[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Because as we ALL KNOW, there are no Muslim extremists in Canada or America.

none.

There certainly are – just as are there are extremists of every kind, in every nation. One would think, though, that the conspicuous absence of almost any terrorist actions whatsoever in the past five years would be a hint just how dangerous and/or competent these "Muslim extremists in North America" really are, hmmm?

greg

[marden]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

There certainly are – just as are there are extremists of every kind, in every nation. One would think, though, that the conspicuous absence of almost any terrorist actions whatsoever in the past five years would be a hint just how dangerous and/or competent these "Muslim extremists in North America" really are, hmmm?

greg

You are showing real progress, greg. But please be aware of the fact that the jihadists might have another reason for not attacking America.

They COULD:

Have been deterred by the Homeland Security efforts.

Have decided NOT to attack America at this stage of the game.

Still be in the preparation stage.

It's interesting that you have moved a half step up the reality scale to rest at your current reading of the situation. Your previous position, that there was no threat at all, was a BIG ZERO.

[aristotles]

I have been trying to say this before. This is a clash of cultures. The Muslim world in the middle east cannot be reasoned with in the same way as you can with western cultures. They have different values, rules and definitions of what is right and wrong.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by marden 

It's interesting that you have moved a half step up the reality scale to rest at your current reading of the situation. Your previous position, that there was no threat at all, was a BIG ZERO.

I've never said that there was no threat at all, abe. That statement it inherently false if one considers the statement logically; after all, there is always some level of threat. It is only a matter of determining the cutoff for an acceptable threat level.

You are showing real progress, greg. But please be aware of the fact that the jihadists might have another reason for not attacking America.

They COULD:

Have been deterred by the Homeland Security efforts.

Have decided NOT to attack America at this stage of the game.

Still be in the preparation stage.

These possibilities are, to me, easily rebuttable.

1. They could have been deterred by the Homeland Security efforts.
We've discussed this before. While I'm sure Homeland Security has made it more difficult for would-be terrorists, to think that it has a large enough impact to deter all terrorist efforts is ridiculous. Consider Israel, which has a far more extensive and well-run security apparatus; even it is unable to stop terrorist attacks on a regular basis!

It might be more difficult for terrorists to enter the US, but it sure as hell isn't anything close to impossible. There are 300 million legal entries by foreigners each year, and illegal crossings number between 1,000 and 4,000 a day. You can consider the enormous amount of illegal drugs that continues to flow into despite years and years of a well-funded "War on Drugs."

Intelligence estimates in 2002 said there were as many as 5000 al Qaeda terrorists and supporters in the US; as of 2005, no sleeper cells had been identified and only a couple "bad guys" had been arrested. From all the surveillance and spy programs monitoring international communications, fewer than 10 US citizens per year have warranted enough suspicion to have their domestic communications screened as well; none of them have apparently been indicted on any charge.

Every year, some 30,000 "national security letters" are issued without any judicial review, forcing businesses and other institutions to disclose confidential information about their customers without telling anyone they have done so. Some 80,000 Arab/Muslim immigrants have been fingerprinted/registered, another 8000 called in for FBI interviews, and over 5000 foreign nationals have been imprisoned in terrorism-prevention initiatives. This has not resulted in the conviction of a single crime. Only a few people picked up on terrorism charges have been convicted at all, and almost all of these have been for unrelated infractions (usually immigration violations).

2. They could have decided NOT to attack America at this stage of the game.
You can also see al-Qaeda bombings in Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom in the past few years. Clearly the terrorist group and its operations are still alive, as we know. Apparently America is the "Great Satan" of the world and must be destroyed by the many jihadists in the Middle East, according to a lot of recent threads here (some by yourself). Wouldn't at least some of these people decide to take on America? It seems highly unlikely that they're all being coordinated by a single identity that makes up rules like "no Jihadist can attack the US!"

3. They could still be in the preparation stage.
9/11 took two years to prepare. The 2004 Madrid attacks were conceived, planned from scratch, and executed within six months. Timothy McVeigh's 1995 Oklahoma City bombings took less than a year to plan.

Considering it's been over 5 years since 9/11, and the "extreme provocation" (from their perspective) of America attacking both Afghanistan and Iraq, wouldn't you think that the "planning stage" would be over with by now? Or maybe stepped up even a little? Hmm? I mean, the wonderfulness of that whole idea is its circular ability to self-perpetuate; the perpetrators can be in the "planning stage" forever if you want them to be.

