freecounterpoint: focus

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

focus

AA and AI - we have a pending debate on the reality of the threat that fundamental islam presents to western civ that i'd like to revive.

I have argued that, for all its will to inflict as much damage as possible on us, AQ fails to have the means to do anything more than cause sporadic and symbolic damage.
This is not to minimize the seriousness of events such as the London/Madrid/Bombay bombings of course, but to cast them in the context of what XXth century threats were - warsaw pact, nazis, ... which threatened the existence of every human being on the planet.
I have stated that compared to what this crowd could do, OBL & Co's achievements consituted little more than fireworks and have gotten sly comments after the bombay events (you call these fireworks?) but no substantial arguments.

My contention is that OBL & Co are worthy of special ops interventions but that a full blown war (turning civil in iraq) is overkill and a phenomenal waste of life and treasure.

Recently AA has argued for the threat to other islamic nations but not a word regarding western civ, while ai has stated that this was too long to explain (verbatim!).

Any of you care to make a case for the seriousness of the threat to western civ ?

33 comments:

Tecumseh said...: It's still too long to explain the whole shenbang, but OK, let me be a sport, and give it a (limited) try. I'll focus on just a single point for now, in response to the above:

Nothing wrong with Special Ops -- in fact, I agree that they are much preferable to the blunt and overly destructive instrument that a full-blown war is. Look, I am keenly aware of the proscriptions of St. Augustine (and, for that matter, of the Geneva Conventions) against indiscriminate use of force, and for the need to only wage a just war, when other options have been exausted. And, in fact, I'm pretty sure a lot of what's going on behind the scenes in the shadow fight against AQ involves special ops and the like. Case in point: in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the first boots on the ground in Afghanistan were Delta/Green Berets troops, and they did a superb job, perhaps the best of the whole War on Terror, right then in the late Fall of 2001. But -- and there is always a but in this business -- there comes a time when intel, special ops, etc, is just not enough. One needs to bring in the Hammer -- i.e., the fly boys, the gunboats, the GIs and the Marines -- to really do the job. You don't do that lightly, at the drop of a hat -- but you do it, if really necessary. Case in point: Iraq. Enough said.; 7/19/2006 11:50 PM
Anonymous said...: So much misfires on your post that it is hard enough where to begin, never mind how deep to go . Frankly, I doubt your commitment to seriously answering questions I may pose, or even to bother actually reading what I write.
For example, if you but read what I wrote you wouldna/couldna have said that what I had mentioned was limited to threats to ISLAMIC nations.
Considering nations mentioned in that one piece, Bali is a Hindu island, incorporated into Indonesia only because the Dutch were sick of their colonial mess and caved into threats from Islamic religious leaders on Java and Aceh. It is basically an East Timor with no Australia to care for it. Bringing us to East Timor, a Portuguese colony granted independence in 1975 and promptly attacked by Indonesia. As time went on, and the generals were overthrown, the military acceded to leaving ET, with resistance now coming, again, from Islamic religious leaders, under the principle that once ruled by Islam then ever ruled by Islam. ET is primarily a christian or socialist/secular nation. Although its population is now roughly half what it was when first conquered by Indonesia.
The Phillipinnes, primarily Christian, except for the island of Mindanao, where majority is Islam, with pockets of buddhists, tribal religions, etc..
Thailand, primarily Buddhist, with christians making up the second largest group.
Burma, officially socialist/secular, with a substantial buddhist presence still extant.
India, majority Hindu, with large muslim and growing christian minorities. Traces of Sikh, Jain, Buddhist.
Israel, lots and lots of nasty nasty neocons. Cynthia McKinneys vision of Hell.
As for the muslim nations I mentioned, it was to point out how many such lands are now either openly [e.g Iran, Saudi, Somalia, Sudan] or practically [e.g Pakistan, Lebanon, Indonesia] governed by Jihadists [yes, the Saudis are open about their Jihadism, just go to their websites..it is just our government and oilmen who have made an art of not seeing inconvenient truths]. And how many others are facing a future wherein this may also be their fate. Yes, there is a powerful threat here to whatever in Islam genuinely seeks a moderate modernity. But the point is that these, under the rule of Jihadist, are a threat to us!
Another example, related to the above, is your continued sleight of hand where all this posited as just being a question of Al-Qaeda. As if Al-Qaeda were other than just a relatively recent branching off of the mainstream of Islam Militant. A specific branching off, in fact, of another specific branch, Egypt's Islamic Brotherhood, founded in the 1930s by the young Al-Qutb. For instance, Dr. Zwahiri, the once [?] top lieutenant to Osama, was an operative of the IB, and had faced trial and jail in association with the assassination of Anwar Sadat. In the 1980s he was instrumental in getting Saudi/Whahab funding for the Osama's initial set-up in Afghanistan.
This is a civilizational war between Islam and the rest, as it ever has been with Islam, and to set out as your premiss that this war is "Al_Qaeda" is akin to having considered the struggle between Communism and the rest as in fact just about the Red Brigades or Baeder Meinhoff or Direct Action or the Red Army or the IRA [even if you were to consider them lumped together into "Red Terror", as in fact much was coordinated between them, this would still be a patholigically wrong understanding of what the Cold War was about].
Yes, special ops are often a fine thing against a specific terrorist group, with a base camp in northern Libya and stocked with bearded intellectuals and angry Teutonic gals. In the struggle between visions of the future of the human race, they have extraordinarily limited value.
It is not that we disagree on tactics, it is that we disagree fundamentally as to the nature of the reality we face. If we are going to get anywhere in discussion, it is that Grendel in the Hall we must confront.

