Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Sun 11/14/2004 View Sat 11/13/2004 View Fri 11/12/2004 View Thu 11/11/2004 View Wed 11/10/2004 View Tue 11/09/2004 View Mon 11/08/2004
1
2004-11-14 Terror Networks & Islam
Fresh Resolve in War on Terror Hindered by Mideast Rivalries, Mistrust
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 Cornīliës 2004-11-14 4:28:19 AM|| || Front Page|| [11134 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 As long as the jihadis were just whacking infidels, it was all fun and games. Plus it took the pressure off the local regime. Now the jihadis are eating their own, the camel's nose is under the other tent.

It will play out slowly, but I predict the struggle between mutual distrust and self-preservation will be another popcorn-worthy show.
Posted by SteveS 2004-11-14 10:40:31 AM||   2004-11-14 10:40:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 The US is moving more and more (thanks to Bush) towards the "democratic revolutionary" mode and away from dealing with tyrants because it is expedient to do so. Democracy *is* "the revolution", and the US has long been its most radical proponent. Ironically, the strongest anti-democratic force in the world is the leftist, pro-slavery, racist socialist movement, almost as old as the democratic revolutionary movement, a large faction of whom also reside in the US.
Posted by Anonymoose 2004-11-14 10:51:54 AM||   2004-11-14 10:51:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 The problem within Islamic countries is bigger than jihadis vs regimes.

Read this article, and it would be apparent that we have a bigger problem looming up.

One day, fairly soon, we would have to decide if preserving a pseudo-religion has some redeeming value or not. I've made my mind already. If Islam is not completely rooted out in the span of 20-30 years, we lose and half a millenium or more of dark age would grip our descendants.
Posted by Cornīliës 2004-11-14 11:43:52 AM||   2004-11-14 11:43:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Ultimately, the only True solution will be the TOTAL EXTERMANITION of all Sufi/Wahhabi clerics in Saudi Arabia. That is the cesspool that must be drained. Wahhabism MUST BE EXTERMINATED worldwide. There are NO EXCEPTIONS to this. People can abandon Wahhibism and live, but they won't, so let them die.!
Posted by leaddog2 2004-11-14 1:05:57 PM||   2004-11-14 1:05:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 leaddog2, you confuse Sufi with Salafi.
The first are relatively benign, the second are practically equatable with Wahhabis.
Just sying.
Posted by Cornīliës 2004-11-14 1:16:41 PM||   2004-11-14 1:16:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Beigel? Is that you?
Posted by Shipman 2004-11-14 1:50:44 PM||   2004-11-14 1:50:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Shipman, you mean Bigel? No, I don't think so. Bigel would not confuse Sufis with Salafis.
Posted by Cornīliës 2004-11-14 1:54:42 PM||   2004-11-14 1:54:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Nations have agreed to share intelligence and cooperate on controlling borders and have signed fresh security pacts, although their history of disputes and rivalries means they don’t always follow through on lofty words ...

All of which adds up to exactly bupkus. Inter-Arab hostilities consistently neuter any possibility of progress in the region. Only the advent of modern weapons has sufficiently extended their violent influence to the point where attention must be paid to them.

Soon enough the outside world will have had their fill with Islam's dreams of global domination. Should they prove unable to abandon this obsession with religious ascendancy, the attention repaid for all their troublemaking will make the Arabs wish they had never been born.
Posted by Zenster 2004-11-14 2:36:39 PM||   2004-11-14 2:36:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 
Re #3 (Cornīliës):
In Kuwait the pendelum will change directions soon enough. You're too pessimistic.
.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-14 2:39:14 PM||   2004-11-14 2:39:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Zenster, "Should they prove unable to abandon this obsession with religious ascendancy, the attention repaid for all their troublemaking will make the Arabs wish they had never been born."

Well, what would be the proper enticement to "abandon" their obsession? Therefore "all their troublemaking will make the Arabs wish they had never been born" is quite a plausible scenario.

There is another option. I call it Deux ex machina Replacement. Just an idea whose time did not yet come, but it may be on the table in 10-20 years.

Islam has to go. There is no other possibility. Completely. No festering to infect scores of humanity, at some point in time, must be allowed.

Mike, I am not pessimistic. But things would get quite nasty before they get better. Anyway, please feel free to elaborate why the Kuwaiti pendulum will swing in another direction soon. Enquiring minds want to know.
Posted by Cornīliës 2004-11-14 2:54:38 PM||   2004-11-14 2:54:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Cornīliës, I'm confident you've already gotten the gist of this.

Well, what would be the proper enticement to "abandon" their obsession?

The only effective lever for moving the entire Islamic world away from their lusting after supremacy is simple self-preservation. Unfortunately, the Bush administration is so fixated upon religiosity that they cannot bring themselves to condemn another faith, no matter how corrupt it might be. Witness how the Office of Faith Based Giving cheerfully funnels huge quantities of our tax dollars to a religious nutjob and self-proclaimed "new world messiah" like Sun Myung Moon.

This represents a profound stumbling block in terms of motivating Islam to abandon its obsession with global domination. Muslims need to be advised that their very survival hangs in the balance. Outright obliteration is what should await an unreformed Islam. Either forsake the politically active arm of your church of see it reduced to smoking molten glass.

Sadly, Bush cannot bring himself to address the obvious. The White House's inappropriate over-reliance upon the backing of American religious factions neutralizes its ability to make truly functional decisions regarding the imminent peril that Islam represents. So long as Bush continues to seek annexation of his own religious views onto America's constitution, he shall remain blind to the insidious nature of theocracy in all of its forms. His ideological shortsightedness may well be exactly what ultimately foredooms his fight against terrorism. I dread the thought that all of America will have to pay the penalty for his zealotry.
Posted by Zenster 2004-11-14 3:18:41 PM||   2004-11-14 3:18:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Zenster: So long as Bush continues to seek annexation of his own religious views onto America's constitution, he shall remain blind to the insidious nature of theocracy in all of its forms.

Religious men have governed these United States for most of its 200+ years. Religious men have populated these United States for most of its 200+ years. The problem isn't even religious zealotry - the Falungong, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Amish are nothing if not religious zealots. The Dalai Lama thinks that he is the reincarnation of Buddhist leaders from generations past. The problem is not and has never been religious devotion.

