 Hey f-wad--whoever you are. If you think you can disrupt this board by nabbing people's posting handles, you don't know what Fred can do.

Zenster, I'm sorry that you also are being dinked around with. I may not agree with your one track mindedness, but this shouldn't go on. Fred will deal with it.

Posted by ex-lib 2006-09-20 18:37|| 2006-09-20 18:37|| Front Page Top

#61 ex-lib - You cut that quote off at a convenient point, LOL. A couple more sentences...

"Irony lives here... To defeat them we will eventually have to adopt barbaric measures."

Be nice, LOL.

I think he's looking past the "what we want" stage we're discussing here and tossing in the "what we will have to do" stage. I've spent a lot of time in the archives, LOL, and found some of his stuff hard to ignore, made me a "fan" of a sort... he talked many times about the fact that it would become very ugly, far uglier than we could now accept or even imagine, way back in the 2003 timeframe - he used the "gloves off" metaphor, usually.. Kinda scary, actually. And he did not glory in it, he abhorred it... but apparently he saw no other way, since we don't seem to have any will to act until we are bloodied and backed into a corner. That is the American Way, in wars.

I've offered the notion of a quarantine, overlapping with others here on that idea, because I don't want to go there, either. It won't work comprehensively, of course, but perhaps it will buy us some time to wear them down while we pick off the worst of the worst. I'm just not sure we can even keep up, however. They breed and indoctrinate faster than we're killing them, by a wide margin.

Posted by flyover 2006-09-20 18:40|| 2006-09-20 18:40|| Front Page Top

#62 It's that little turd, poopta, er, goopta.

Posted by flyover 2006-09-20 18:41|| 2006-09-20 18:41|| Front Page Top

#63 We do have a number of issues coming to a head in a very short timespan - presuming we intend to survive this challenge, that is.

Iran must go. Decapped and defanged, or else we are in incredibly deep shit. There will be some innocents who die, directly due to our actions, and indirectly because we take down the power grid, wipe out gas supplies, who knows what else, and probably because of some lawless insanity from surviving IRGC and basij elements. Should that dissuade us? No. Hell no.

We can reassess after Iran where we go from there. I have the feeling this action will alter the others in several ways -- and which next demands our immediate attention will likely be up in the air until then.

It is my unwavering opinion that it will get ugly - much uglier than any who have never been in combat can possibly imagine, just as it once was for those who have. We will all get a taste of it, a trial by fire. It will probably begin with multiple strikes in the US. If so, our reaction will be interesting. It will certainly finish up the polarization process... Then Americans will be facing the same situation the Muzzies do now: get on board or get fucked. Funny, ain't it?

Got a dinner date and need a shower. L8r.

Posted by .com 2006-09-20 19:05|| 2006-09-20 19:05|| Front Page Top

#64 The she goes again - shouting and waving her fists around. YOU grow up ex-lib. Give it a rest. You seem to think you are tough behind your keyboard, but I think you know that most folks would slap you cross-eyed if you argued that way face to face - woman or not. Who appoited you Zenster's or anyone else's conscience?

Most here have seen your homework. I have at any rate, and I don't give it much weight. The Muslims protest when terrorism occurs in their house, but not in other's houses.

Lessons B Hard. History is replete with examples, it's hard to locate an exception in fact, of societies which were dragged into war by the most vocal and acrimonious among them - I think of them as the "activated" Muzzies. Shorthand it to Asshats for convenience and clarity. Those not overtly "activated" among them I think of as the "resource pool" for they are either complicit in their support or irrelevant in their silence. Even the most innocent among them, let's call them the LMOOIs (Leave Me Out Of It), will be going to war, sooner or later... dragged there by the majority who fill the other categories. It has always been thus, and always will be so. Tough shit - for all of us."

"Indeed, it will be tough shit for them and for us.

Posted by SR-71 2006-09-20 19:06|| 2006-09-20 19:06|| Front Page Top

#65 While it is obvious that "they can't all be evil" , it is getting harder to really believe that there are a billion innocent bystanders, when I know that the vision of "World of Islam" cannot help but be attractive to Muslims of an average temperament.
Something must be able to shock all of these pidgeons back into their holes.
Some force must be available that would cancel the world leading plans of the leader
of the BAsiji, and frighten the rest of the pack enough to change their ways.
Because otherwise they aren't. They will keep coming and keep attacking and keep making us follow their rules even as they are now.
We know what that is.
So if we cannot take on the whole ISlamic world+nonaligned dictators, should we just capitulate now ? Let them have their way ? Change the rules of the UN ?
Follow their rules of public discourse and polity ?
No. An example must be made. Maybe more than one.