ps, am having trouble posting this, so note that "Anonymous" is AA; 7/20/2006 2:27 AM
The Darkroom said...: AA - For example, if you but read what I wrote you wouldna/couldna have said that what I had mentioned was limited to threats to ISLAMIC nations.

yes- i should have said non-western nation instead of islamic. My badly worded point was that you weren't discussing western nations (hence the title of the thread).

Incidentally, what does Burma have to do with this discussion?

This is a civilizational war between Islam and the rest, as it ever has been with Islam, and to set out as your premiss that this war is "Al_Qaeda" is akin to having considered the struggle between Communism and the rest as in fact just about the Red Brigades or Baeder Meinhoff or Direct Action or the Red Army or the IRA

My post (1st sentence) was AA and AI - we have a pending debate on the reality of the threat that fundamental islam presents to western civ.
So far i have assumed that your beef was just with the wackos but does it actually extend to all of islam?

I doubt your commitment to seriously answering questions I may pose, or even to bother actually reading what I write.
On this thread you have spent much time and electronic ink on peripheral issues but have said nothing beyond a restatement of your premise (they are a threat to us). Let's assume I understand that you believe that.
"You aren't truly interested in the debate" has been your shoot, duck and cover answer since before the summer. It suggests to me little more than the possibility that you may be short of arguments.

But the point is that these, under the rule of Jihadist, are a threat to us!
This is what i was hoping you would elaborate on: I am keenly aware of the politico/religious geography facts you have stated due to my poor choice of words.; 7/20/2006 6:33 AM
The Darkroom said...: Ai - what are you talking about: there was no militant islam in iraq until the invasion!

Its existence today in Mesop is one of the greatest blunders of the administration. I realize the counter to that is that "we are bringing them on the battlefield of our choice". But this is poppycock, along the lines of "it's a feature, not a bug". The war on iraq is achieving nothing more than breeding contempt for the west and is, instead of its (current) stated purpose, a formidable PR program awakening jihadist vocations the world around.; 7/20/2006 6:50 AM
Tecumseh said...: AA: Thanks for clearing up the fact that AQ is but a proper subset of what we are facing. In fact, I started writing about this very point in my reply (it was such an obvious sleight of hand, as you say!), but got tired of trying to explain things that seem so obvious to me. At any rate, to adduce but just one more example, think of that little group holed up in Lebanon. Definitely not AQ (though recently feelers seem to have been put out), an definitely not a group that can be eerily be dismissed.