There's no question there's some level of threat. The terrorist plot foiled in Toronto this summer is evidence of that. Of course, those terrorists were exactly the opposite of the crafty enemy that is apparently hiding in the shadows, waiting to destructively pounce when we are weakest; they were as bumbling as they come!

To conclude with the words of John Mueller, who I took much of this post from:

But while keeping such potential dangers in mind, it is worth remembering that the total number of people killed since 9/11 by al Qaeda or al Qaeda­like operatives outside of Afghanistan and Iraq is not much higher than the number who drown in bathtubs in the United States in a single year, and that the lifetime chance of an American being killed by international terrorism is about one in 80,000 -- about the same chance of being killed by a comet or a meteor. Even if there were a 9/11-scale attack every three months for the next five years, the likelihood that an individual American would number among the dead would be two hundredths of a percent (or one in 5,000).

Although it remains heretical to say so, the evidence so far suggests that fears of the omnipotent terrorist -- reminiscent of those inspired by images of the 20-foot-tall Japanese after Pearl Harbor or the 20-foot-tall Communists at various points in the Cold War (particularly after Sputnik) -- may have been overblown, the threat presented within the United States by al Qaeda greatly exaggerated. The massive and expensive homeland security apparatus erected since 9/11 may be persecuting some, spying on many, inconveniencing most, and taxing all to defend the United States against an enemy that scarcely exists.

greg

[King Bob On The Cob]

The thing is, they don't have many supporters in the US compared to overall numbers, so they need to do something flashy to get their message across and make people scared (9/11). These flashy grand exits usually take quite a bit of planning, so it becomes easier to catch people plotting these attacks.

Bomb a bus here, the people with the power won't care, they have their own automobiles so they're missing the huge psychological effect that they're hoping for.

[marden]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I've never said that there was no threat at all, abe. That statement it inherently false if one considers the statement logically; after all, there is always some level of threat. It is only a matter of determining the cutoff for an acceptable threat level.


These possibilities are, to me, easily rebuttable.

1. They could have been deterred by the Homeland Security efforts.
We've discussed this before. While I'm sure Homeland Security has made it more difficult for would-be terrorists, to think that it has a large enough impact to deter all terrorist efforts is ridiculous. Consider Israel, which has a far more extensive and well-run security apparatus; even it is unable to stop terrorist attacks on a regular basis!

It might be more difficult for terrorists to enter the US, but it sure as hell isn't anything close to impossible. There are 300 million legal entries by foreigners each year, and illegal crossings number between 1,000 and 4,000 a day. You can consider the enormous amount of illegal drugs that continues to flow into despite years and years of a well-funded "War on Drugs."

Intelligence estimates in 2002 said there were as many as 5000 al Qaeda terrorists and supporters in the US; as of 2005, no sleeper cells had been identified and only a couple "bad guys" had been arrested. From all the surveillance and spy programs monitoring international communications, fewer than 10 US citizens per year have warranted enough suspicion to have their domestic communications screened as well; none of them have apparently been indicted on any charge.

Every year, some 30,000 "national security letters" are issued without any judicial review, forcing businesses and other institutions to disclose confidential information about their customers without telling anyone they have done so. Some 80,000 Arab/Muslim immigrants have been fingerprinted/registered, another 8000 called in for FBI interviews, and over 5000 foreign nationals have been imprisoned in terrorism-prevention initiatives. This has not resulted in the conviction of a single crime. Only a few people picked up on terrorism charges have been convicted at all, and almost all of these have been for unrelated infractions (usually immigration violations).

2. They could have decided NOT to attack America at this stage of the game.
You can also see al-Qaeda bombings in Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom in the past few years. Clearly the terrorist group and its operations are still alive, as we know. Apparently America is the "Great Satan" of the world and must be destroyed by the many jihadists in the Middle East, according to a lot of recent threads here (some by yourself). Wouldn't at least some of these people decide to take on America? It seems highly unlikely that they're all being coordinated by a single identity that makes up rules like "no Jihadist can attack the US!"

3. They could still be in the preparation stage.
9/11 took two years to prepare. The 2004 Madrid attacks were conceived, planned from scratch, and executed within six months. Timothy McVeigh's 1995 Oklahoma City bombings took less than a year to plan.

Considering it's been over 5 years since 9/11, and the "extreme provocation" (from their perspective) of America attacking both Afghanistan and Iraq, wouldn't you think that the "planning stage" would be over with by now? Or maybe stepped up even a little? Hmm? I mean, the wonderfulness of that whole idea is its circular ability to self-perpetuate; the perpetrators can be in the "planning stage" forever if you want them to be.