The problem is the state sponsors of Islamic jihad and the terrorists who carry out the attacks. The liberal media have been portraying GWB as some kind of David Koresh type, when he is simply a devout Christian, and no more devout than generations of presidents past. And devout Christians have ruled this country (and voted in its elections) for 200+ years without it becoming a theocracy. For the NYT's non-Christian reporters, anything that seems to be reversing their atheistic agenda is a sign of theocracy. They condemn GWB's moral beliefs while basking in the warm sunshine of their own moral certitudes - that atheism is best.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-11-14 3:37:35 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2004-11-14 3:37:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 What ZF said. The MSM noise about Bush's religiosity is so far off the mark as regards the underpinnings of US policy that one has to think of it as a kind of dezinformatsiya.

My $0.02 worth on the middle east powderkeg issue is that it's long past time we shifted to nuclear power. Enough with the sentimentality. It works in France, it can work for us.

And it has to work for us, because a sinking dollar will sooner or later persuade major swing producers like Russia to shift toward oil pricing in euros, which will only push the dollar down further and threaten to disrupt the delicate financial balance that we and the Chinese, Japanese and Korean central banks have been preserving for twenty years.

Oil is crack. Time for us to kick the habit, and let the arab crack pushers sell their smack elsewhere.
Posted by lex 2004-11-14 3:46:14 PM||   2004-11-14 3:46:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Zenster, I think you are reding too much into Bush's reliance on religion. He already steered off the "Abrahamic religions" concept, quietly but perceptibly. I agree with ZF, and maintain that Bush knows the score. It is just a question of strategy and tactics. Bush's poker face should not confuse you, it is for the enemy's consumption.
Posted by Cornīliës 2004-11-14 3:47:10 PM||   2004-11-14 3:47:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Lex, re oil...

Yes, you are right, but to get off it is a long term project that may span 30-40 years.

If not taking over the ME oil patches outright, I would suggest to pump them out as fast as possible, simply to dry the wells up. They would fill again in couple of centuries (I know what I am talking about, it is a renewable resource and I don't have time to go into details right now) but in the meanwhile, the result would be that the income to finance jihad would dry up as well.
Posted by Cornīliës 2004-11-14 3:54:21 PM||   2004-11-14 3:54:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Religious men have governed these United States for most of its 200+ years. Religious men have populated these United States for most of its 200+ years. The problem isn't even religious zealotry - the Falungong, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Amish are nothing if not religious zealots. The Dalai Lama thinks that he is the reincarnation of Buddhist leaders from generations past. The problem is not and has never been religious devotion.

And to the credit of so many of those "religious men" few of them ever attempted to tamper with America's constitution like Bush has seen fit to. I have no problem with "religious devotion." What I do have a problem with is someone in a position of power attempting to ram their religious ideology down my or anyone else's throat.

None of what you posted, Zhang Fei, addresses the more critical issue of how Bush's overemphasis upon religiosity (and its inappropriate role in government) directly interferes with his ability to single out Islam for its own theocratic aspirations.

Because Bush seeks insertion of his own religious views into our body of law, he is voluntarily hamstrung with respect to criticizing Islam's own desire to become the ultimate legal arbiter of all governments. It is this blindness regarding the necessity of separating church and state that may well cripple America's fight against terrorism.

The backbone required to demand that Islam abandon all pursuit of political domination is nowhere present within the sanctimonious confines of the Oval Office. This paucity of correctly configured moral authority oversteers the hand of American leadership and misguides its valid aim towards eradicating the threat of Islamic terrorism.

If Bush's attempts to mandate his own religious views pulls him up short when it comes to dictating the necessary ultimatums that will halt Islamist terrorism, then he betrays American and sacrifices it upon his own personal altar.

America deserves better and I can only hope that we, as a nation, do not end up paying too dearly for this administration's blinkered vision.

Posted by Zenster 2004-11-14 4:08:33 PM||   2004-11-14 4:08:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Zen, you protest too much. Bush's admin has a secrecy problem, but they are not "tampering with the Constitution." The Patriot Act merely extends Clinton's own Anti-Terror Act from 1996. Ashcroft has not gone to bat for any major fundamentalist hobby horse. Hell, these guys did not even seriously challenge the abortion that is affirmative action!

O'Connor's U Michigan opinion was a disgrace, as weas the SCOTUS ruling, and the Bush admin was silent on it. I'm not religious and I don't feel threatened in the slightest by the religious zealots. They talk big but they haven't succeeded in any significant religion-related national legislation or rulings I can think of.
Posted by lex 2004-11-14 4:14:45 PM||   2004-11-14 4:14:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Zenster,
"directly interferes with his ability to single out Islam for its own theocratic aspirations.
Because Bush seeks insertion of his own religious views into our body of law"

I think that you see ghosts that are not there. If I am mistaken, prove it. No inuendo, or presuppositions, specific detail only.
Posted by Cornîliës 2004-11-14 4:15:08 PM||   2004-11-14 4:15:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 ... it's long past time we shifted to nuclear power.

... Oil is crack. Time for us to kick the habit, and let the arab crack pushers sell their smack elsewhere.

This is the central and, as yet, largely unadressed issue. Too many special interests that fund republican and democratic coffers alike have not a whit of interest in America being freed from its dependency upon oil. Think: Detroit.
Posted by Zenster 2004-11-14 4:17:57 PM||   2004-11-14 4:17:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Lex, "I'm not religious and I don't feel threatened in the slightest"

Same here.
Posted by Cornîliës 2004-11-14 4:17:58 PM||   2004-11-14 4:17:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 #17 Bush's admin has a secrecy problem, but they are not "tampering with the Constitution." The Patriot Act merely extends Clinton's own Anti-Terror Act from 1996. Ashcroft has not gone to bat for any major fundamentalist hobby horse.

#18 If I am mistaken, prove it. No inuendo, or presuppositions, specific detail only.

I'm not sure what all of you consider the Office of Faith Based Giving or attempts to constitutionally define marriage in strictly heterosexual terms to be, but in my book that is nothing but naked politico-religious zealotry and it has no place in our government. If you don't regard the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Amendment) as tampering with the constitution, then we must agree to disagree.

If our government funds any religious organization, it must fund them all. Right down to the Church of Satan, the Wiccans and all other comers.