Pepe: That oft repeated mantra of the Left -- there was no AQ in Iraq before the big bad Kapitalist Amerikkka invaded that peaceful country to steal its oil, yada, yada yada -- it's just an urban legend. Of course AQ was there, way before, in cahoots with Saddam. And, they did not have to wait for us to get in there to be mad at us -- they always were, they always will.; 7/20/2006 10:09 AM
The Darkroom said...: Of course AQ was there, way before, in cahoots with Saddam. And, they did not have to wait for us to get in there to be mad at us -- they always were, they always will.

oh right - next thing you know you'll argue that saddam was behind 9/11. You & Cheney are an increasingly rare breed.; 7/20/2006 1:20 PM
Tecumseh said...: It is an established fact that Zarqawi was in Iraq prior to the US invasion -- plotting, running AQ training camps, etc -- all with a wink and a nod from Saddam. For more background on this well-documented AQ-Saddam connection, see here and here, and here.; 7/20/2006 2:03 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: First: What does Burma have to do with this discussion? Why pick Burma, out of the many non-Western nations, to so diss? I had mentioned Burma before, hence...
The whole point Islam puts pressure on the whole of Dar al Harb, not just its north-west frontier. Where in the hell did I say that the existential threat Islam poses is limited to direct assault on old "Christendom"??? Why would you want to pretend that would or should be so?; 7/20/2006 2:47 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Second: It extends to all of Islam Militant, which is "wacko" in my eyes, if not yours, but is as much mainstream to Islam as the Socialist International was to Marxism in the 20th century.
Yes, you mentioned that "pending debate", but then proceeded to continue the rest of the piece, as you have before, referring only to Al-Qaeda. Precisely as if a good cadrist, circa 1982, had talked to some Yank like me about a pending debate on the confontation between Communism and the rest and then proceeded to mock those Yanks oh so fearful and ridiculously exaggerating the threat of Baeder Meinhoff [etc..]. So, your point was??; 7/20/2006 2:54 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Third: Peripheral issues?????????
So you consider the ascendance of Islam Militant, over the Ummah, and its incessant waging of war wherever it touches the lands of the Kufr, for the past decades, a peripheral issue????
Why, because from the viewpoint of Versailles the benighted lands beyond the walls are mere periphery? As if Versailles could remain untouched if all else falls away?? This is precisely what I mean by your lack of seriousness.; 7/20/2006 2:57 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Fourth: Do you think I need an "argument" to get you to simply set aside your congenital distaste for dem Yanks and to start listening to what Islam Militant says and looking at what Islam Militant does???
Africa and Asia are on fire, and have been for at least fourty years, with Islam Militant pushing everywhere it can to advance its agenda, internally to the Ummah to better direct this "divine" mission and externally in directly clobbering the unbelievers. But then, to you, these are not Versailles, so mere periphery. Of course.
What is newer, since the early 90s, is Islam Militant acquiring sufficient confidence in its newfound powers, and sufficient disdain for the West's increasingly apparent weakness of will and spirit, to bring the action in a direction where before they feared to do so.
Are you claiming that the quickly growing Islamic population in Europe is not an existential threat to Europe as it was? If so that would require you to ignore what the Imams & Sheikhs of Europe say each and every day, in their mosques, their madrassahs, and more and more publicly to the face of the Kufr. Do you think that their calls for rule by Sharia are mere posturing? Their honour killings merely a sign of a dysfunctional family? The flexing of muscles of the "Youths" mere sap that needs to rise? Do you think that the fear of entering the bainlieus is simply respect for the Other?
Before we can argue, Pepe, we have to agree on whether we accept the evidence of our eyes and ears. But if you dismiss it all as sham and illusion, and insist on not letting mere facts interfere with your right to epate' les Ricains, then there is no argument under the sun that can penetrate.; 7/20/2006 3:12 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Fifth: There was Militant Islam in Iraq before the invasion. It was in two forms, one useful to Saddam and one dangerous to him. The dangerous kind was the religiously based movements to overthrow Saddam in order to bring in Islamic rule. Saddam, as similarly with Pere Assad in Syria, crushed these with severe and consistent brutality. The useful kind were the organizations which made agreement to work with, rather than confront, the Baath Party the better to attack the common enemy. [the enemy being us, jews, iran, kuwait, kurds, etc...as the case might be]. These organizations, whether nations such as Sudan, Yemen or the Talibans Afghanistan,or such as Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Fatah, Hebzollah, Al-Ansar, Jamaal Islamayat, to mention some specifically found in documents from Iraq and/or publically acknowledged by Saddam when in power, had close ties to Saddams government in funding, of course, but also in the training and support of armed units aimed specifically for terrorist operations [as well as "regular" guerilla war]. Most importantly for the current situation, this included his inviting members of such to set up in Iraq, in that period we dawdled over whether or not to move into it, to set up the fedayeen units and the al-qaeda-sunni cooperation for fighting in the aftermath of american occupation. Zarqawi, for example, was in and out of Iraq many times in this period [2001-2003].
Note that Assad fils also joined in this game, and still plays it well today.
For you to claim that there was no presence of Islam Militant in Iraq, until after the Yanks moved in, is to be wrong on the facts.
You may have another point in mind, however, and so I won't press the issue until you have the chance to explain what you meant.; 7/20/2006 3:30 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: As for "shoot and duck", an apter capture of what passes for pepean argument has never been coined.
I have been a might busy these past few months with things far more personally important than trying to present arguments to one who won't even agree on, or admit to the existent of, the facts on the ground. An argument, if it is to be a genuine argument that seeks to reasonably convince, must know that its premisses are common ground for the other as well. I have kept pointing out, quite extensively at times, events and history which are the necessary background for an argument to begin.
What I get from you is one long "Ha, I don't see it! What is there to see? Now, give me an argument!" Of course, just now, you claim to have at your disposal a keen awareness of "the politico/religious geography facts".
Oh? So, now your stance is that you do see? What, that Al-Qaeda whackos are substantially all there is to this? That Africa and Asia are mere periphery? That one should not judge Islam Militant by what it says and does? That just because a Michael Moore calls Zarqawi a "minuteman" and "freedom fighter" , or a Chomsky expresses his admiration for Islam Militant, it doesn't mean that what they say is what they mean? [so Cheney of one to think otherwise]
Just for a small sample of your output of "choses ridiculeuses", big and small.
Arguments, Pepe, need a foundation other than sand. And right now it is quicksand.; 7/20/2006 3:53 PM
The Darkroom said...: First: i was simply enquiring as to the existence of terror cells in burma as i hadn't heard of any...; 7/20/2006 9:49 PM
The Darkroom said...: third: peripheral to the issue i am trying to raise with you which is the that of the threat to the west.