Too many hard carriage returns? Yes. "Rambling crap", not at all, J.D. Lux. You also made some excellent points about the non-aligned nations' cozying up to Islam.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-20 19:13|| 2006-09-20 19:13|| Front Page Top

#66 "Then Americans will be facing the same situation the Muzzies do now: get on board or get fucked. Funny, ain't it?"

LOL, er, no that's not funny at all. True, but not funny. Shit. I hadn't gone that far down the road, LOL / *sob*. :}

Posted by flyover 2006-09-20 19:13|| 2006-09-20 19:13|| Front Page Top

#67 The phoney ex-lib and the phoney Zenster are MrGod and Exxon, posting from btbroadband.com in Britain.

Goopta posts from btbroadband.com as well. Probably the same guy.

Posted by Fred 2006-09-20 19:22|| 2006-09-20 19:22|| Front Page Top

#68 From William T. Sherman, Military Division of the Mississippi Special Field Order 120, November 9, 1864
In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested no destruction of such property should be permitted; but should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless according to the measure of such hostility.

Posted by 3dc 2006-09-20 19:34|| 2006-09-20 19:34|| Front Page Top

#69 And probably from a fixed IP address as well, then. :)

Posted by flyover 2006-09-20 19:34|| 2006-09-20 19:34|| Front Page Top

#70 Muzzy trolls from Londonistan likely. Figures.

Hey do us a favor; head over to Iraq and attack a convoy. The Iraqis are pretty good shots these days.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-09-20 19:37|| 2006-09-20 19:37|| Front Page Top

#71 It may make some sense to look at these issues in the light of past conflicts. During past conflicts our nation has always appreciated the support of those within the borders of the conflict who were willing to support Justice and oppose Tyranny -- from the inside. So why would that mode of opposing tyranny (supporting and appreciating the efforts of those most affected by the tyranny) be different that now the enemy is islamofacism? Now, more than ever, dont we need people like Dietrich Bonhoeffer of the German resistance movement against Nazism; Colonel Alfred Touny of the French Resistance; and all the others who fought and died in the German and French resistance movements, not to mention those in Belgium, Poland, the Netherlands and elsewhere? The truth is we need every single Muslim who is willing to man an oar against the tyranny of islamofascism. And tarring all Muslims with the same brush serves no useful purpose.

I agree the conflict will get brutal. I agree that many innocents will be collateral damage. But that happens with or without being supportive of moderate Muslims. And I believe it happens less so with the support of moderate Muslims.

Many Muslims can be our allies in the WOT -- as evidenced by the dead bodies and spilt blood of those Muslims the islamofascists target as collaborators -- whether in Palestine, Iraq, or elsewhere in the world. Hope springs eternal, perhaps, but no people group is subhuman. Cultures can reset and return to proactive modes. A policy decision has to be made to pursue every possible positive and prosocial change to reduce islamofascist source populations -- with annihilation of source populations ever as a last resort. I, for one, support the policies of President Bush to seek change.

IMO, the history of past posting shows that Zenster probably has ulterior motives that tend to become clearer closer to elections -- he voices strong support (to the point of utter overkill) for positions obviously near and dear to many who visit this blog -- and then (here and there, thrown in as if afterthoughts) mocks Bush and the validity of Bush's presidency, without any proof to back up the slander. As Ive stated and asked before:

Zenster, just because you sound pro-military doesnt mean youre not some DU operative (or equivalent) out to slam Bush. The lack of realism to the gung ho, pro-military solutions you spout makes me question your sincerity. Please persuade me otherwise, if you think Im wrong. Also, I dont recall you ever answering a central question that you have been repeatedly asked: How do you square your kill them all, let God sort them out rhetoric with your Bush is a crook rhetoric?

Generally, when I ask Zenster this question he/she just stops posting for awhile, but I really think inquiring minds would like to hear Zensters answer to the question.

Posted by cingold 2006-09-20 19:51|| 2006-09-20 19:51|| Front Page Top

#72 Fred and Agent Orange are working on the troll from Londonistan.

In the meantime, Zenster and ex-Lib, a little more civility to each other please. You're both on the same side. Thx, AoS.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2006-09-20 20:10|| 2006-09-20 20:10|| Front Page Top

#73 cingold - Your most compelling point is the resistance movements that surfaced in conflicts past. If it happens again among Muslims, then they will be dealt with as we did with others - we learned as we went then and it will happen that way again - as possible allies, but not embraced wholesale. The resistance movements were, indeed, helpful as we invaded the lands where they existed and where they were courageous enough to cooperate. Their personal goals, and it was obviously personal to partisans, frequently did not overlap with our strategic goals. They also brought a dangerous security risk, since they were usually perfectly amateurish amateurs. Additionally, they were also heavily infiltrated and many Allied servicemen died at their hands or by their blunders. So we will use such help, if and when it comes, with common sense. Those who actually help will, of course, be spared and deserving of thanks and support. An observation to add is that historically the resistance was a very small percentage of the population in question. So point taken, but don't go overboard.

