Is the London attack........

[shanbaum]

Reason and moderation? Right.....................

Thanks for the lesson.

Rep

Refer to my post #62 above. Were these not your statements? Do you not advocate cultural purity? Did you not say that a "backlash" against Islamic culture is "justified"?

[rep]

Would you have removed the military bases on their holy ground if you'd known it would have prevented 9/11? Is this appeasement?

Since you seem to like definitions so much
ap·pease·ment (-pzmnt)
n. 1. a. An act of appeasing.
b. The condition of being appeased.

2. The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.

Once you start down the slippery slope of appeasement to potential enemies there is no end. Any time you conceed to threats of violence you lose and someone else is in control.

A question back to you.
Would you advocate abandoning the defense and foreign aid to Israel if the Islamic terrorist threatend to blow up New York subways if we do not comply?

I addressed rep's point the we Americans are blameless. We are not, IMHO.

Where have I said, any where, any time, any place, that Americans are blameless?
You are making things up again and you are better than that, most of the time.

Rep

[rep]

Refer to my post #62 above. Were these not your statements? Do you not advocate cultural purity? Did you not say that a "backlash" against Islamic culture is "justified"?

so quit posting words I have never used (cultural purity)

Again you are trying to link outlandish views of your own to me.

I posted the statement "The whimsy of cultural diversity may kill us all".
I believe that. When the guidelines for screening individual comming into our country are altered in order to appease liberals striving for cultural diversity. I think we are in extreme danger. That does not advocate cultural purity only reasonable screening.

We are at war remember. It is - us against them. I am advocating that we change strategy that includes those who support, supply, house and feed terrorist who advocate and direct violence agains the US and its interest.

This is not advocating cultural purity unless you feel that terrorist who advocate and direct violence against the US are now a new culture that needs and deserves protecting.

The comments regarding the Japanese and Germans also do not advocate cultural purity. It was a historical reference to those who stated that this is a war different from all others and propose appeasing Islamic terrorist who have sworn to kill us because we won't comply to their political and religious beliefs.

back·lash (bklsh)
n. 1. A sudden or violent backward whipping motion.
2. An antagonistic reaction to a trend, development, or event: "As the backlash against divorce progressed, state legislatures . . . called for a rollback of no-fault divorce laws and even for premarital waiting periods" Walter Kirn.
3. A snarl formed in the part of a fishing line that is wound around the reel.
4. The play resulting from loose connections between gears or other mechanical elements.


Note the second definition. It advocates a legal backlash to a developing trend.

In another post on this thread I stated that Blair would attempt to reintroduce provisions similar to our Patriot Act that were squashed by British liberals prior to the London bombings. It's a backlash, its happening now, but it's not violent and is not advocating cultural purity.



Rep

[shanbaum]

So, let me get this straight: you're not promoting violence when you write, "Call it what you want, I am beginning to believe that this is a "us against them" conflict and it will not be resolved until there is no longer any of "them" willing to lift arms against us. Therefore it's time to change the rules of the game. Raising son's and daughter's to lift arms against Americans and American interest must have a price that has yet to be paid."

What is the "price" you are proposing that must be "paid", how do you propose we eliminate all those "willing to lift arms against us", who do you think they are, and where do you think they are?

[Spexvet]

Spex, you surely see the distinction between Christians using the legal and governmentally-approved means to promote their positions versus using violence, don't you?

Absolutely! But you said "voluntary". To me, this doesn't mean just "not forced to by means or threat of violence". It also means "not compelled by law". Radical fundamentalist conservative Christian extremists, and those who may not be so radical or extreme seem to think that everyone in the US should have the same values that they do, ie Christian. Promoting one's religion is different than imposing one's religion.

[drk]

Spex, Spex:

You live in the US, and we are compelled under the law, regardless of how the law came into effect. There is no need to blame whichever group or philosophy had the influence on the lawmakers. That's the American Way: we elect our lawmakers (or they are appointed by elected officials), and if we don't like it, we vote them out.

If any group promulgated a law and it was ratified fair and square, any opposing group has it's recourse in due time.

You could, of course, be a Libertarian, but then your beef is not really with Christians.

Don't be so scared of the Evangelical Christian Right Wing. They are good for this country, and I truly believe that.

As to Christians imposing their beliefs on others, the only example I can think of would be in regards to life-and-death issues: abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research. Those values are meant to be imposed, for sure, but it's in order to protect someone who is unable to protect themselves. That's not so bad. (I know the disagreement is what the definition of "someone" is, though: Is a fetus a person? How about an Alzheimer's patient who wants to die?)

Otherwise, though, I can't conceive of Evangelicals trying to force anyone to go to church on Sunday, or dress more moderately, or donate more to the poor, or clean up their language.