As if Versailles could remain untouched if all else falls away?? This is precisely what I mean by your lack of seriousness
Trying to ignore the really annoying acrimonious tone, this is actually precisely my point - that you aren't able to argue for the existence of a direct threat and that you instead invoke some sort of domino effect, the mechanism of which is uncertain, which will eventually somehow end western civ. I am not serious ? You are bringing nothing more to the table than extrapolation and paranoia !; 7/20/2006 9:56 PM
The Darkroom said...: Fourth: Do you think I need an "argument" to get you to simply set aside your congenital distaste for dem Yanks

If you are going to make such assertions, please get them right: what you refer to as my distate for the yanks is limited to this administration and what i see as its its myopic and dangerous ideology. It isn't the americans i would like to see defeated in iraq and elsewhere, it is the present american foreign policy ideology and particularly the abject notion and implementation of preemptive war.

I could also retort in kind that the problem isn't my distate for yankees but that it is you that is blinded by a sense of patriotism and that you are doing no more than rationalizing an emotional response to 9/11.

Are you claiming that the quickly growing Islamic population in Europe is not an existential threat to Europe as it was?
I most certainly do not! To state that is like saying that blacks in america as a whole represent a danger because there is a higher criminality in that population. This isn't about islam - but about the poverty and hopelessness that some unscrupulous militants take advantage of.