Posted by flyover 2006-09-20 20:10|| 2006-09-20 20:10|| Front Page Top

#74 .com -- Iran must go. Decapped and defanged, or else we are in incredibly deep shit.

As usual, dot says it better and more economically than I can.

Iran delenda est.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2006-09-20 20:12|| 2006-09-20 20:12|| Front Page Top

#75 SR-71 posts at #64: "The she goes again - shouting and waving her fists around. YOU grow up ex-lib. Give it a rest. You seem to think you are tough behind your keyboard, but I think you know that most folks would slap you cross-eyed if you argued that way face to face - woman or not. Who appoited you Zenster's or anyone else's conscience?"

Are you suggesting that ex-lib has no right to express a point of view different from your own?

Are you suggesting that violence against this woman would be a good way to silence her for daring to tell someone to shut-up?

Are you suggesting that her information should be ignored because you dont agree with it?

Are you suggesting that her criticisms of another are morally repugnant and should be censored on those grounds?

Have you never looked at and thought about the graphic that accompanies the motto of Civil, well-reasoned discourse that heads this website?

If so (in answer to any of the above), then you are a narrow-minded ignoramus and bigot, who has nothing to offer the world IMO. What I saw ex-lib as arguing, and arguing fairly well -- if bluntly, was that it is a dangerous and destructive thing to ignore the contributions of the Muslim world to the global war against islamofascism. And that Zenster is obnoxious for making those kinds of arguments. Regarding the Muslim world, there is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. Take for instance Indonesias Liberal Islam Network (see past post on the subject here at Rantburg). I think it is telling that the outrage in Indonesia -- the largest Muslim nation in the world, and a huge country just in terms of population -- about the Popes recent comments led to some march in Jakarta (the capital) that was just a few hundred people in size, if that. And leaders across Indonesia, including prominent, popular religious leaders, are encouraging people to forgive and forget. That speaks of a different kind of worldview -- one directly at odds with islamofascism.

Id have to say, SR-71, that your comments toward ex-lib are much more in line with the tenets of islamofascism than comments about the Pope that I see coming from Muslims in Indonesia. Now, thats something to think about.

Posted by cingold 2006-09-20 20:14|| 2006-09-20 20:14|| Front Page Top

#76 LOL, SW. And then you shorten it from 14 words to 3. LOL.

Posted by flyover 2006-09-20 20:15|| 2006-09-20 20:15|| Front Page Top

#77 Cultures can reset and return to proactive modes.
During WW2, Japanese believed their emperor was a living God. We reset their modes twice, and now they are friends, allies, and honest competitors.
So, cingold, you advocate nuclear war ?
No, just undefined appeasment.
Part of the reason some here are way out in front pro war is that so many are still in denial and dragging their feet. It's natural to over enphasize the task at hand, yet necessary for the sake of focus.

Posted by wxjames 2006-09-20 20:24|| 2006-09-20 20:24|| Front Page Top

#78 NS: The Muslims "sitting this out" are not sitting it out. They are the silent majority of muslims who do not condemn what the "minority" are doing. They are, in effect, taking a side. They would be perfectly happy to see the minority win and are doing nothing to stop it.

We don't need a majority or even a significant percentage to condemn terrorist attacks. All we need is for a fraction of a percentage to point the terrorists out to us. Our military and police forces can take care of the rest. And Muslims are pointing them out to us. Which is why there haven't been any successful attacks on US soil since 9/11. Al Qaeda's leadership understood that American Muslim communities - whatever the leadership's rhetoric - were not to be trusted, which is why the 9/11 attackers stayed aloof while making their preparations. I don't think we need to come to a meeting of minds with Muslims over Israel or Kashmir - we probably never will. We just need a tiny minority to point out the terrorists to us. And they have been doing so - in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

Muslims are divided by many of the same things that Westerners are - language, ethnicity and religious denomination. It would be a pity to fight them all when we can fight just the ones who want to kill us in a practical sense (al Qaeda terrorists), as opposed to the ones who just hate us in the abstract* (Malaysians, Turks, Saudis, et al).

* Note that the French, Russians, Koreans, Chinese, Filipinos, et al, also hate us in the abstract. No one has proposed going to war with these countries on the basis of their sentiments.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-09-20 20:25|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2006-09-20 20:25|| Front Page Top

#79 one at a time, ZF. One at a time.

Posted by Darrell 2006-09-20 20:28|| 2006-09-20 20:28|| Front Page Top

#80 Darrell: one at a time, ZF. One at a time.