If it is not illegal to be homosexual, then there must be equal protection under the law in all respects to people of all sexual orientations. No exceptions.

All Americans should have, not just freedom of religion, but freedom from religion. Any undermining or tainting of such liberty in the pursuit of happiness is an affront to freedom itself.
Posted by Zenster 2004-11-14 4:33:14 PM||   2004-11-14 4:33:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Zenster. You have convinced me. There should be no such legal condition as marriage. Leave it to the churches.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-14 4:46:56 PM||   2004-11-14 4:46:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 so no faith-based morality in governance, huh Zen? I'm only opposed to intolerant religions partaking in charity funding from the gov't, and proof that they are doing good work with the funds (auditing, etc.). I don't want a polity that is free from concepts of good/evil, and those are generally reinforced by religious values.
Now, I'm going back to channel surfing between the Vikings/Packers and Nascar (of course, huh?) - my man Mark Martin is in 2nd in the Southern 500
Posted by Frank G  2004-11-14 4:53:36 PM||   2004-11-14 4:53:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Marriage is about kids and property. Of course it's a legal matter. A majority of my party's adherents are against legalized gay marriage. I'm not for it and find it a bit repulsive but I'm honest enough to admit that Defense o Marriage Act's not out of the political mainstream at all.

When they force my child to learn that creationism or whatever they call it is on a par with evolutionary biology, I'll get upset, but I don't see that on the horizon.
Posted by lex 2004-11-14 4:56:14 PM||   2004-11-14 4:56:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 but to get off oil is a long term project that may span 30-40 years. Nah! Nuclear power aint rocket science. In 5 years time the USA could have a nuclear power station a month coming onstream.

BTW, I used to think Zenster was a troll. I'm still not convinced he isn't. The combination of kill-em-all extremist views and Leftist talking points just doesn't convince me he is real.
Posted by phil_b 2004-11-14 5:26:31 PM||   2004-11-14 5:26:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 lex, what do kids and property have to do with "equal protection under the law in all respects to people of all sexual orientations." That's what marriage is about. Sex. Hedonism. Don't muddy the water with talk of kids.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-14 5:32:03 PM||   2004-11-14 5:32:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 #22 Zenster. You have convinced me. There should be no such legal condition as marriage. Leave it to the churches.

Thank you, Mrs. Davis.

#23 so no faith-based morality in governance, huh Zen?

Who said anything about that, Frank? Bush has every right to make his decisions based upon whatever faith he enjoys. He most certainly does not have the right to use his office as a bully pulpit to advance his religious views before those of other faiths.

I'm only opposed to intolerant religions partaking in charity funding from the gov't, and proof that they are doing good work with the funds (auditing, etc.).

While that is certainly your privilege, it does not alter the insurmountable difficulties in assessing and qualifying which religions should or should not receive federal funding. Better that none do at all and thereby preserve the separation of church and state.

I don't want a polity that is free from concepts of good/evil, and those are generally reinforced by religious values.

And, again, who is suggesting such a thing? While your concepts of good and evil may be reinforced by your religious values, such a notion in no way disqualifies the idea that right and wrong or ethical behavior can be derived through rational and logical analysis rather than theological divination.

Further, it is both unjust and ill considered to think that all people should be willing to undergo legal assessment based upon someone else's religious tenets. Belief in the supernatural represents a poor foundation for making legal determinations regarding civil or contract law, which represent a substantial portion of our judicial system's case load.

When they force my child to learn that creationism or whatever they call it is on a par with evolutionary biology, I'll get upset, but I don't see that on the horizon.

lex, you might be interested to know that some school districts are doing exactly that.

Pennsylvania board orders teaching of ‘intelligent design'

Creationism opponents say Grantsburg policy based on religion

The DOMA and Office of Faith Based Giving are direct examples of the camel's nose being stuck into the tent. If the entire animal gains entrance, prepare to be crapped on in a big way. Better to prohibit it now than be stuck shoveling your way out later.
Posted by Zenster 2004-11-14 5:32:55 PM||   2004-11-14 5:32:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Zenster, That post is behind registration, but this at the home town paper is pretty good coverage and there is lots more at the paper's web site, if you're interested. Personally, I think they're wacko, but I suspect this will be worked out politically, which is the best way; not judicially.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-14 5:42:53 PM||   2004-11-14 5:42:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 "you might be interested to know that some school districts are doing exactly that.
Pennsylvania board orders teaching of ‘intelligent design'"

Does that mean that they replaced Theory of Evolution with Theory of Intelligent Design?

If that is the case, off with their heads!

But if it is taught alongside then I don't see a problem. Each theory should stand on its merrit.
Only if the purpose would be to introduce the concept that the ToE is not done deal and there is a lot yet to discover.

Posted by Cornîliës 2004-11-14 5:48:09 PM||   2004-11-14 5:48:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Nuclear power aint rocket science. In 5 years time the USA could have a nuclear power station a month coming onstream.

I agree. As to your "kill-em-all" accusations, please cite even a single instance where I have advocated such a horrific notion, phil_b, or kindly retract your ill-founded assertion.

I strongly advocate instituting a credible deterrent to terrorism and further support a doctrine of military response to countries that knowingly shelter terrorists or permit open propagation of terrorist doctrine.

That I have also predicted how nuclear annihilation may await Islamic countries which refuse to moderate their jihadist factions in no way equates to a "kill-em-all" posture upon my part. I refer you to .com's "fry 'em up" stance if you have any further questions.

So, again, provide some cites or retract your accusations phil_b.
Posted by Zenster 2004-11-14 5:48:12 PM||   2004-11-14 5:48:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 The operative graf from the article I linked is:

The new wording in the curriculum states: “Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s Theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of life will not be taught.”
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-14 5:52:03 PM||   2004-11-14 5:52:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Zenster: "Thank you, Mrs. Davis."