I need to run but your point 5 seems interesting. more tomorrow; 7/20/2006 10:18 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Again, "terror cells". Is that the sum of your grasp on what Islam Militant has to offer? If it is not in the guise of a terror cell then it can't be a threat?
Look, to bring you up to snuff on that keen awareness of your religious/politico geographical facts you boasted of, the Islamic insurrection which was founded in southern Thailand, about ten years ago, by groups moving in from Indonesia and Malaysia, has since spread to Burma. This is guerilla warfare, backed directly by the mosques and schools set up by, ya guessed it, ever our friends and allies the Saudis. Jemaal Islamayat plays a part in this, and local groups give themselves diverse names, but this is just mainstream Islam doing its war work.; 7/21/2006 4:01 AM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Cogent response on the second; 7/21/2006 4:02 AM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Uh,no, it was I who pointed out your lack of seriousness. If you wish to make a countercharge, fine, and state it as such.
Now, this game you are playing, trying to limit the consideration of the march of Islam just to its northwest frontier, is simply stupid. What I explicitly stated as what I wished to discuss was the resurrection and advancement of Islam Militant, and why the West seems so vulnerable and unserious to the threat in this moment of history. Those are related, but distinct. And the second only makes sense in relation to the first. That you would so badly want to limit things to one arrow WNW makes as much sense as wishing to limit discussion of the struggle between communism and the rest, in the 20th century, to the European theater.
You are simply saying "I shall not see beyond my neighborhood". The rest is periphery, eh? You have made arrogant provinciality into a cult of mind.
The world is not peripheral, and it is not just europe or the USA, and your invocation of "dominos" to mock the view that there is more to this than the local realm is, very much, ridiculous.
I am not sorry you find my tone acrimonious. You have long indulged in acrimony, and I have responded in kind, and this moment sees no reason why I should now care for your sensibilities. You have no qualms in insulting Ricains, and mocking their dead, at every left turn. Your feelings are not my concern, as surely my feelings are not yours.
As for existence of a direct threat, you mean terror cell attacks? By your definition, limiting apriori the notion of threat to organizations set up as terror cells, and having averred that terror acts are no great threat, then sure enough you would be perplexed at the claim of there being a direct threat.
So if I were to point out how the "correlation of forces", by the shift of large parts of the worlds population and resources to control by Islam Militant, combined with the Islamification of the western lands, is a direct threat that is simply "doing its ground work right". You would then simply say "Bah, periphery, dominos, nothing direct about it. Islam in Europe is nothing but "being Black", etc...Which translates simply into "I do not see it. There is nothing to see. etc..
So, by your lights, the 200 year series of "peripheral" movements the newly islamicized mongol/turks made around Constantinople, the taking of remote cities that control waterways, the flowing in of immigrants to Anatolia until one day Byzantium realized that it now was outmanned there and surrendered it almost without struggle, the sweeping around to distant islands and black sea outposts that incrementally strangled the greek lands, all this was not seen as a direct threat to any who cared to look??

As I said before, if we do not have the foundation of agreed on empirical fact, then there is no point whatsoever to setting up an argument. You have your little system, it is dear to you, and you will make sure it has its day. Fine, you will live on it, and you will die on it.; 7/21/2006 4:34 AM
Arelcao Akleos said...: So you do not want to see the Ricains defeated in Iraq, except, because you dislike Bush and preemptive war, you do in fact want to see the Ricains defeated in Iraq? That is your stance?
Also, since preemptive war is such an ugly thing that it can make you want Ricains to get clobbered [even as you do not want Ricains to get clobbered], is it that only reactive war is what you approve of? Or is any war just not good stuff if you have a tough enemy? Or any war at all?
Let's make it a direct question, to see what it is you are for in war...
Was surrender and accomodation to Germany in WWII the right thing? If a French leader, let's say after the takeover of the Sudentenland, had used the "excuse" of German violations of the Treaty of Versailles to enter into preemptive war against Hitler, would that have merited the same wish, on your part, to see France defeated [while, of course, at the same time you would not want France defeated]?; 7/21/2006 4:46 AM
Tecumseh said...: AA: Good rhetorical questions -- you have exposed the inner contradictions of the stance we've been debating. Reminds me of the "I'm against the war, but I support the troops" conceit, so common on the Left. In fact, there could have been a kernel of truth in that stance in the beginning (say in 2003), but by now the positions on the Left have hardened, and basically any pretense of supporting the troops have evaporated, leaving only acrimony and disdain for the boys and girls fighting for us. Next step: calling our soldiers "baby killers" and "Genghis Khans" (as Jean Francois Kerry memorably did years ago), and spitting on them upon their return (as happened when they came back from Vietnam).

At any rate, getting back to the point: There must be a basic premise here that in order to have a meaningful discussion -- basically, that deep down, even if disagreeing on tactics or methods or even strategies, one still cares about our common heritage, and our common future (not to say, our children's future). Allright, I know this sounds all corny (especially to a sophisticated Rive Gauche ear), but sometimes I wonder whether that's still the case...; 7/21/2006 10:43 AM
The Darkroom said...: "I'm against the war, but I support the troops" conceit

If this conceit as you say, is it then ever possible to be against any given war ?