The guys who hate us the most, and with the most practical (although not justified) reasons for hating us, are the Latin American countries. A *lot* of them were exhilarated when 9/11 occurred. We're not going to go fight them. Hate and resentment are a constant in the international arena. To conserve blood and treasure, we fight only the parties that actively plot and carry out attacks against us.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-09-20 20:37|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2006-09-20 20:37|| Front Page Top

#81 Blue Troll Special on aisle # 67.

Everybody, please forgive me for taking the bait. I'll try to make this the last time.

#46 What insults, Zenster?

Let me count the ways ...

#28 Gawd, Zenster, you're so full of crap.

Insult # 1. While this might represent an opinion, it also contains scatological attribution which is ill mannered at best and generally recognized by polite society to be rude and crude.

#28 You've never agreed with any concept, AT ALL, of moderate Islam.

Insult # 2. Accusing someone of lying is significant slander of their character, more commonly known as an "insult".

#28 You never would have agreed with liberalhawk. [re: The existence of Moderate Muslims]

Insult # 3. Some of my initial posts at Rantburg dealt with Moderate Muslims. Back then, I sided with Fred Pruitt regarding how important it was to recognize the existence of these potentially important allies in the War on Terrorism.

I have conducted a search and the limited investigative tools available at Rantburg make it extremely difficult to isolate such far removed posts. I'll ask anyone here who remembers my early posts in support of Moderate Muslims to please check in.

#28 You never have.

Insult # 4. Repetitive, but an insult nonetheless.

#28 I mean, am I going to have to go back in the archives and retrieve your opinions?

Yes, you are, ex-lib. Seeing as how you have a habit of twisting other people's statements out of context, be sure to provide links, emkay? If you are not able to provide a cite and link for where Fred Pruitt and myself both came to the defense of Moderate Muslims world-wide, then please know that you have not searched enough.

#28 It's really a concern that you keep saying "how much you've changed" when you haven't.

Insult # 5. I have changed, just ask .com. Were he not enjoying dinner with a far more companiable companion than any of us, he might lend his word here. I'm quite confident he recalls my early support for Moderate Muslims.

#40 Shut up Zenster.

Insult # 6. The demand that another person refrain from excercizing their inalienable right to free speech can only be seen as an insult. It implies worthlessness and insignificance.

#40 ... and educate yourself.

Insult # 7. I'll let my posts speak for me on this occasion.

#40 You're just another type of extremist if you don't.

Insult # 8. While this might be opinion, seeing as how we are sacrificing American lives fighting (Islamic) extremism, I'll take umbrage at such an accusation and aggregate this with the other aspersions.

#43 Then, GROW up, Zenster

Insult # 9. Immaturity, especially in the arena of significant political positions, falls rather easily into the category of an insult. Which is where I'll place this statement, especially in regard of its emphatic nature.

#43 ... and stop agitating on this board.

Insult # 10. [A]gitating is the occupation of trolls. While I have been accused of this quite often, none of this board's moderators have ever seen fit to adjudge me as such. I dare you to locate the one single occasion where a comment of mine was sinktrapped.

#43 Have you educated yourself yet, or are you still helping the terrorists by your uninformed rhetoric?

Insult # 11. Two insults for the price of one. Pretty much a solid dozen of them in all. Abetting terrorists is a heinous accusation. Fortunately, one that I am readily able to disregard considering the source.

#46 What insults, Zenster?

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-20 20:37|| 2006-09-20 20:37|| Front Page Top

#82 Re: #75... I consider Indonesia to be a rather poor and curious example to bandy about, cingold. It has fallen rather fast over the last few years from a roundly perceived ally to yet another obvious Islamic stain on the globe. You will have to offer up a shitload of very positive links proving your suggestion that it is either moderate or just or reliable or trustworthy or non-Islamist. I don't recall seeing such articles posted here. You suggest there is support for moderation regards the Pope kerfuffle. Please prove it.

In fact, I recall quite the opposite, from the Bashir farce to the classic Muzzy "reaction" to the fantastic assistance offered by the Ozzies and the US after the tsunami. First on the scene, doing everything possible - the only sources of reliable transportation and rescue, generous beyond belief (Fuck Jan Egeland), and then we watched the Indo Muzzies steal all that could be stolen, with no action taken to stop them or recover the aid. Feckless or complicit Muzzy-dominated government is not praiseworthy - it is a shithole, by choice. I'm only surprised they didn't order a fleet of F-16's, like the Pakis did. Perhaps if we're ever foolish enough to assist them again...

I have seen almost nothing to support your point regards Indonesia. BTW, from your odd choice, do I detect you have some affiliation? Divulge it so that your POV can be put into perspective. I am an American who has worked in several places around the world, including the M.E. and Asia, but not including Indonesia.