I think that you've missed sarcasm, as clarified further:

"That's what marriage is about. Sex. Hedonism. Don't muddy the water with talk of kids."
Posted by Cornîliës 2004-11-14 5:52:47 PM||   2004-11-14 5:52:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Bush is a Methodist. Hardly a "conservative" Christian sect. Most Baptists are sure any Methodist is going to hell .LOL

Zen your arguments sound like frothing. Calm down.
Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom  2004-11-14 5:54:40 PM|| [http://www.slhess.com]  2004-11-14 5:54:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Actually Cornilies, I agree the government should get out of the marriage business. I find that the government has done little to help families and much to hurt them. I think families represent a threat to the government as they are the last vestige of the pre-government dominated world that retains substantial power. Thus, I would like the government out of anything having to do with marriage, including and especially anything having to do with kids, starting with the state schools.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-14 6:00:08 PM||   2004-11-14 6:00:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 Each theory should stand on its merrit. Only if the purpose would be to introduce the concept that the ToE is not done deal and there is a lot yet to discover.

The problem is that neither creationism nor "intelligent design" (which has been referred to as "creationism dressed up in a shabby tuxedo") have any basis in scientific fact. Evolution does. It is critical that schools teach factually based material in their science classes.

If Judeo-Christian creationism is to be taught, then all other religious theories regarding our world's origin must receive equal time as well. Navajo, Hindu, Shinto and so forth right down to the Church of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Once again, we return to the issue of insurmountable multiplicity.

I urge all of you on the strongest possible terms to read Irving Stone's "The Origin," about Darwin's life and travels. Charles Darwin was originally destined to be a clergyman and only by accident became a naturalist. He felt it was absurd to think that the path and destination of every single raindrop was preordained. Yet he felt quite deeply that evolution was a perfect tool by which a supreme being could arrange the emergence of life on earth. The baseless and vindictive attacks upon his character and reputation by the Church of England absolutely astounded him.

Creationism cannot summon the least bit of empirical evidence to support its theory. It is a subjective explanation made by one particular group of believers which has not one iota of greater validity than similar subjective theories put forth by other groups of equally convinced believers. Unlike evolution, creationism cannot be subjected to the test of disproof and therefore is not entitled to stand as any sort of alternative with respect to biological curiculum.

Just as there are classes in public schools that teach comparative religion, so might there be ones that teach comparative theories of creationism. Creationism neither deserves nor has any rightful place in a science class, just as nuclear physics has no reasonable expectation to be propounded upon in a Sunday sermon.

PS: Thank you for the extra link, Mrs. Davis.
Posted by Zenster 2004-11-14 6:15:16 PM||   2004-11-14 6:15:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 Mrs. Davis, I agree with "families represent a threat to the government as they are the last vestige of the pre-government dominated world that retains substantial power" and "especially anything having to do with kids, starting with the state schools". Add different states' incarnations of Child Abduction Services and such.

However, sometimes governments need to intervene if social trends seem not to prefer family as an organization unit of society. Should be only in beneficial sense though. So far, there was an oppposite trend of govt. interfering with families, leading to hurting families, so yes, that kind of 'help' is not needed.

BTW, I love sex! :-)
(Well, I am from the old school, just to put it in proper context)
Posted by Cornîliës 2004-11-14 6:17:02 PM||   2004-11-14 6:17:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 I suspect a love of sex is one of those qualities that is promoted by natural selection. Another reason to get government out of the marriage business.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-14 6:26:00 PM||   2004-11-14 6:26:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Actually Cornilies, I agree the government should get out of the marriage business. I find that the government has done little to help families and much to hurt them. I think families represent a threat to the government as they are the last vestige of the pre-government dominated world that retains substantial power.

An internesting notion, Mrs. Davis. I certainly wouldn't object if you took a moment to expand upon it in this thread as we are already pretty far afield from the original topic.

Bush is a Methodist. Hardly a "conservative" Christian sect. Most Baptists are sure any Methodist is going to hell.

Sorta reminiscent of how the Sunnis regard the Shiites. Curious. Further, SPoD, if you regard this as froth, consider what this board would look like if America had a Muslim president who was attempting to put in place legislation that was preferential to Islamic law. Now that would be some froth!
Posted by Zenster 2004-11-14 6:26:53 PM||   2004-11-14 6:26:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 #35 Zenster, wish I had time to respond.
Just that some exact stuff I've read many times before. Sounds more like talking points.

Maybe some other time. Just one thing, "Intelligent Design" is a concept, it does not reflect any particular religious creed, Judeo-Christian or Hindu, or whatever. Hence your postulate about insurmountable multiplicity is invalid.

Meanwhile, check these tables and tell me what you think of it.
Posted by Cornîliës 2004-11-14 6:32:13 PM||   2004-11-14 6:32:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 Muslims need to be advised that their very survival hangs in the balance. Outright obliteration is what should await an unreformed Islam. Either forsake the politically active arm of your church of see it reduced to smoking molten glass.

Sounds like kill-em-all to me.
Posted by phil_b 2004-11-14 6:34:45 PM||   2004-11-14 6:34:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 phil_b, well, it is conditional. The other side does not have any such particular qualms.
Posted by Cornîliës 2004-11-14 6:41:47 PM||   2004-11-14 6:41:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 Zenster, To expand on what? That the government is inimical to families? That families are inimical to government? That government over the last 500 years has aggregated power to the detriment of other social institutions?
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-14 6:46:33 PM||   2004-11-14 6:46:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 Maybe some other time. Just one thing, "Intelligent Design" is a concept, it does not reflect any particular religious creed, Judeo-Christian or Hindu, or whatever. Hence your postulate about insurmountable multiplicity is invalid.

My argument vis insurmountable multiplicity deals with pairing creationism along side of biological evolution in a science class. Intelligent design would fit just fine into the curiculum of a course dealing with comparative creationism.

Let's not forget how our entire universe would not exist if any of the major physical constants were changed by even a minute fraction of their actual values.

While intelligent design makes some seemingly attractive claims, it is important to remember how our universe may have been preceded by numerous other iterations that did not have this precise balance of parameters which therefore became unstable and did not survive. Such an explanation has no reliance upon postulating the existence of a supreme being. As Buckminster Fuller said; "Energy flowing through a system tends to organize the system."

The massive theoretical leap required in order to posit the existence of an overarching and sentient consciousness that intentionally "designed" our entire universe demands the same inductive reasoning which belief in the supernatural requires. While it may not be dressed up in the usual regalia of religious trappings it is still in defiance of Occam's razor and thereby suspect.