I can see Evangelicals trying to reduce the profanity, nudity, sexual content, etc. in the media (grocery store checkouts, movies, music, internet, etc.), but that should be completely voluntary and market driven, IMO. If the public wants smut, then they have a right to it, but it ought to be something that doesn't smack your 8 year-old kid in the face every time he/she turns around. We should have the right to be protected from some stuff. I think we may be developing tastes for things that are unhealthy for us, as a society. Profit motive may be out-pacing community responsibility.

Bottom line: Don't murder! And don't tolerate murder. There are certain standards in civilization, and all societies are to be judged by some basic standards that we all agree to. Not many societies advocate terrorism, and as such, all terrorists are to be brought to justice, as are any govenments that support terrorism (Bush Doctrine).

[Spexvet]

Spex, Spex:

You live in the US, and we are compelled under the law, regardless of how the law came into effect. There is no need to blame whichever group or philosophy had the influence on the lawmakers. That's the American Way: we elect our lawmakers (or they are appointed by elected officials), and if we don't like it, we vote them out.

If any group promulgated a law and it was ratified fair and square, any opposing group has it's recourse in due time.

That's fine, just don't call it "voluntary".:cheers:

Don't be so scared of the Evangelical Christian Right Wing. They are good for this country, and I truly believe that.

They Scare Me . They will take away my freedom! :finger: :angry: I don't want to live by their rules.

[Spexvet]

shanbaum][/b]
Refer to my post #62 above. Were these not your statements? Do you not advocate cultural purity? Did you not say that a "backlash" against Islamic culture is "justified"?

so quit posting words I have never used (cultural purity)


Rep

Rep, Robert is only asking questions, the same way you started this thread.

[drk]

From Frontline's website:

Bush Doctrine : The 33-page document presents a bold and comprehensive reformulation of U.S. foreign policy. It outlines a new and muscular American posture in the world -- a posture that will rely on preemption to deal with rogue states and terrorists harboring weapons of mass destruction. It states that America will exploit its military and economic power to encourage "free and open societies." It states for the first time that the U.S. will never allow its military supremacy to be challenged as it was during the Cold War. And the NSS insists that when America's vital interests are at stake, it will act alone, if necessary.

[drk]

They Scare Me . They will take away my freedom! :finger: :angry: I don't want to live by their rules.

That's one of the most honest statements that can be made in a discussion such as this.

Specifically, what is it that you fear you'll lose?

I know just what you're feeling, because I've been there, but if you analyze it, you will probably come to the conclusion that it's more of an emotional fear than a rational one. You are probably 95% in agreement with Christian morals and standards.

Some examples, off the top of my head:
Do not kill
Do not steal
Honor your parents
Turn the other cheek
Don't cheat on your spouse
Don't lust after money (greed)
Help your neighbors


Which Christian beliefs are you opposed to?

[shanbaum]

drk, how do you square "Don't murder! And don't tolerate murder!" with the "Bush doctrine", which, in its willingness to use preemption, risks precisely that? After all, what do you call the deaths that result from a preemptive military strike against an enemy that turns out not to have posed any threat? I mean, that could happen, couldn't it, y'know, theoretically?

[shanbaum]

Some examples, off the top of my head:
Do not kill
Do not steal
Honor your parents
Turn the other cheek
Don't cheat on your spouse
Don't lust after money (greed)
Help your neighbors

'Scuse me! 'Scuse me!

Jewish morals.

(OK, with the exception of the cheek thing).

[drk]

OF COURSE, Shanbaum.

I understand this is touchy to some Jews, but Jesus was born Jewish and all his apostles were Jewish. Jesus deepened or internalized much of the Law, but He upheld it to the highest degree. Western civilization and the whole world has benefitted from the Jews' special relationship with their God, YHWH, the true God.

[shanbaum]

OF COURSE, Shanbaum.

I understand this is touchy to some Jews, but Jesus was born Jewish and all his apostles were Jewish. Jesus deepened or internalized much of the Law, but He upheld it to the highest degree. Western civilization and the whole world has benefitted from the Jews' special relationship with their God, YHWH, the true God.

I was teasing, but that was nice.

[drk]

drk, how do you square "Don't murder! And don't tolerate murder!" with the "Bush doctrine", which, in its willingness to use preemption, risks precisely that? After all, what do you call the deaths that result from a preemptive military strike against an enemy that turns out not to have posed any threat? I mean, that could happen, couldn't it, y'know, theoretically?

This is a critical question, and one I have not heard a completely satisfactory answer to.

It has something to do with an individual's action of murder, and the right of a country, in aggregate, to defend itself.