Posted by flyover 2006-09-20 20:37|| 2006-09-20 20:37|| Front Page Top

#83 flyover: I have seen almost nothing to support your point regards Indonesia. BTW, from your odd choice, do I detect you have some affiliation? Divulge it so that your POV can be put into perspective. I am an American who has worked in several places around the world, including the M.E. and Asia, but not including Indonesia.

Indonesians are really, really nice. Really, really polite. Just like Thais, in many ways. Except they're Muslim. I can't speak for cingold, but many expats have formed an attachment to the place because of how hospitable it is. It truly is a wonderful place to live.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-09-20 20:44|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2006-09-20 20:44|| Front Page Top

#84 Is it even possible to delete idiots? I know the mods can delete idiocy, but idiots? Because I have a few more in mind.

Posted by Eric Jablow">Eric Jablow 2006-09-20 20:49|| 2006-09-20 20:49|| Front Page Top

#85 Zenster, just because you sound pro-military doesnt mean youre not some DU operative (or equivalent) out to slam Bush. The lack of realism to the gung ho, pro-military solutions you spout makes me question your sincerity. Please persuade me otherwise, if you think Im wrong. Also, I dont recall you ever answering a central question that you have been repeatedly asked: How do you square your kill them all, let God sort them out rhetoric with your Bush is a crook rhetoric?

cingold, please cite and link to any early post where I railed against the questionable aspects of the 2000 elections and, simultaneously, suggested that we should "kill them all, let God sort them out".

If you cannot, please retract what you have posted.

I'll readily suggest that you have, for the umpteenth time, conflated my search and nomination of what might comprise a credible deterrent against terrorism with such a heinous and murderous notion.

If you wish to suddenly telescope forward, contrary to your suggestions, yes, I am rapidly approaching such a position. If you cannot bring yourself to understand and recognize the slow and incremental steps whereby I have reached these conclusions, then your assertions are worth less than zero.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-20 20:50|| 2006-09-20 20:50|| Front Page Top

#86 Hordes of Western tourists and expats hang out in Indonesia, typically not in armed compounds. The only religiously-motivated attacks against them have been of the al Qaeda/JI variety. No lone gunmen striking out or anything like that. Indonesia may have treated the Bali bombers leniently, but the average Indonesian isn't really into attacking Westerners.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-09-20 20:53|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2006-09-20 20:53|| Front Page Top

#87 I'll readily suggest that you have, for the umpteenth time, conflated my search and nomination of what might comprise a credible deterrent against terrorism with such a heinous and murderous notion.

That would be:

I'll readily suggest that you have, for the umpteenth time, conflated my search FOR and nomination of what might comprise a credible deterrent against terrorism with such a heinous and murderous notion.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-20 20:54|| 2006-09-20 20:54|| Front Page Top

#88 Only the comments. To delete idiots, you either depend on Darwin or....ahem.... help

Posted by Frank G 2006-09-20 20:55|| 2006-09-20 20:55|| Front Page Top

#89 Yes, it is possible.

But not at Rantburg.

Posted by lotp 2006-09-20 21:02|| 2006-09-20 21:02|| Front Page Top

#90 Ahmedinajihad did a great job of laying out the enemy position at the UN; Islam should rule the world and all should submit to Allan, whether they want to or not. That has been a consistent undercurrent in Islam since its founding. Christianity is equally ambitious, but has become increasingly less aggressive in forcing conversion as time has past. A similar mellowing has been absent from Islam.

My point is not that Muslims are monolithic in everything or that the same methods will need to be used on them all, any more than that Sherman's marches were all the same. But they will all have to learn that their ambitions will no longer be attainable via the sword because there is a bigger dog on the block who isn't going to put up with their bullying much longer.

American Muslims understand this pretty well and have probably been helpful in their own way. But they have not contributed any 442 RCT.

We will have to step on the Sauds before this is over; they are sourcing it intellectually and financing it. The Turks and Malaysians are making their own decisions now and are probably ionclined to prefer our position, ceteris paribus. We will probably not have to stomp on them all. But all of them will have to change their minds to our understanding about how we will live together before it is over.

The situation with the Latin Americans is in some ways a continuation of the rivalry between the Spanish and English. It's now hard to take too seriously. They learned how to at least vacation together. We can too.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-09-20 21:02|| 2006-09-20 21:02|| Front Page Top

#91 And leaders across Indonesia, including prominent, popular religious leaders, are encouraging people to forgive and forget.

Intrinsic in this statement is that there has been some sort of wrongdoing in the first place. If this is your actual position, cingold, then you may need to reconsider where you stand with respect to Islam and its intensely antagonistic relationship with the West.

The Pope did no wrong. Your reference to forgiveness automatically implies that Benedict made an error of judgement. He did no such thing. The Pope asked that Muslims reconsider the repellant role of violence in religious conversion and how reason is critical in any honorable relationship with God and faith in general.