As a scientific person, I have difficulty in accepting the notion that, "hydrogen is a colorless, odorless, flavorless gas that, given enough time, turns into people." That our 18 billion light-year in diameter universe sprang from a particle no bigger than a proton is mind-bending as well. Much of this verges upon the miraculous. None of it justifies circumventing logic or reason in order to arrive at what may be a more comforting but less adequate description of reality.

Rest assured that the mystic component of human existence does not escape me. Multidimensional existence and human consciousness pose some of the most fabulous conudrums with respect to reality. I just prefer to stick with the facts before until some better ones present themselves.

#41 phil_b, well, it is conditional. The other side does not have any such particular qualms.

Thank you for noticing the conditionality of my statement, Cornîliës. I am referring to what should await an unreformed Islam and not their current population. Islam deserves a chance to survive. If they refuse to expunge their faith of those who seek to commit endless atrocities, then they need to be removed from the equation. Our planet has far better things to do with its time than play hide and seek with a bunch of murderous psychotic fanatics.

Nice try, phil_b, thank you for playing, please try again.

#42 That government over the last 500 years has aggregated power to the detriment of other social institutions?

All very interesting, Mrs. Davis. This is one of the first times I have encountered your (albeit rather obvious) argument in such condensed form. In the case of American democracy, I consider many of the functions it has wrested from other institutions to be of advantage to the average individual. Admittedly, some of that has begun to change with the emergence of nanny-state politics and more recent erosion of the separation between church and state.

So ... let's rewind all the way back to the last cogent reply regarding my assertion that Bush has hamstrung his ability to fight Islamic terrorism due to overemphasizing religiosity.

#14 I think you are reding too much into Bush's reliance on religion. He already steered off the "Abrahamic religions" concept, quietly but perceptibly. I agree with ZF, and maintain that Bush knows the score. It is just a question of strategy and tactics. Bush's poker face should not confuse you, it is for the enemy's consumption.

In light of Bush's inability to clearly label much of this world's terrorism as being Islamic in nature, I still maintain that religious considerations are being permitted to interfere with proper identification of the enemy.

No, we should not seek to polarize the entire affair along religious lines, but the time is long overdue to place the ball squarely back in Islam's court regarding exactly whose responsibility it really is when it comes to fighting terrorism. Until all Muslims make a concerted and noticeable effort to purge their ranks of violent jihadists, Islam must be put on notice that it will be regarded as a political ideology and not a religion.



Posted by Zenster 2004-11-14 7:58:09 PM||   2004-11-14 7:58:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 Zenster, Occam's razor is a tool that very often works, at least in the sense that it helps to formulate a tentative model of reality. It is not a LAW.
Posted by Cornîliës 2004-11-14 8:14:21 PM||   2004-11-14 8:14:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 BTW, did you have a chance to peek at the tables?
Posted by Cornîliës 2004-11-14 8:15:16 PM||   2004-11-14 8:15:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 That's way too on topic for me, Zenster. But as you insist, this is one of those tricky parts of democracy. Bush got a lot of votes because of his religious position. To the extent his position constrains his flexibility is a fact of life. The alternative is not that he have a different position but that John Kery be President. So, is his religious position so bad that it makes me wish Kerry were President? No.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-14 8:20:09 PM||   2004-11-14 8:20:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 Wow, all this without Aris.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-14 8:23:12 PM||   2004-11-14 8:23:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 LOL!
Posted by Cornîliës 2004-11-14 8:24:25 PM||   2004-11-14 8:24:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 Who knows, maybe Aris is tired of awards! Heh.
Posted by Cornîliës 2004-11-14 8:26:41 PM||   2004-11-14 8:26:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 Aris got his ass handed to him yesterday over sarcasm and irony
Posted by Frank G  2004-11-14 8:28:24 PM||   2004-11-14 8:28:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 I think they got a different slant on it at the O Club, Frank.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-14 8:29:59 PM||   2004-11-14 8:29:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 Methodists: Baptists with money.
Posted by mojo  2004-11-14 8:30:11 PM||   2004-11-14 8:30:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 Yes, I did, Cornîliës. It's why I mentioned the delicate balance of physical parameters that control the existence of our universe. That human mitochondrial DNA can be traced back to some of the most primative bacteriological organisms seems to make a pretty solid case for evolution.

I never said that Occam's razor was a law, but that does not dimish its usefulness in paring down all the clutter on cosmology's radar screen.
Posted by Zenster 2004-11-14 8:31:15 PM||   2004-11-14 8:31:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 Wow, all this without Aris.

I'm obliged to admit that I had the exact same thought.
Posted by Zenster 2004-11-14 8:33:16 PM||   2004-11-14 8:33:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 Zen, I take your point about the creationism brigade. Perhaps I need to keep a closer eye on that movement.
Posted by lex 2004-11-14 8:36:29 PM||   2004-11-14 8:36:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 Well, Zenster, and you did not notice something odd beyond "the delicate balance of physical parameters that control the existence of our universe"?

Not saying that it is obvious, but if you look at the table more like an engineer (no preconceived theoretical notions, just the facts), then you may see something... really odd.
Posted by Cornîliës 2004-11-14 8:39:04 PM||   2004-11-14 8:39:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#57 I wouldn't want him banned - he's fun to play with....
Posted by Frank G  2004-11-14 8:40:58 PM||   2004-11-14 8:40:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 Not saying that it is obvious, but if you look at the table more like an engineer (no preconceived theoretical notions, just the facts), then you may see something... really odd.

Cornîliës, I trust you are referring to the conspicuous degree of convergence between all of the species?
Posted by Zenster 2004-11-14 8:46:10 PM||   2004-11-14 8:46:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#59 Zen, I take your point about the creationism brigade.

lex, thank you very much. I have no problem with children being exposed to creationism, but it must never be held up as valid emperical competition for biological evolution. However, I will say that kids should be instructed in critical analysis before being introduced to either subject.
Posted by Zenster 2004-11-14 8:50:33 PM||   2004-11-14 8:50:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#60 Bingo!

Give them tools, not predigested opinions. Teach them to question, critical thinking, scientific method, logic.

As a parent who approached it this way, I am pleased as punch that my daughter, now 25, is smarter, faster, smoother, and a shitload better looking, heh. She'll go as far as she wants - and already demonstrates a greater degree of true peace of mind, a.k.a. happiness than anyone else I've ever known. The Cheshire Cat.