Obviously, homicide as we all understand it is wrong. Is what the French did to defend their country from invasion murder? Probably not. If you took a strict, personal, Christian stance, though, I would think that if someone is about to stab you in the guts with a bayonnet, and you prayed for them as they eviscerated you (see: "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do"), I think you demonstrate your faith in the Father to everyone's benefit. I think that's actually what God wants, more than us preserving our temporary way of life here on Earth.

Nonetheless, it would NOT be fair for GWB to take a pacifist stance as Commander-in-Chief of the USA, because not many are willing to lay down their lives for their enemies. He is discharging his duty, to the best of his ability, to protect the citizens of this country, and probably the world. "We" voted him in precisely because he seemed better qualified to do so.

[rep]

So, let me get this straight: you're not promoting violence when you write, "Call it what you want, I am beginning to believe that this is a "us against them" conflict and it will not be resolved until there is no longer any of "them" willing to lift arms against us. Therefore it's time to change the rules of the game. Raising son's and daughter's to lift arms against Americans and American interest must have a price that has yet to be paid."

What is the "price" you are proposing that must be "paid", how do you propose we eliminate all those "willing to lift arms against us", who do you think they are, and where do you think they are?

I am absolutely supporting violence and the total elimination of Islamic terrorist!, as I defined them in the previous post. Don't you? If not what's you solution other than submission and appeasement?

What is the "price" you are proposing that must be "paid"

how do you propose we eliminate all those "willing to lift arms against us""

Same answer both questions-

Totally elimination or at least hounding them to the ends of the earth, to the end of time.

who do you think they are, and where do you think they are?

US - Americans and American interest

Them -

terrorist who advocate and direct violence agains the US and its interest

AND

those who support, supply, house and feed those terrorist.

World Wide - including here in the US.

For the example. CNN Just reported the individual the British think is responsible for constructing the bombs in London was recently attending a North Carolina University.

Anothere example. A radical muslum leader in the US was convicted of advocating violence against Americans. He was given life imprisonment when some of his followers took his advise.

Surely your not defending these misguided souls, or are you?

If you read the post again you will recall that I said changing the law is not violent.

Rep

[shanbaum]

Nonetheless, it would NOT be fair for GWB to take a pacifist stance as Commander-in-Chief of the USA, because not many are willing to lay down their lives for their enemies. He is discharging his duty, to the best of his ability, to protect the citizens of this country, and probably the world.

Well, that's an interesting answer, but I take exception to your using preemption and pacifism as antonyms - by which standard, every prior president was a pacifist.

We could probably agree that our collective actions should reflect our collective values, no?

[rep]

From Frontline's website:

Bush Doctrine : The 33-page document presents a bold and comprehensive reformulation of U.S. foreign policy. It outlines a new and muscular American posture in the world -- a posture that will rely on preemption to deal with rogue states and terrorists harboring weapons of mass destruction. It states that America will exploit its military and economic power to encourage "free and open societies." It states for the first time that the U.S. will never allow its military supremacy to be challenged as it was during the Cold War. And the NSS insists that when America's vital interests are at stake, it will act alone, if necessary.

that 9/11 changed American foreign policy forever.

I personally am leaning towards the Isralli methods of retalliation.

Send bombers against our people - we flatten your house like a pancake.

Up close and personal.


Rep

[drk]

Well, that's an interesting answer, but I take exception to your using preemption and pacifism as antonyms - by which standard, every prior president was a pacifist.

We could probably agree that our collective actions should reflect our collective values, no?

I can understand the disagreement with a preemptive policy. We could take a more reactionary approach, and err on the side of caution when it comes to protecting our "image"/diplomatic standing in that part of the world, and caution when preserving foriegn lives. Or, we could take the more aggressive stance that we have, in the hopes that we will err on the side of protecting American lives. That's probably the calculation that has been made, and whether it will work or not will have to play out over the next 4 yrs, at least. It could be a mistake, and lead to more strife and death, or it could be a language that the terrorists understand.

I think after 9/11 the (large) majority was looking for "something" to do to combat the events. GW gave it to them. He was (however narrowly) affirmed in the 2004 election for doing so.

I think our actions should reflect our collective values, like you. It's just becoming more difficult to collectivize anything in America, anymore. It's not just multiculturalism, its primarily because there are two predominant, conflicting, world views in America vying for dominance. These world views are in conflict like never before: Secular humanism is on the rise, and the Judeo-Christian ethic is on the decline.

[shanbaum]

I am absolutely supporting violence and the total elimination of Islamic terrorist!, as I defined them in the previous post. Don't you? If not what's you solution other than submission and appeasement?

Surely your not defending these misguided souls, or are you?