Feel free to point up the deficiencies in Benedict's arguments.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-20 21:06|| 2006-09-20 21:06|| Front Page Top

#92 Only the comments. To delete idiots, you either depend on Darwin or....ahem.... help

Yeah, Baaaaaby!

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-20 21:07|| 2006-09-20 21:07|| Front Page Top

#93 The problem is Islam--nothing more, nothing less. Its an ideology whose very "holy" book teaches its believers that it is *destined* to an earthly rule over those that don't believe. Until men worldwide stop pretending that the ideology is worthy of anything other than ridicule, there will always be ~~extremists~~ literalists that read these texts and attempt to act upon them.

The reason that so many of the (alleged) "moderate" Muslims sit on the sideline and do NOTHING to eradicate the ~~extremists~~ literalists in their midst is two fold: the fear of reprisal by the ~~extremists~~ literalists and the fear that they may be interfering with what Allah predestined.

Until Islam is the source of constant ridicule and relegated to the ash heap of history, it will rebound with terror again and again.

Posted by Crusader 2006-09-20 21:14|| 2006-09-20 21:14|| Front Page Top

#94 The reason that so many of the (alleged) "moderate" Muslims sit on the sideline and do NOTHING to eradicate the ~~extremists~~ literalists in their midst is two fold: the fear of reprisal by the ~~extremists~~ literalists and the fear that they may be interfering with what Allah predestined.

Until Islam is the source of constant ridicule and relegated to the ash heap of history, it will rebound with terror again and again.

Word, Crusader.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-20 21:18|| 2006-09-20 21:18|| Front Page Top

#95 That's touching, Zhang Fei - you'll pardon me if I don't take much comfort from your personal observations. Individuals are what they are. There are good ones and bad ones everywhere. Why is it, taking your assessment as the general rule you present it to be, that they elect and tolerate an Islamist government? Governments are what they are, too... You didn't address the actions / inactions regards Bashir or the Muzzy hijacking of tsunami aid. They had no trouble imprisoning an Ozzy tourist for 10x the sentence that Bashir received for masterminding the Bali bombing. Smell something?

Civility is, indeed, nice. Government complicity with Muzzy extremists isn't. That situation exists in Indonesia and Malaysia, both.

I found your #78 interesting. Sure, taking on a billion people at once would be quite taxing, LOL. But it wouldn't happen even if Bush had said we are at war with Islam, not just Islamists. Why? Because it's a logistical impossibility. They only rub up against Western civilization in certain places. Of course there is bloodshed at all of those places, big surprise, huh? Those already inside the West are minorities - for the moment - and that keeps them in check where the laws make sense and are enforced. Most people are cowards, anyway. They have to be indoctrinated to overcome that problem. Another logistical problem is that, just as with anyone else - any other society, not many can just drop everything and go off to kill infidels... probably why most of the actual killers are middle-class or higher in status. It affords such flights from reality. The family still gets fed and sheltered.

The question is what do we do? There are a billion people who "belong" to an ideology bent upon the destruction of the West since it stands in the way of Islam's true goal: true global dominion. I would like to throw them all out of the Western World and quarantine them. Cut off all access to technology of any kind. Make every rub point positively electric with vicious payback for any incursion. I don't want to kill them all, but I have this feeling it won't matter one whit what I want. They will force the issue and we will respond, eventually, with overwhelming force. It's the rational thing to do when confronted by an implacable and suicidal enemy.

P.S. I do find the talk and aversion about conventional vs nukes rather odd in some ways. Dead is dead. I've been in combat and I can attest to that as fact. Throat cut while sleeping on guard or shot dead defending your post. Dead is dead. Faster is "better", I'd guess, since I've seen guys linger for many hours and days in excruciating pain. On the whole, however, I want the other guy to do the dying.

Oh well, that is my take on this topic and it doesn't much matter if I'm in the majority or minority or if the discussion become irrelevant due to changing circumstances - it will have zero effect on how this plays out. We're all just wanking off here, anyway.

Posted by flyover 2006-09-20 21:22|| 2006-09-20 21:22|| Front Page Top

#96 cingold, disregarding for the moment (as if it were possible), the endless atrocities of Islamic terrorism, how do you justify the almost universal and institutionalized abuse of women that occurs under Islam's watch? Genital mutilation, enforced illiteracy, prohibition of unchapperoned excursions, inability to obtain divorce with equal ease of males, lack of universal suffrage?

Are you somehow able to overlook these abominations in your defense of Moderate Muslims?

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-20 21:29|| 2006-09-20 21:29|| Front Page Top

#97 OFF TOPIC: Mods, any publishable results on this thread's troll infestation?