I did a good thing, fairly well. Waay happy.
Posted by .com 2004-11-14 8:59:14 PM||   2004-11-14 8:59:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#61 Zenster, rather the conspicuous degree of equidistance. Now, if I were to apply the Ockham's razor meticulously, two conclusions would result:

1. Either this is a sign of 'intelligent Design'

2. Or our concepts of evolution have some major holes in them.

I tend to pick #2 as a simpler explanation, but there are other oddities that I have no time to mention at the moment, which are even more startling, that I honestly can't exclude #1.

In either case, it is obvious that the tendency to present ToE in its current incarnation as Fact or even as Law are not ...helpful in the scientific sense.
Posted by Cornîliës 2004-11-14 9:01:29 PM||   2004-11-14 9:01:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#62 #60 is the way. That is all I have to say.

:-)
Posted by Cornîliës 2004-11-14 9:03:05 PM||   2004-11-14 9:03:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#63 Give them tools, not predigested opinions. Teach them to question, critical thinking, scientific method, logic.

No argument, .com. These should be among the first things taught in secondary schools instead of the very last (if at all). The damage this does to our country is incalcuable. And people wonder why we have such a dearth of native born scientists and engineers graduating from our universities.
Posted by Zenster 2004-11-14 9:19:15 PM||   2004-11-14 9:19:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#64 Not tired of awards, "Cornilies" -- I've been given that award by idiots of this forum every day here in more than a year. The question was whether you'd call me a "fuckwit" or an "asshat". That wasn't a question that I cared enough about to hold me in suspense.

But tired of being baited (noted two attempts today, once by Robert with "He Who Should Not Be Named" and once here), and perhaps learning when there's no point: If people are even considering the idea of "intelligent design" being taught in *science classes*, then there's no point of connection between us. Might just as well debate same-sex marriage with Islamofascists. Waste of time.

I look forward to hearing how you teach about usage of the horoscope in psychology classes, and your use of tea-leaf readings in meteorology.

Sidenote data point: Since same-sex marriage was mentioned, let me just mention how Massachussets has the lowest divorce rate in the whole of the United States -- that kinda shows which people really care about *actually* "defending marriage", rather than just labelling their actions "Defense of Marriage".
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-11-14 9:29:28 PM||   2004-11-14 9:29:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#65 Amen, Zen. I was temporarily disgusted by the fact that she could solve equations, but was unable to build the equation from a stated problem - i.e. a real world situation. They finally got around to breaking down "word" problems in her freshman and sophmore yeas of HS. Sigh. The kid gets algebra in the 4th grade - and she gets it - and 5-6 long years later she can make use of it outside the classroom. Sigh. It would be something of an understatement to say I was not well-liked by certain teachers, lol. It was a long 12 years.
Posted by .com 2004-11-14 9:31:57 PM||   2004-11-14 9:31:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#66 Aris, I'll make it simple for you:
"The question was whether you'd call me a "fuckwit" or an "asshat"."

How about both?
Posted by Cornîliës 2004-11-14 9:32:06 PM||   2004-11-14 9:32:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#67 They finally got around to breaking down "word" problems in her freshman and sophmore yeas of HS.

The way math is taught on a theoretical basis instead of through applied methodology is nothing short of criminal. I've heard that there are some changes being made about this. They cannot happen too soon. No child of mine will ever be allowed to suffer through the ivory tower math classes I experienced in school. That I vow.
Posted by Zenster 2004-11-14 9:40:11 PM||   2004-11-14 9:40:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#68 Aris!!! I... will... not... be... tempted! ...Aarrgghh!!!
Posted by Tom 2004-11-14 9:43:20 PM||   2004-11-14 9:43:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#69 If people are even considering the idea of "intelligent design" being taught in *science classes*, then there's no point of connection between us.

Aris, my only objection would be that one must try to fight such inanity wherever it arises. Abandoning any attempt to connect with people over the distinction between science and theology hurts science in the long run.

Several months ago at a dinner party, this one airhead woman actually tried to claim that science was just another type of religion.

I narrowly managed to beat the party's host in explaining (in a barely polite tone) how, unlike science, no religion is willing to discard even its most cherished tenets if they can be proven wrong. Nor does science require anything to be accepted solely on faith without due analysis and critical examination.

So long as morons are able to trot out such microencephalic blather as "science is just another type of religion" the good fight must continue.
Posted by Zenster 2004-11-14 9:50:50 PM||   2004-11-14 9:50:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#70 Well, maybe a little bit...
Divorce rates vary by state in part because divorce laws vary by state. For instance, in Nevada (highest divorce rate) a separation for one year is sufficient cause. In other states (Massachusetts for example), separation is not sufficient. And some things are easier to prove than others.
Posted by Tom 2004-11-14 9:50:57 PM||   2004-11-14 9:50:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#71 Cornilies, Tom, further posts of yours that only concern my person and not the thread, why don't you email them to me directly, and thus rid the forum from the problem of flame wars with me? You'll note that, unlike you, I have my email listed. I promise you to be as much of an asshat and a fuckwit through personal correspondance than as I am here.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-11-14 9:53:30 PM||   2004-11-14 9:53:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#72 Aris, my only objection would be that one must try to fight such inanity wherever it arises.

Well, I generally agree with that, but fighting inanity wherever it arises is also the tactic that gets me labelled "fuckwit" and "asshat" in this forum.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-11-14 9:57:59 PM||   2004-11-14 9:57:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#73 Want to know why Aris is correct about divorce but not necessarily marriage? Read Albion's Seed what Lexington Green at Chicago Boyz reasonably called "the single best book on American history I have ever read." I keep recommending that bok because it is that good and applies to so many issues. The ten states with the lowest divorce rates in 1994? Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, North Dakota , Maryland, and Minnesota.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-14 10:02:36 PM||   2004-11-14 10:02:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#74 Good point, Mrs. D. State laws reflect state values. Sorry Aris, my logic fell short.
Posted by Tom 2004-11-14 10:07:58 PM||   2004-11-14 10:07:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#75 Tom, you talk about divorce laws, as if it wasn't the people of those states that created the laws in question.