There's no question there's some level of threat. The terrorist plot foiled in Toronto this summer is evidence of that. Of course, those terrorists were exactly the opposite of the crafty enemy that is apparently hiding in the shadows, waiting to destructively pounce when we are weakest; they were as bumbling as they come!

To conclude with the words of John Mueller, who I took much of this post from:


greg

Astaire Dancing: The Musical Films (ISBN: 0394516540)
Mueller, John
Bookseller: Film Books by Ted Henry
(St. Paul, MN, U.S.A.) Price: US$ 32.00
[Convert Currency]
Quantity: 1 Shipping within U.S.A.:
US$ 3.50
[Rates & Speeds]
Book Description: Knopf, NY 1985, 1st, 1985. (Astaire, Fred) [Every dance Fred ever did on film is broken down by author, with photos--best Astaire book ever!] 440 pg. Oversize. Fine/Fine. Bookseller Inventory # UR3007

Abebooks Search Results - ISBN 0394516540

Wow. He sure seems to love Fred Astaire, doesn't he?

[Ron Goodman]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Because as we ALL KNOW, there are no Muslim extremists in Canada or America.

none.

There probably ae some Muslim extremists here and in Canada, who would, given the chance, kill people and destroy property. What they can't do is win elections, pass laws, propose budgets, or do much else other than frighten people. There are demographic and immigration trends in Western Europe that could, at least theoretically, allow Islam to attain some measure of actual political power there. I'm still waiting for a scenario in which they could ever hope to do anything similar here. I'll continue to worry about Religious Right, thanks very much.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Ron Goodman 

There probably ae some Muslim extremists here and in Canada, who would, given the chance, kill people and destroy property. What they can't do is win elections, pass laws, propose budgets, or do much else other than frighten people. There are demographic and immigration trends in Western Europe that could, at least theoretically, allow Islam to attain some measure of actual political power there. I'm still waiting for a scenario in which they could ever hope to do anything similar here. I'll continue to worry about Religious Right, thanks very much.

I don't believe you or greg know what methods of attack might bring about a weakening of America and I don't think you have given much thought to the actual damage an event like 9/11 caused.

It seems that some of you don't mind having America assaulted or assailed and harm or damage being done to this country or XXXX numbers of citizens killed or wounded in one or a thousand attacks of any variety just as long as you believe you will survive unscathed.

[Ron Goodman]

The biggest damage 9/11 did has been secret prisons, government sanctioned torture, warrentless wiretaps, suspensions of habeus corpus for "enemy combatents", the war in Iraq, and the raw fear that you display here every day. Those Saudis flying those planes didn't do that to us. We did.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Ron Goodman 

The biggest damage 9/11 did has been secret prisons, government sanctioned torture, warrentless wiretaps, suspensions of habeus corpus for "enemy combatents", the war in Iraq, and the raw fear that you display here every day. Those Saudis flying those planes didn't do that to us. We did.

I believe some people naturally gravitate to that which can't easily be proven. Until we landed on the moon the belief that it was made of some kind of cheese might have been such a theory not easily proven. But since it is no longer an option a few misguided folks have found one that says the threat is overstated.

Here's a VERY interesting article, only some of which I post here called, "Nuclear Jihad."

Amir Taheri:

"Last Monday, just before he announced that Iran had gatecrashed "the nuclear club", President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad disappeared for several hours. He was having a khalvat (tête-à-tête) with the Hidden Imam, the 12th and last of the imams of Shiism who went into "grand occultation" in 941.

According to Shia lore, the Imam is a messianic figure who, although in hiding, remains the true Sovereign of the World. In every generation, the Imam chooses 36 men, (and, for obvious reasons, no women) naming them the owtad or "nails", whose presence, hammered into mankind's existence, prevents the universe from "falling off". Although the "nails" are not known to common mortals, it is, at times, possible to identify one thanks to his deeds. It is on that basis that some of Ahmad-inejad's more passionate admirers insist that he is a "nail", a claim he has not discouraged. For example, he has claimed that last September, as he addressed the United Nations' General Assembly in New York, the "Hidden Imam drenched the place in a sweet light".

Last year, it was after another khalvat that Ahmadinejad announced his intention to stand for president. Now, he boasts that the Imam gave him the presidency for a single task: provoking a "clash of civilisations" in which the Muslim world, led by Iran, takes on the "infidel" West, led by the United States, and defeats it in a slow but prolonged contest that, in military jargon, sounds like a low intensity, asymmetrical war.