The conceit lies instead in shifting the debate from issues of foreign policy to the emotional level of loss of life among the youth of the nation : "Against the war ? you must therefore wish harm on our troops - have you no human decency ?".; 7/21/2006 10:54 AM
The Darkroom said...: There must be a basic premise here that in order to have a meaningful discussion -- basically, that deep down, even if disagreeing on tactics or methods or even strategies, one still cares about our common heritage, and our common future (not to say, our children's future)

i don't think we have a problem there... the dispute is about the means to do so and the seriousness of the threats.; 7/21/2006 11:03 AM
The Darkroom said...: To caricature, the way i see your position is "look, this guy's robbed the candy store. If we don't hang'im on the spot, cuz the next thing you know he'll be robbing the bank and there'll be a shoot-out." I don't want the bank robbed more than you do but i don't see any merit in hanging the guy.; 7/21/2006 11:08 AM
Tecumseh said...: The conceit lies instead in shifting the debate from issues of foreign policy to the emotional level of loss of life among the youth of the nation : "Against the war ? you must therefore wish harm on our troops - have you no human decency ?".

That's precisely why I said it's a conceit. Of course one can sincerely be against a war, for either moral or practical reasons. Eg, I had doubts about the war against Yugoslavia, both on geo-strategic grounds, and on the way it was conducted, and some of the morality involved. But not for a minute during those many years of fighting did I question the troops (or the Commander in Chief, for that matter) the snarky way the Left is doing now with the war in Iraq. Only the Left has launched the blood libel against the American Army that it is comprised of baby killer and Genghis Khans, not to say of Adolf Hitlers. And of course, only the Left calls the people killed in the Twin Towers "little Eichmanns". Speak of ad-hominem attacks, in the grand Marxist tradition.; 7/21/2006 12:08 PM
The Darkroom said...: But is it acceptable to speak out against a (arbitrary) war ?

The "support the troops" concept is nothing more than a way to introduce an emotional element into foreign policy issues.

The way i see it, you can honestly reason on both levels but not mix the arguments. So if we are in "support the troops" mode, with crying widows and mangled limbs, I want to see the same on the other side: the dead iraqi children during shock and awe, the destroyed innocent families at the same rate as we hear about our own.