The point remains that the eeevil blue-state liberal Northern gay-right activists that supposedly want to destroy the institution of marriage -- they seem to divorce less often than the red-state conservative anti-same-sex-marriage South.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-11-14 10:09:44 PM||   2004-11-14 10:09:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#76 Zenster, "science is just another type of religion" is indeed inane.

There, though, is something that has been labeled 'Scientism', a quasi-religious state of mind unwilling to discard even its most cherished tenets if they can be proven wrong. :-)
Sometimes it is a combination of carrier choice and a peer pressure, but then we deal with opportunism, which can be quite religious as well. :-)

Science in itself is a tool to form models of reality, utilize them and make predictions based on this approximation. It is ALWAYS tentative, or should be, else it is not science but faith based belief system.
Posted by Cornîliës 2004-11-14 10:09:55 PM||   2004-11-14 10:09:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#77 Thanks, Tom.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-11-14 10:11:07 PM||   2004-11-14 10:11:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#78 Aris, I wouldn't make too much out of the eeevil blue-states and their marital bliss -- the vote in many states tended to be on the purple side when you look at the actual popular vote. It doesn't correlate well with the divorce rates which actually have a much, much higher degree of variation than purple would suggest. On the other hand, the actual votes re same-sex marriage were pretty "red" everywhere they were held.
Posted by Tom 2004-11-14 10:17:26 PM||   2004-11-14 10:17:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#79 Aris, "fighting inanity wherever it arises is also the tactic that gets me labelled "fuckwit" and "asshat" in this forum."

No one is calling you names because you fight inanity. It is rather the perceived inanity of others, your profound superiority complex, as well as your profound humorectomy (I've rarely seen you making fun of yourself, if ever) that get you the stream of awards.

Otherwise, if these facets of your personality are not up front at rare instances, you are quite a nice guy. :-)
Posted by Cornîliës 2004-11-14 10:27:08 PM||   2004-11-14 10:27:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#80 Cornilies> Superiority complex? I admittedly have contempt for several of the people in this forum -- people like Robert or Frank or .com or Jen (does she post here anymore, btw?) have certainly earned that with their own actions. It's not as if these are my first few threads here -- I've had a long history with these people. And anyone who willingly joins their bandwagon of insults isn't likely to make a good first impression to me either.

I don't make fun of myself? That's probably because here I'm in hostile territory. Not only personally, but also as a European, an EU-phile, a liberal, a person who thought the war on Iraq was stupidity, and several such things.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-11-14 10:43:55 PM||   2004-11-14 10:43:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#81 "contempt for several of the people in this forum -- people like Robert or Frank or .com have certainly earned that with their own actions"

By contradicting to your point of view. How dastardly of them!

"as a European"

I am an European too, though living in NA. Nobody calls me asshat because of it.

"EU-phile"

You'll grow out of it. Once the disconnect between ideal and reality will be so deep that it will hit you over your head. I know my pappenheimers. They'll never disappoint in that regard.

"liberal"

Ditto, once you get mugged, by a thug or by reality. You'd not be the first one.

"person who thought the war on Iraq was stupidity"

That is a serious drawback, and words fail me.
Maybe you grow out of it too. Wait a few years, 5 or 10 maybe, and you'll see it in entirely different light.
Posted by Cornîliës 2004-11-14 11:03:02 PM||   2004-11-14 11:03:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#82 By contradicting your point of view.

No. I assure you, their sins were worse than merely disagreeing with me.

And in relation to the "superiority complex", thanks for telling me I'll simply "grow out of" the things I believe in and you happen not to -- that's so modest and so utterly non-superior of you, thinking that everyone who disagrees with you just has some growing up to do.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-11-14 11:13:51 PM||   2004-11-14 11:13:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#83 There, though, is something that has been labeled 'Scientism', a quasi-religious state of mind unwilling to discard even its most cherished tenets if they can be proven wrong.

Because of the profound insights that empirical analysis has so often provided me, I tend to regard the "unwilling" aspect you mention as just another facet of spiritual materialism. Clinging to whatever outmoded or disproven belief structure is just as damaging, be it scientific or philosophical.

Sometimes it is a combination of carrier choice and a peer pressure, but then we deal with opportunism, which can be quite religious as well.

As a devout capitalist, I have very few problems with opportunism. Those who pinpoint untapped market sectors or an unsatisfied demand for easily provided services and products should be rightfully well rewarded. Predatory business practices and the sadly all-too-common American obsession with unearned wealth, undeserved authority and unmerited fame are other matters entirely.

Individuals who are reticent to alter their game plan (no matter how cherished), especially in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, get short shrift from me. Show me some way to do a job better and I will drop my old method like a live grenade.

Science in itself is a tool to form models of reality, utilize them and make predictions based on this approximation. It is ALWAYS tentative, or should be, else it is not science but faith based belief system.

Like all cutting tools, science (or philosophy for that matter) benefits from being honed against the adamantine surface of an uncompromising quest for excellence. Any softening of that whetstone makes for extremely unsatisfactory results, which is something the Democratic party should be pondering right about now.
Posted by Zenster 2004-11-14 11:21:58 PM||   2004-11-14 11:21:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#84 Aris claims to be "a liberal, a person who thought the war on Iraq was stupidity"

This is the essence of bad faith. There are two problems with Aris's reasoning.

First, containment of Saddam failed because the French and Russians were determined to gut the sanctions and spring Saddam from the US-UK containment box. Unless one favored the Franco-Russian-oilmen's favored policy of doing business with the monster--ie, a true "blood-for-oil" policy-- the only alternative to containment was the policy first articulated by liberal US President Clinton: overthrowing Saddam by force. Containment by late 2002 had fallen apart, and it would have been extraordinarily irresponsible of any US president to have allowed Saddam to rebuild his WMD capabilities with help from Russian mafiosi and rogue FSB agents of the sort who were receiving millions of kickbacks through Dubai and other Oil-for-Fraud money laundering venues. 9/11 or no, a president Al Gore would have reached this conclusion by the end of 2002. Joe Lieberman would have, John McCain would have, any US president would have.

Second, "regime change", as this policy was officially described in an act of law by Congress in the latge 1990s ("regime change in Iraq is the official policy of the United States"), was in fact the true liberal policy option. It was France and Russia who were lining the oilmen's pockets with blood money and propping up the fascist slaughterhouse.