In Ahmadinejad's analysis, the rising Islamic "superpower" has decisive advantages over the infidel. Islam has four times as many young men of fighting age as the West, with its ageing populations. Hundreds of millions of Muslim "ghazis" (holy raiders) are keen to become martyrs while the infidel youths, loving life and fearing death, hate to fight. Islam also has four-fifths of the world's oil reserves, and so controls the lifeblood of the infidel. More importantly, the US, the only infidel power still capable of fighting, is hated by most other nations.

According to this analysis, spelled out in commentaries by Ahmadinejad's strategic guru, Hassan Abassi, known as the "Dr Kissinger of Islam", President George W Bush is an aberration, an exception to a rule under which all American presidents since Truman, when faced with serious setbacks abroad, have "run away". Iran's current strategy, therefore, is to wait Bush out. And that, by "divine coincidence", corresponds to the time Iran needs to develop its nuclear arsenal, thus matching the only advantage that the infidel enjoys.

Moments after Ahmadinejad announced "the atomic miracle", the head of the Iranian nuclear project, Ghulamreza Aghazadeh, unveiled plans for manufacturing 54,000 centrifuges, to enrich enough uranium for hundreds of nuclear warheads. "We are going into mass production," he boasted.

All Things Beautiful: "Nuclear Jihad"

[ink]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

As an optimist, I believe moderation is beginning to make its move. I believe calmer heads will prevail at least in the sense of reformation and enlightenment. They are becoming increasingly courageous. They are becoming increasingly vocal. I believe what follows is an increasing vigilance against those who would bastardize the religion of many followers for the agenda of a few "leaders".

I agree, and I believe we need calmer heads in the west to compliment and foster that moderation. I like Glenn Beck, but it's difficult to correctly define where western action creates more problems than it is solves. His call for WW3 is a bit premature, in my opinion.

If Iran thinks it can successfully wage a nuclear war, then they are insane. The only result will be a new radiation zone formerly known as the nation of Iran. Their culture will be erased, and their cause will be lost.

That cartoon reminded me of GI Joe.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

The thing is, they don't have many supporters in the US compared to overall numbers, so they need to do something flashy to get their message across and make people scared (9/11). These flashy grand exits usually take quite a bit of planning, so it becomes easier to catch people plotting these attacks.

Bomb a bus here, the people with the power won't care, they have their own automobiles so they're missing the huge psychological effect that they're hoping for.

Did you even read my post? Trains/subways were bombed in both Spain and London, didn't take terribly long to plan, and were executed after the worldwide "terrorist threat" had been identified. I fail to see how this is any different in the United States, and it's been 5 years since our last terrorist threat (ie. 9/11). Pop quiz: when was the last terrorist threat before that? Answer: also 5 years before 9/11. Has anything changed? Have we seen an increase in terrorist threats against North America because of this "mass-appeal Jihad" going on in the ME?

Originally Posted by marden

I don't believe you or greg know what methods of attack might bring about a weakening of America and I don't think you have given much thought to the actual damage an event like 9/11 caused.

It seems that some of you don't mind having America assaulted or assailed and harm or damage being done to this country or XXXX numbers of citizens killed or wounded in one or a thousand attacks of any variety just as long as you believe you will survive unscathed.

What actual damage did 9/11 cause? Many lives were lost, it's true. Many families were hurt. Many people had security fears. A not-insignificant amount of money was lost. America became united, presenting a solid front of righteous anger to the world. And now, 5 years later, I don't see much about a "weakening of America"; I see less of a solid, united front, but that has far less to do with terrorism than unhappiness over the government's responses to said terrorism.

At what point is it pragmatic to talk about "damage being done to this country"? Is 5 people killed every year worth the billions of dollars being spent to increase government encroachment into our lives and even homes? 50? 2500 every 10 years? None? There has to be some acceptable threat level where, as Mueller points out, we can say "Alright, now more people are drowning in bathtubs than dying in terrorist attacks on America. Can we throw a couple billion into cancer or heart disease or environmental concerns now?"

greg

[marden]

Originally Posted by ink 

I agree, and I believe we need calmer heads in the west to compliment and foster that moderation. I like Glenn Beck, but it's difficult to correctly define where western action creates more problems than it is solves. His call for WW3 is a bit premature, in my opinion.

If Iran thinks it can successfully wage a nuclear war, then they are insane. The only result will be a new radiation zone formerly known as the nation of Iran. Their culture will be erased, and their cause will be lost.

That cartoon reminded me of GI Joe.

I'll say it again and hope you catch it this time.

THEY DON'T MIND BRINGING THE WORLD TO AN END.