If instead we are debating the geopolitical merits of the war, introducing an emotional element clouds judgement - it exemplifies demagoguery.; 7/21/2006 2:03 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Continuing where I was yesterday, before my server went down, onto the claim that the burgeoning Islamic population has some criminality, sure, just like Blacks in Yankland do,[as does everybody] and it is nothing more than a few militants taking advantage of the situation. Two points.
First, even if it were the case of "just a few" militants taking advantage of the situation, why would that not still be dangerous? History is full of examples where a few, taking advantage of opportunity, carried out massive changes.
Second, what do you mean by "a few"? Have you been keeping up with what percentage of Muslims, in Europe and elsewhere, confess to support of Islam Militant [the need for Sharia law, Islam as the governing force over society, the subservient status of non-believers, etc...]?? Have you ever just gone to a Mosque and simply listened for a few hours on a nice friday evening?? Again, you choose to simply not see.; 7/21/2006 5:15 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: So, the one you found "interesting" was simply the one talking about terror organizations that worked with Saddam? You judge your own reaction, but do note that this is not exactly new information. I read reports on this, in Asian newspapers, back in 1998-9.
Amusingly enough, though, its interest does seem to dovetail nicely with your interest in limiting the notion of Islam Militant to terrorists. So, you admire Bush's pathetic description of this conflict as a "War on Terror"??; 7/21/2006 5:19 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Thank you for your response on the question of that putative French PM declaring a preemptive war against Germany after the Sudentenland. It is, in fact, exactly the sort of response you have offered for almost every question I ask you. You are consistent, certainly, and we'll leave to you and Hobbes.
Also consistent is your use of such pithy rejoinders as "ridiculous" and "demaguogery", when the burden of hashing through evidence and answering question is...well, a burden.
As for your "support the troops" riff, I don't know where that arose. The nearest point of contact I can see from what I wrote was noting your remarkable capacity for not being for the defeat of America, except at the same time your dislike of Bush and preemptive war makes you for the defeat of America.
May we assume that your conflicted loyalties would be equally present should you, in your answer to the above question, have said yes to preemptive war?; 7/21/2006 5:30 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: As for your claim to thinking you do not have a problem "there" [caring for "our common heritage" and "our children's future"], pardon me if this sounds un-French, but that--as stated-- is not nearly enough to have a common foundation for argument (although strife can always fill the vacuum). If you do not see the Islamification of Europe [which, in an historical context, is proceedingly extraordinarily rapidly] as a threat to our common heritage, then in fact the heritage you have in mind is not common to me. If you could point to evidence where Islamic immigrants to Europe embrace their new lands, embrace freedom of religion, of speech, of equality of all under secular law, of respect for the rights of man and democracy, of being assimilated into France, Germany, etc... at least in the same way previous movements of people [from Russia, e.g.] have done, then this evidence can be seen by all of us, and we might at last have something in common to discuss.
What we have now is a mountain of evidence in the opposite direction, and evidence that comes from what the leaders of Islam in Europe say and do, and it is there for all to see who but care to look.
You simply state, based on what is never said, that there is nothing to see but "a few militants", and you have simply decided, it seems, that if things seem unruly it must be for good ol' lack of money and not enough empathy from society.
Now I could point, Yes, that for many years Portuguese immigrants filled that undesirable social niche. The terror spawned by these is the stuff of legend, eh? And there is no difference to see between the behavior of muslim, and non-muslim, among African immigrants. And many other things, but you have your will and we both know it will find its way; 7/21/2006 5:54 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Finally, you have made mention of your feelings (or should I say sensibilities?) being challenged by our discourse. Now you wish to claim, that evidence to the contrary, that you stand like a dispassionate Colossus above the stormwaters of feeling below? You wish to have your sensibilities and eat them too?
Look, when you can talk about something being a "threat", or agree that you "care", for example. When you can introduce words such as 'sad", "ridiculous", for example, to describe events or actualities we are discussing. Then you are, mirabile dictu, recognizing the presence of feeling in all this. Shocking.
If one did not value something, such as our common heritage, or the life faced by our children, then there really would be no threat to see. It would be all indifference.
I do see a threat, a powerful threat, to all who would choose to live in a free modernity, from Islam, and the evidence for it lies in the near absence of anything resembling a free society under the many varieties of Islamic rule, conjoined by the forceful reinvigoration of the expansive impulse within that creed. Yes, I value democracy and the fundamental rights of mankind. There is feeling there of which I am unashamed, for which I have and would fight for, and would risk death again for. That feeling motivates powerfully my paying keen attention to the course of events, as I have for many decades. It does not, as you seem to suggest, prejudice the ability to weigh what is out there and to try to understand things as they really are.
Now, presuming that in fact you do value things, and would not wish to see what you value be threatened with destruction, and presuming that you are capable of trying to understand things as they really are, then you too share this capacity to separate the passion [for what you value] from seeing clearly and seeing thoroughly.
But it is not capacities, but our acts and choices, which measure us. We have very little common ground in what we see as being out there in this world, relative to the discussion of Islam Militant, and the only commonality at all, that one can hope for now, is Honest Reason. That is, we can seek clarity as to our premisses, and to how we sample and estimate the evidence of this world, and to insist on no deceit, no subterfuge, as much as consciously possible, in developing a point or expressing an insight or asking a question.
If one day you are ready for such, and only then, a good argument is possible.; 7/21/2006 6:25 PM
The Darkroom said...: AA - I am sorry but your ad hominem tirades and ever-lecturing tone are both impossibly boring.
I was sincerely hoping for an exchange of ideas but your visceral distaste for all things/people liberal prevent you from articulating a complete paragraph on any topic without bringing it back to what your impressions of my modus operandi are. I find this to be unfortunate because, although we clearly disagree on many topics, you are clearly well imformed but the verbal abuse that you can't seem to be mature enough to depart from isn't worth it.
I have no interest in furthering this conversation on these premises.; 7/21/2006 6:49 PM
Tecumseh said...: OK, looks like this particular thread is closed, more-or-less. So let me add a dispassionate codicil.

As usual, the French surrender! Pepe started the discussion, and kept on parrying. AI got in the game, kind of healf-heartdely. AA exhibited superior knowledge, and impeccable logical thinking. In the end, Pepe threw in the towel, sur une boutade.

The moral: it's always gratifying to see how pure reason, given the right circumstances, trumps sophistry. It's a rare thing -- especially in today's world -- but it still happens, once in a blue moon. Le triomphe de la raison!; 7/21/2006 7:42 PM