Regime change in Iraq stemmed from the same liberal impulse as regime change in Serbia. As Christopher Hitchens and so many others have pointed out, the war on Iraq was in fact a liberal intervention against a fascist regime no less than the Balkan intervention against that other grand slaughterer in the former Ottoman lands, Milosevic.

It makes utterly no sense to claim to be, on the one hand, "progressive" and hostile to fascism, and on the other hand to argue like a cynical realpolitiker (see Bush's father and his circle of Saudi apologists-- Baker, Scowcroft, Eagleburger et al). This is incoherence or dishonesty or both.

Iraq posed the same challenge to liberals as the slaughter in Kosovo and Bosnia: backward nations, sure, but giving them a shot at democracy by putting an end to a fascist slaughterhouse is noble and necessary work. I would gladly bet anyone who claims to be a "progressive" or "liberal" but is objectively allied with the fascist neck-sawers that Iraq five years from now will be more democratic, more stable and more sane than any nation in the middle east, excepting Israel. And I will assert again that the psuedo-liberals' hatred of US interventions against fascism in the balkans and the middle east has nothing whatsoever in common with real liberalism.

Sincerely,
Lex
Liberal Democrat
Posted by lex 2004-11-14 11:31:19 PM||   2004-11-14 11:31:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#85 Aris, asumptions is your middle name. Sorry for not mentioning it too.

Case in point: "telling me I'll simply "grow out of" the things I believe in and you happen not to"

See, I am applying my life experience here. I grew out of lotsa things I belived in. But once you get a large dose of reality, you start questioning your beliefs. Then you'll have a fun time unlearning your beliefs.

"thinking that everyone who disagrees with you just has some growing up to do."

No. I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me. Neither I require that you agree with me or else. That is more of your domain, in fact.

I am just telling you like it is. :-)
Posted by Cornīliës 2004-11-14 11:32:56 PM||   2004-11-14 11:32:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#86 Zen, "As a devout capitalist, I have very few problems with opportunism. Those who pinpoint untapped market sectors or an unsatisfied demand for easily provided services and products should be rightfully well rewarded. Predatory business practices and the sadly all-too-common American obsession with unearned wealth, undeserved authority and unmerited fame are other matters entirely. Individuals who are reticent to alter their game plan (no matter how cherished), especially in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, get short shrift from me. Show me some way to do a job better and I will drop my old method like a live grenade."

No quarrel here. I meant moral opportunism, or whoreism, to be more specific. Maybe I wuz being too vague. Will you forgive me? :-)

"science (or philosophy for that matter) benefits from being honed against the adamantine surface of an uncompromising quest for excellence"

Agreed. I would add that one of the prerequisites is questioning everything.

You may point out that it may be like reinventing a wheel. My take is when the wheel works, fine, but if you have a glitch, then the theory goes out of window. (It's a simplification, there is always a process to go through, of course).
Posted by Cornīliës 2004-11-14 11:48:22 PM||   2004-11-14 11:48:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#87 lex> I'm not interested in debating the Iraqi War all over again. Yeah, regime change was needed, and violence would probably be the only way to accomplish it. Regime change in *this* country at the *current* time was however stupidity. Franco's regime was also dictatorial, but the Allies didn't attempt to overthrow it when they had a Hitler to fight instead.

I grew out of lotsa things I believed in.

Thank you, so did I.

But once you get a large dose of reality, you start questioning your beliefs.

Yeah, so did I. I've unlearned quite a few beliefs. These are the beliefs I've *currently* ended up with.

But hey, you are just "telling me like it is", right? Not being condescending at all. What a pretty piece of work you are. Atleast when I've shown contempt towards people here or disgust towards their attitudes, I've not made estimations on what their *future* opinions would be. I may be arrogant but I've not yet claimed omniscience of past, present, and future. Unlike, it seems, you.

But since you've started this guessing game, let me guess that you'll only be a conservative until you have to spend your life's savings to pay a surgery for a loved one. Or perhaps your best friend will come out of the closet and you'll end up thinking "Why shouldn't he/she be able to marry the one he/she loves."
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-11-14 11:52:57 PM||   2004-11-14 11:52:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#88 Lex, thanks, you've nailed it, so I don't have to.
Posted by Cornīliës 2004-11-14 11:56:59 PM||   2004-11-14 11:56:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#89 Aris, not sure where you get the conservative. In the political sense, that is. In some other aspects, I tend to conserve, if that makes me a conservative, hell yea!

I am liberal with a sligth tilt right of the center, that is liberal in the old sense. Not a Liberal, which is a misnomer, a cover for socialists to commies. I have no love for them, 30 years under commies was enough for me.

"until you have to spend your life's savings to pay a surgery for a loved one"

Well, if the chioce is waiting list for a surgery so long that my loved one would die, I would rather spend my life savings. However, being a smart ass, I beat the game by acquiring an adequate insurance to cover all contingencies.

"your best friend will come out of the closet and you'll end up thinking "Why shouldn't he/she be able to marry the one he/she loves."

No. I would say, "Why shouldn't he/she be able to live in common law relationship with the one he/she loves".

Once the traditional marriage wall is breached, then polygamy and polyandry adherents would feel they are left out, and it will end up with a lady marrying her horse. You do not want to see this kind of mess.

Let's leave marriage for heterosexual couples, as it has been, since the inception of social structures. There is a reason that this social structure survived for millenia. Whenever it was eroded, the society that allowed it did not survive for long.

Just common sense.
Posted by Cornīliës 2004-11-15 12:25:40 AM||   2004-11-15 12:25:40 AM|| Front Page Top

00:13 Jeper Fliling7193
00:25 Cornīliës
23:56 Cornīliës
23:56 Kirk
23:55 .com
23:52 Aris Katsaris
23:49 .com
23:48 Jame Retief
23:48 Cornīliës
23:48 CrazyFool
23:48 Jame Retief
23:47 Alaska Paul
23:44 Jame Retief
23:41 .com
23:38 Alaska Paul
23:32 Cornīliës
23:32 Grunter
23:32 Zhang Fei
23:31 lex
23:21 Zenster
23:13 Aris Katsaris
23:03 mojo
23:03 lex
23:03 Cornîliës









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com