This will help explain what and why I can say such a remarkable thing.

From the post above yours.

Amir Taheri:

"Last Monday, just before he announced that Iran had gatecrashed "the nuclear club", President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad disappeared for several hours. He was having a khalvat (tête-à-tête) with the Hidden Imam, the 12th and last of the imams of Shiism who went into "grand occultation" in 941.

According to Shia lore, the Imam is a messianic figure who, although in hiding, remains the true Sovereign of the World. In every generation, the Imam chooses 36 men, (and, for obvious reasons, no women) naming them the owtad or "nails", whose presence, hammered into mankind's existence, prevents the universe from "falling off". Although the "nails" are not known to common mortals, it is, at times, possible to identify one thanks to his deeds. It is on that basis that some of Ahmad-inejad's more passionate admirers insist that he is a "nail", a claim he has not discouraged. For example, he has claimed that last September, as he addressed the United Nations' General Assembly in New York, the "Hidden Imam drenched the place in a sweet light".

Last year, it was after another khalvat that Ahmadinejad announced his intention to stand for president. Now, he boasts that the Imam gave him the presidency for a single task: provoking a "clash of civilisations" in which the Muslim world, led by Iran, takes on the "infidel" West, led by the United States, and defeats it in a slow but prolonged contest that, in military jargon, sounds like a low intensity, asymmetrical war.

In Ahmadinejad's analysis, the rising Islamic "superpower" has decisive advantages over the infidel. Islam has four times as many young men of fighting age as the West, with its ageing populations. Hundreds of millions of Muslim "ghazis" (holy raiders) are keen to become martyrs while the infidel youths, loving life and fearing death, hate to fight. Islam also has four-fifths of the world's oil reserves, and so controls the lifeblood of the infidel. More importantly, the US, the only infidel power still capable of fighting, is hated by most other nations.

According to this analysis, spelled out in commentaries by Ahmadinejad's strategic guru, Hassan Abassi, known as the "Dr Kissinger of Islam", President George W Bush is an aberration, an exception to a rule under which all American presidents since Truman, when faced with serious setbacks abroad, have "run away". Iran's current strategy, therefore, is to wait Bush out. And that, by "divine coincidence", corresponds to the time Iran needs to develop its nuclear arsenal, thus matching the only advantage that the infidel enjoys.

Moments after Ahmadinejad announced "the atomic miracle", the head of the Iranian nuclear project, Ghulamreza Aghazadeh, unveiled plans for manufacturing 54,000 centrifuges, to enrich enough uranium for hundreds of nuclear warheads. "We are going into mass production," he boasted.

All Things Beautiful: "Nuclear Jihad"[/QUOTE]

If you TRULY believed that Jesus would come back to Earth and make everyone see that He was the true Savior and he would then usher all good Christians directly to heaven but this could ONLY happen if there was a great worldwide cataclysm and that YOU could help bring this about, would you care if you lived or brought back Jesus?

No.

No matter what you did it would be good.

That is what Ahmadinejad believes. If he's allowed to get nuclear weapons and he destroys Israel and then becomes THE leader of the Islamic world and the entire M.E. he wins.

If he starts WW4 and the US is unable to win without using weapons of mass destruction but it does not kill all the Muslims in the world they will continue to defend the religion until a worldwide Islamic government is established, he wins.

If somehow or another we can get through the looming crisis but Islamic reproduction patterns insure a global Caliphate will be assured in xx number of years, he wins. (Although he may not be around to see it.)

If he prompts us to attack Iran and he gets the Muslims around the world to rise up to defend their Muslim brothers or Islam itself (depending on what he can convince the Ummah to believe) he can bring about a total Global Thermonuclear War and a Holy War against the west.

And even if Iran loses, he believes it will bring back the 12th Imam. So, in his mind, he wins.

Now. Tell us again how their cause would be lost.

[marden]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Did you even read my post? Trains/subways were bombed in both Spain and London, didn't take terribly long to plan, and were executed after the worldwide "terrorist threat" had been identified. I fail to see how this is any different in the United States, and it's been 5 years since our last terrorist threat (ie. 9/11). Pop quiz: when was the last terrorist threat before that? Answer: also 5 years before 9/11. Has anything changed? Have we seen an increase in terrorist threats against North America because of this "mass-appeal Jihad" going on in the ME?


What actual damage did 9/11 cause? Many lives were lost, it's true. Many families were hurt. Many people had security fears. A not-insignificant amount of money was lost. America became united, presenting a solid front of righteous anger to the world. And now, 5 years later, I don't see much about a "weakening of America"; I see less of a solid, united front, but that has far less to do with terrorism than unhappiness over the government's responses to said terrorism.