Look, rep, I wish you could make yourself more clear; maybe you wouldn’t sound like such a lunatic. You may not realize that when you spoke of “the whimsy of cultural diversity” – I suspect you meant “the folly of cultural diversity” – you spoke not of an immigration policy, but a social doctrine that holds that diverse societies cannot succeed; that only homogenous ones can.



Now, an immigration policy that seeks to keep terrorists out is only common sense. But how does such a policy work? Do we just close our borders altogether? Is that really practical? Do we not admit swarthy bearded men? What about me? Would such a policy really produce desirable outcomes? One thing we should be able to see from the London bombings is that keeping foreigners out of England would not have prevented the bombings – those guys were born there. Do you think the British should throw out everyone who is not - what - white? (Note: that would be a skinhead idea). Let me guess: you think they should just “throw out the terrorists”? OK. All we need is a terrorist detector. Wouldn’t that solve a mess o’ troubles?



Likewise, it’s only common sense to have a policy of finding terrorists and neutralizing them. However, were you to spend a little more time reflecting on the practicalities of the task, you would realize that “eliminating all terrorists” is really not something that translates directly into action; nor is “hounding them to the ends of the Earth, and for all time” – in fact, the two aren’t really even the same class of object. The former is an objective, and the latter would be a tactic, if it were anything more than rhetoric (that is, how, exactly, does one do that?). It’s certainly not a given that the objective of “eliminating all terrorists” is well-promoted by trying to inflict extreme pain on even just the terrorists – after all, threatening a suicidal maniac with death isn’t likely to be particularly compelling, is it? I think he’s really not going to be persuaded by such a threat. And threatening harm to the people around the terrorists is almost certain to be counter-productive. If they weren’t inclined to the dark side before, they will be after. Unless, of course, they’re dead, in which case, their next of kin seek vengeance. Do you see why it’s a vicious cycle?



And while there might be something real satisfying about “the Israeli solution”, it really hasn’t worked particularly well for Israel.



You seem very angry and frustrated, and you direct that anger and frustration at “liberals” who want to appease the enemy. Well, no one wants to appease the enemy, at least, I’ve never heard of anyone who does. I certainly don’t. That’s one reason I oppose Bush’s approach – I think he’s giving the enemy exactly what he wants, and is in fact creating more terrorists in the process (which, of course, was bin Laden’s objective). Now, that’s just my opinion, but I think it’s a reasonably thoughtful one. It’s not a particularly satisfying one, from an emotional standpoint. The emotionally-satisfying approach is to invade, and kill, and wreak vengeance. But I don’t think that vengeance is going to produce the desired outcome – in fact, I think it’s going to produce something like the opposite of the desired outcome, as it usually does. I think that if we lose our sense of compassion, and lose our respect for the value of the lives of our fellow human beings – whether they are just like us (and I use that term loosely) or not - then there will be no “Christian-nurtured culture” worth having. And to me, that sounds like defeat, no matter how many bad guys we kill.



“Not killing” is not the same as “appeasing”. It may well be the case that the only way to defeat this enemy is by stealth and guile. And even if it’s not the only way, it may be the better way.



Now, if I heard you wrong, and you weren’t advocating cultural homogeneity, and you weren’t advocating tactics certain to result in the killing of innocent people, then I apologize. But if that’s the case, then I have no idea what you were trying, and failing, to say.

[rep]

How about answering a few of my questions?

• What do you think the Islamic terrorist want from us?
• If screening for Islamic terrorist is "only common sense". How do you propose to accomplish this task since your previous post state that you are opposed to pre-emptive strikes and effective screening?
• Explain your specific tactics using stealth and guile in defeating terrorism - your -------better way of protecting America.

Calling those who differ with your political position; lunatics, deeply disturbed, warped and twisted, borderline skinheads, extremist and my personal favorite Nazi-like, suggest that you, not I, are angry and frustrated and I will add emotional to boot.



Rep

[rsandr]

that 9/11 changed American foreign policy forever.

I personally am leaning towards the Isralli methods of retalliation.

Send bombers against our people - we flatten your house like a pancake.

Up close and personal.


Rep

Why do you not want to be better than the bombers Rep?
Iraq is hardly more peaceful since we flattened their house like a pancake is it?

Rick

[chip anderson]

Shouldn't someone remind the terrorists and (appearentlly the Chinese after yesterday) that no one builds a better bomb than the United States?

[rsandr]

Shouldn't someone remind the terrorists and (appearentlly the Chinese after yesterday) that no one builds a better bomb than the United States?

Must make you proud to be American.

Rick

[spartus]

Must make you proud to be American.

Rick

We also make a pretty mean cheeseburger. I think I'm slightly prouder of that right now.

Then again, I skipped lunch.