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-20 21:41|| 2006-09-20 21:41|| Front Page Top

#98 Ok, let's kill this "moderate muslim" BS once and for all. There is NO SUCH THING.

Islam is a very regimented, top-down religion. Muslims are taught from their very first breath that Islam is the "only" religion, that the Koran is the undisputed word of God, and they must live according to what the Imams and preachers say they should live, because "that's how God wants it". Any other belief is apostacy, punishable by death. Muslims then have only two choices: adhering to the teachings of mohamhead, as spewed by their preachers, or death. If the preachers push for war, war is the only acceptable response. If they push for "hatred of the infidel", everyone must hate the "infidel". Trying to assess islam or muslims from a western perspective is counter-productive. The only thing that matters (to muslims) is the mutterings of the mad mullahs. There is no "middle ground". The death cult of islam doesn't allow it.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2006-09-20 21:53|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2006-09-20 21:53|| Front Page Top

#99 Nothing more than the IP noted in the redactions above. Fred, separately, has invoked the Baltimore Sanction and is taking extreme... measures.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-09-20 21:53|| 2006-09-20 21:53|| Front Page Top

#100 Indonesia has been rabid for a long time just not noticed by the MSM.

I remember in the 60s my parents and their friends talking about Christians massacred in village and neighborhood quantities by the Indonesian muslim riots and the military. Same for the Hindu's.

In 1965 an Italian ship I was on stopped in Jakarta in the middle of their revolution. Which ever group was in control at that instant herded thousands of Indian's to the dock, lined them up with machine guns pointed at them and told the Italian captain that if he didn't take them they would kill them right there. He took them and I saw it with my own childish eyes.

Later in the trip I found Karachi to be most scary place I have every been, Aden to be an endless riot of mobs with torches (just before it became the peoples republic of) and Egypt to filled to the gills with Soviet weapons and Soviets everywhere.

Its been this screwed up in Dar Islam forever - the difference is that after 911 a larger part of the US population now acknowledges it.

Posted by 3dc 2006-09-20 21:56|| 2006-09-20 21:56|| Front Page Top

#101 3dc, you win the # 100^th Post Prize of the day. I dread to think of how your young mind was filled with a realistic version of the Friday the 13^th garbage that so many of our youth of today wallows in.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-20 22:28|| 2006-09-20 22:28|| Front Page Top

#102 Without wishing to be seen as baiting or anything of the sort, ex-lib or cingold, do either of you have any factually based cites to confront me with, or are you just going to run away and toss this shit at me on another convenient occasion?

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-20 22:33|| 2006-09-20 22:33|| Front Page Top

#103 Things seem to have settled down. Could we just leave it that way, please?

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-09-20 22:55|| 2006-09-20 22:55|| Front Page Top

#104 I refuse to apologize, David D.. Both ex-lib and cingold insist upon smearing my name whenever they feel it is appropriate. If they can't come forward and provide proof of their slanderous assertions, then they need to STFU! (As if that will ever happen.)

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-20 23:02|| 2006-09-20 23:02|| Front Page Top

#105 I didn't ask you to apologize. Go read what I wrote: a simple request to just let it be.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-09-20 23:06|| 2006-09-20 23:06|| Front Page Top

#106 No problem, David D., I've yet to see you make any sort of unreasonable request. Rest well.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-20 23:14|| 2006-09-20 23:14|| Front Page Top

#107 :)

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-09-20 23:15|| 2006-09-20 23:15|| Front Page Top

#108 Dammit, I go to class for the evening, I get home, and the fight's already over.

BTW, as always, you gave as good as you got Zen.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-09-20 23:26|| 2006-09-20 23:26|| Front Page Top

#109 From my POV the issue of moderate Islam can be summarised in a nutshell as per this quote:

"Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from then and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhajirs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai [(property abandoned by fleeing non-Muslims] except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers.) If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from the Jizya [tax]. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allahs help and fight them." Sahih Muslim vol.3:4294

Remember, this is a ruling from the earliest days of Islam regarding "moderate Muslims"
They can be a ROP as long as they become Bedouin Muslims, basically sheep who will not be slaughter only shorn by the Muhajirs.

.com's statement as posted by flyover, seem to intuitively understand this.
"Lessons B Hard. History is replete with examples, it's hard to locate an exception in fact, of societies which were dragged into war by the most vocal and acrimonious among them - I think of them as the "activated" Muzzies. Shorthand it to Asshats for convenience and clarity. Those not overtly "activated" among them I think of as the "resource pool" for they are either complicit in their support or irrelevant in their silence. Even the most innocent among them, let's call them the LMOOIs (Leave Me Out Of It), will be going to war, sooner or later... dragged there by the majority who fill the other categories. It has always been thus, and always will be so. Tough shit - for all of us."