At what point is it pragmatic to talk about "damage being done to this country"? Is 5 people killed every year worth the billions of dollars being spent to increase government encroachment into our lives and even homes? 50? 2500 every 10 years? None? There has to be some acceptable threat level where, as Mueller points out, we can say "Alright, now more people are drowning in bathtubs than dying in terrorist attacks on America. Can we throw a couple billion into cancer or heart disease or environmental concerns now?"

greg

Ok. You win. Now, to prove your point why don't you leave your doors and windows unlocked and publish or broadcast to me that you aren't going to bow to the threat of my burglarizing your dwelling. You are just going to do what you have been doing all along and allow me freedom to lay siege upon your defenses while you smile and act superior and defiant.

You won't be smiling for long.

As I pointed out in another thread, your argument depends SOLELY on past events predicting FUTURE events.

And of course that is not how life works.

The moment a person does something they have never done before, your argument is disproved.

You can't look at what happened yesterday and logically say that nothing different will happen today.

If that's what your dance instructor, Mueller suggests, then he needs to stick to dissecting the films of Fred Astaire.

[ink]

Originally Posted by marden 

I'll say it again and hope you catch it this time.

THEY DON'T MIND BRINGING THE WORLD TO AN END.

This will help explain what and why I can say such a remarkable thing.

What do you think would have happened in Germany if we had destroyed Hitler before WW2? I doubt Germany would be the same as it is now -- the 25-odd years of justifiable occupation by western powers had a great affect. It's hard to imagine a better Germany than we have now. The UN may never have been created, along with NATO, the WTO and the world bank. We advanced as a global society by leaps and bounds on the tails of WW2.

Yes, preemptive action in Iran may save lives and stabilize the region -- but it's not a guaranteed outcome, while being highly controversial. Going into Iran and assassinating Ahmadinejad would cause a backlash, which may very well be worse than the original problem (see: Iraq). Terrorist organizations would have even more justification for attacking the "Great Satan".

Al Quaeda didn't really exist until after 9/11, when we invaded Afghanistan (an action that I supported, and still support). Our reaction created the organization (see the Power of Nightmares). Up until then, it was just Osama Bin Laden's pet project funded by his own bank roll.

EDIT: Also, my father is a devout Mormon and he welcomes all this chaos. He believes that this is all straight out of revelation; that the USA (the promised land) will be the lone supporter of Israel, and that during the next great war, Jesus will come to the altar in the garden of Eden to bring 1000 years of peace. He fully supports our military action in the Middle East because of his religious convictions. So, yes, the door does swing both ways -- both religions are based on the hope than an apocalyptic event will usher in paradise; and those who are "faithful" to their religion will benefit when this horror visits the planet. One of the aspects of this faith is supporting this sort of pre-emptive attack on the EVIL ISLAM -- which explains why Utah has the highest support of Bush and his Iraq strategy, while also having the lowest per-capita soldiers in the armed forces (we need our young men here to run things when Christ returns).

[marden]

Originally Posted by ink 

What do you think would have happened in Germany if we had destroyed Hitler before WW2? I doubt Germany would be the same as it is now -- the 25-odd years of justifiable occupation by western powers had a great affect. It's hard to imagine a better Germany than we have now. The UN may never have been created, along with NATO, the WTO and the world bank. We advanced as a global society by leaps and bounds on the tails of WW2.

Yes, preemptive action in Iran may save lives and stabilize the region -- but it's not a guaranteed outcome, while being highly controversial. Going into Iran and assassinating Ahmadinejad would cause a backlash, which may very well be worse than the original problem (see: Iraq). Terrorist organizations they would have even more justification for attacking the "Great Satan".

Al Quaeda didn't really exist until after 9/11, when we invaded Afghanistan (an action that I supported, and still support). Our reaction created the organization (see the Power of Nightmares). Up until then, it was just Osama Bin Laden's pet project funded by his own bank roll.

I'm sure 60,000,000 people would have lived longer if we'd opposed Hitler earlier. That's about all I can say.

You can't look at the results of a mistake and use that as justification for not doing what should have been done.

Hitler should not have been allowed to go unopposed and I don't care how many UN's and NATO's or current day Germanies came from it.

The minute you are prevented from acting on the basis of what is best for your nation's security or the best interests of long term peace for the world because your decision might be CONTROVERSIAL you no longer have the right to make decisions for anyone but yourself.

Sit down.