A lot more could be done to "liberate" this group, for instance allowing them freedom of religion as per the UN declaration of human rights.
Then we wouldn't have such bizarre situations as when we are defending a country such as Afghanistan, who at the same time want to execute on of these Bedouin Muslims who converted to Christianity. And best of all we would be occupying the high moral ground at all times.

Posted by tipper 2006-09-20 23:41|| 2006-09-20 23:41|| Front Page Top

#110 Thank you, pal. I'll rest better tonight.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-20 23:41|| 2006-09-20 23:41|| Front Page Top

#111 ZF is correct regarding Latin America.

The important thing is to discuss the links posted regarding a possible modeate Islamic entity and how we should approach them.

But since this has devolved: About Zenster: on Rantburg today

In Denver today, a woman was tied to a vehicle with a rope and dragged through suburban streets in a gruesome crime that left a trail of blood more than a mile long, police said. Neighbors discovered the woman's body before dawn Monday about 20 miles south of Denver. The victim's face was unrecognizable and an orange tow rope was found around her neck . . . preliminary autopsy results indicated the woman died of asphyxiation and head injuries from being strangled while dragged by a vehicle . . . In later news today, autopsy results indicated that she was alive while being dragged and then died of her injuries.

Zensters response: Another reluctant bride gets hitched. Other members here challenged his post. Zensters response:

I don't know how many of you here write your own comedy material. I do and I've performed it publically. Try doing it sometime, you might be surprised. Writing a good joke that no one has ever heard before is far more difficult than you probably imagine.

Guess it must be because he failed, which is not as bad as how he explained himself later:

Either you laugh about it or cry about it (tragedy). We're all born crying. Some of us learn to stop.

Well, were all glad Zenster has learned to stop crying when some poor woman is dragged through the streets until dead. One has to wonder if hed be making jokes if it was one of his fellow gay men being dragged by a car until dead by an angry lover. I know I wouldnt.

What does all this have to do with the above? Merely pointing out that Zenster grooms this website with politically correct speak and oodles of compliments for posters he wishes to influence whenever he has an agenda.

And yes, Zenster, Ill look it all up and post it here sometime this week or next when I have the time to find it.

Of course, Zensters insults are the real thing. This is what he said to me about 2 years ago: You deserve every iota of the bile, vitriol and raw sewage floating in your veins. The sterile and intolerant vision of society that you stand for has already manifested in history many times. Sixty years ago countless thousands of American went abroad to fight it and many of them died doing so. We are now busy fighting the exact same sort of intolerance you spew all over again.

At the time, there was a discussion going on about Deconstructionism as a political tool and I had merely said that The intentional "blurring" of social definitions of the homosexual/lesbian political movement is totalitarian in nature, and is another reason it should be opposed. By attempting to deconstruct society through redefining "marriage," "family," "sexuality," etc.--which is designed to overthrow the existing power structures which have their roots in a psychologically, emotionally, biologically and politically healthy view of marriage, family and sexuality, the homosexual/lesbian left (whether or not they are masquerading as "right-wing") seeks to impose their unbending and very religious-like, authoritarian counter-structure that would replace not only the moorings of society, but the moorings of the very political structures that have held our nation, in particular, together. "Political Correctness" becomes the replacement standard--which is nothing more than a mask for totalitarian directions in thinking and action. . . . about homosexuality/lesbianism . . . There is no such thing as "a homosexual" or "a lesbian" or "a bisexual" or "a transsexual." Rather, biologically-emotionally-psychologically-heterosexual men and women who call themselves "homosexual," "lesbian," "bi," or "trans" are simply regular people engaging in sexually-based activities with members of the same sex, or are bouncing between two preferences, or are trying to escape their own sexuality, for a variety of psychological/emotional reasons.

Posted by ex-lib 2006-09-20 23:47|| 2006-09-20 23:47|| Front Page Top

#112 Please-- just STOP.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-09-20 23:50|| 2006-09-20 23:50|| Front Page Top

#113 Dave, erudite trolls are trolls nonetheless. Time will tell. Goodnight all.

Posted by ex-lib 2006-09-20 23:55|| 2006-09-20 23:55|| Front Page Top

23:55 ex-lib
23:50 Dave D.
23:47 ex-lib
23:41 Zenster
23:41 tipper
23:39 JosephMendiola
23:37 Zenster
23:32 JosephMendiola
23:29 Swamp Blondie
23:28 JosephMendiola
23:26 Frank G
23:26 mcsegeek1
23:21 Abdominal Snowman
23:18 JosephMendiola
23:16 mcsegeek1
23:15 Dave D.
23:15 Frank G
23:14 Cyber Sarge
23:14 Zenster
23:14 mcsegeek1
23:12 Zenster
23:09 Zenster
23:06 Dave D.
23:06 RWV