[marden]

Originally Posted by ink 

EDIT: Also, my father is a devout Mormon and he welcomes all this chaos. He believes that this is all straight out of revelation; that the USA (the promised land) will be the lone supporter of Israel, and that during the next great war, Jesus will come to the altar in the garden of Eden to bring 1000 years of peace. He fully supports our military action in the Middle East because of his religious convictions. So, yes, the door does swing both ways -- both religions are based on the hope than an apocalyptic event will usher in paradise; and those who are "faithful" to their religion will benefit when this horror visits the planet. One of the aspects of this faith is supporting this sort of pre-emptive attack on the EVIL ISLAM -- which explains why Utah has the highest support of Bush and his Iraq strategy, while also having the lowest per-capita soldiers in the armed forces (we need our young men here to run things when Christ returns).

Ah! So we allow Ahmadinejad to have his way to prevent your Father's vision from being enacted?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by marden 

Ok. You win. Now, to prove your point why don't you leave your doors and windows unlocked and publish or broadcast to me that you aren't going to bow to the threat of my burglarizing your dwelling. You are just going to do what you have been doing all along and allow me freedom to lay siege upon your defenses while you smile and act superior and defiant.

You won't be smiling for long.

As I pointed out in another thread, your argument depends SOLELY on past events predicting FUTURE events.

And of course that is not how life works.

The moment a person does something they have never done before, your argument is disproved.

You can't look at what happened yesterday and logically say that nothing different will happen today.

If that's what your dance instructor, Mueller suggests, then he needs to stick to dissecting the films of Fred Astaire.

Wrong John Mueller, funny man.

I never said anything about leaving windows and doors unlocked. Stop creating straw-man arguments. I said there is an acceptable threat level – and by simply logic there is an acceptable level of defense. Maybe I'll lock my windows and doors – but I won't put bars over them, because I consider that too extreme a measure. There is always some acceptable level of defense. Spending billions upon billions of dollars to create security measures and legitimize invading people's personal privacy and freedoms even further, to me, is not an acceptable level of defense against a terrorism that has struck about once in the past 10 years. In my views, there are better ways to spend money to ensure that the use of terrorism as a political/military measure does not spread throughout the world.

greg

[marden]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Wrong John Mueller, funny man.

I never said anything about leaving windows and doors unlocked. Stop creating straw-man arguments. I said there is an acceptable threat level – and by simply logic there is an acceptable level of defense. Maybe I'll lock my windows and doors – but I won't put bars over them, because I consider that too extreme a measure. There is always some acceptable level of defense. Spending billions upon billions of dollars to create security measures and legitimize invading people's personal privacy and freedoms even further, to me, is not an acceptable level of defense against a terrorism that has struck about once in the past 10 years. In my views, there are better ways to spend money to ensure that the use of terrorism as a political/military measure does not spread throughout the world.

greg

That's the problem with people who THINK they are reasonably safe without following the advice of those who KNOW what they are talking about.

Ever watch "It Takes A Thief"?

Discovery Channel :: It Takes a Thief

Click on the link and see some clips of people who THINK their home security is pretty good and reasonable. They are soon shown the truth.

And even though you'd like it NOT to be, your John Mueller IS the same John Mueller that loves to trip the light fantastic.

John E. Mueller (born 1937, St. Paul, MN) is a political scientist in the field of international relations as well as a scholar of the history of dance. He is recognized for his ideas concerning "the banality of ethnic war" and the theory that major world conflicts are quickly becoming obsolete.
[edit]Career

He received his A.B. from the University of Chicago in 1960 and his Master's (M.A. Thesis: The Politics of Fluoridation in Seven California Cities) and Ph.D. (Ph.D. Dissertation: Reason and Caprice: Ballot Patterns in California ) from UCLA in 1963 and 1965, respectively.
He currently is the Woody Hayes Chair of National Security Studies at the Mershon Center for International Security Studies and a professor of both political science and dance at The Ohio State University.
Mueller was Jon Stewart's guest on the October 31st, 2006 episode of The Daily Show featuring the Midwest Midterm Midtacular: Battlefield Ohio. He discussed his book Overblown.
[edit]Bibliography

The Remnants of War, Cornell University Press 2004, ISBN 0-8014-4239-7
Capitalism, Democracy, and Ralph's Pretty Good Grocery, Princeton University Press 2001, ISBN 0-691-09082-3
Quiet Cataclysm: Reflections on the Recent Transformation of World Politics, Longman 1997, ISBN 0-673-99327-2 [1]
Policy and Opinion in the Gulf War, University of Chicago Press 1994, ISBN 0-226-54565-2
Retreat from Doomsday: The Obsolescence of Major War, Basic Books 1989, ISBN 0-465-06939-8 [2]
Astaire Dancing - The Musical Films of Fred Astaire, Knopf 1985, ISBN 0-394-51654-0
"Is There Still a Terrorist Threat?" Foreign Affairs, September/October 2006 [3]
"Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them", Free Press, November 14, 2006, ISBN 1416541713
[edit]External links

[Macrobat]

Enemy combatants are NOT US citizens, they never had a right to habeas corpus for it to be "suspended" in the first place. Please know what you're talking about before posting. The "warrantless wiretaps" are legal and HAVE been since the Carter Administration. They are "tapping" you, unless you are routinely calling a known terrorist somewhere.

And Ink, you are completely off your banana. Al Quaeda has existed since shortley after the Soviets left Afghanistan. In "Triple Cross" on the National Geographic Channel this past Sunday, we learn that a man named Ali Mohammad, an actual member of the Unites States Army was instrumental in helping Bin Laden and others get Al Quaeda up, on its feet, supplied with US SPecial Forces training material and intelligence, while hiding as a mole at Fort Bragg, NC.

Al Quada is weaker, not stronger since 9/11 as evidenced by the FACT that their multiple videotaped fatwas are completely ignored for the most part and the last major operation they were able to pull off was the 7/7 bombings in London. As bad as they were, both they and the Madrid bombings represent a falling off in sophistication and level of destruction from their "high water mark" of 9/11.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by marden 

That's the problem with people who THINK they are reasonably safe without following the advice of those who KNOW what they are talking about.

And even though you'd like it NOT to be, your John Mueller IS the same John Mueller that loves to trip the light fantastic.

My bad. I just thought you were poking fun at Mueller. Turns out he does get off to Astaire after all. Good times, I imagine.

As usual, you completely ignore my argument and wander off into some vaguely related topic concerning home safety. I do not accept this diversion of my analogy. Nowhere have you addressed the issue of acceptable threat level, and acceptable levels of threat management – or the fact that North America has had one (9/11) jihadist terrorist attack in the past 10 years.

Your fearmongering is getting quite old.

greg

[marden]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

My bad. I just thought you were poking fun at Mueller. Turns out he does get off to Astaire after all. Good times, I imagine.

As usual, you completely ignore my argument and wander off into some vaguely related topic concerning home safety. I do not accept this diversion of my analogy. Nowhere have you addressed the issue of acceptable threat level, and acceptable levels of threat management – or the fact that North America has had one (9/11) jihadist terrorist attack in the past 10 years.

Your fearmongering is getting quite old.

greg

If there were a way I could make sure that ONLY regular PWL posters were voting and no one else was rigging the vote, I would put the matter to the Dear Readers in a fun poll.

Is marden's "fear mongering getting quite old?"

[ink]

Originally Posted by marden 

I'm sure 60,000,000 people would have lived longer if we'd opposed Hitler earlier. That's about all I can say.

You can't look at the results of a mistake and use that as justification for not doing what should have been done.

Hitler should not have been allowed to go unopposed and I don't care how many UN's and NATO's or current day Germanies came from it.

The minute you are prevented from acting on the basis of what is best for your nation's security or the best interests of long term peace for the world because your decision might be CONTROVERSIAL you no longer have the right to make decisions for anyone but yourself.

Sit down.

But that's the rub, isn't it? What is best for a nation's security and the long term peace of the world?

Is there more, or less peace since we invaded Iraq?

[ink]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

And Ink, you are completely off your banana. Al Quaeda has existed since shortley after the Soviets left Afghanistan. In "Triple Cross" on the National Geographic Channel this past Sunday, we learn that a man named Ali Mohammad, an actual member of the Unites States Army was instrumental in helping Bin Laden and others get Al Quaeda up, on its feet, supplied with US SPecial Forces training material and intelligence, while hiding as a mole at Fort Bragg, NC.

Perhaps the actors were present before the formation of Ql Quaeda, but the organization per se did not exist until after 9/11:

The Power of Nightmares - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And Iraq has only fueled the fire, in my opinion.

[marden]

Originally Posted by ink 

But that's the rub, isn't it? What is best for a nation's security and the long term peace of the world?

Is there more, or less peace since we invaded Iraq?

That's like saying that there is more blood and gore and pain involved in an operation to remove a cancerous tumor than just letting the tumor remain untreated until it quietly kills you.

A false calm would be deadlier that a messy fight for survival.