$250 Billion Doesn't Buy What It Used To

[Evan]

A is A:

To the contrary, the Japanese were highly religious and certainly were not "constrained to one nation".

Right. We also had allies in that war as well that were *fighting* the Japanese in those other countries.

As I said, the Japanese were *localized* and the source of the war was NOT religious.

We put Japanese-Americans in internment camps which is what you also fail to mention here.

Yes, I know about Japanese Kamikazes, etc. They also weren't inspired by religion. Bushido is not a religious concept. Death worshipping philosophy? Not quite. The death part only came in if life was seen as being unwinnable or honor was broken. The Japanese even then didn't have the idea that death was something to happily push for unless it was in the pursuit of honor, etc. Honor is a concept attached to value. Keep in mind that the Japanese were also fighting IN DEFENSE of their homeland (admittedly after they attacked us). They valued something and they fought for it to the death. The willingness to die for a value doesn't mean that you worship death. It also Islamists on the other hand are more than just willing to die for their cause they value. They seek out ways in which to martyr themselves as a way of getting a special ticket to heaven. That isn't comparable to the Japanese philosophy at ANY point in their history.

Japan was obviously able to be cowed because we had the ability to hold nuclear weapons over their head after we used two of them to show that we could kill ridiculous amounts of Japanese with no cost to American soliders. That only works when you enemy is contained to one region. Moreover, the Japanese we DID intern here in the United States numbered 112,000. We didn't HAVE 4 million Japenese people living in the United States. The situations just aren't comparable. I think interning 4 million Japanese would have been a much different prospect first of all. Second of all, globally speaking there have NEVER been 1 BILLION Japanese spread out over the planet united by a religion that tells you to seek out death and live horribly as a way of getting into heaven.

If Iraq was a threat (and I think it was, though not as big a threat as Iran) the proper response would have been regime destruction, not regime change. If we inflict sufficient damage to the regime and to the nation's economic infrastructure, it won't matter what happens in the aftermath; whoever is left will not have the resources to mount any sort of threat to us.

I agree.

Had we annihilated the states that supported them -- like Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran -- after, say, the first bombing of the World Trade Center, these bastards likely would not have been around to stage 9/11.

How do you propose we should have anhilitated them?

During our firebombing of Japanese cities and the mass slaughter of Japanese civilians. none of the Japanese in this country staged suicidal attacks on Americans.

I'm not seeing your point. ONCE AGAIN, Bushido and other honor related concepts were not religious in nature and are no way comparable to death worshiping Islam. Death was always seen as a last resort and was only encouraged in extreme cases. The Japanese had also just been released from internment camps around that time and most of them lost a great deal of property as well as money. 2/3 of the Japanese interned were also U.S citizens meaning that they weren't as attached to Japan as people dying to defend their homeland against an invading U.S military. The vested interests of American Citizens that were ethnically Japanese versus Japanese citizens that were being militarily overwhelmed were obviously quite different. You are comparing apples and oranges again.

But this is really irrelevant, because the issue here is not the behavior of the die-hard hardliners. The issue is your contention that we dare not use overwhelming force because if we do, the fence sitters will join the battle against us. History does not support this notion.

Perhaps that is because you are using bad historical examples .

The issue is your proposal that we give this group veto power over America’s right to self-defense.

NO. I never proposed we give veto power to ANYONE, let alone Muslims in this country. Go back and read what I actually said. The purpose of my post was to highlight a cost that nobody seems willing to acknowledge. I never said that the presence of American Muslims should be enough to stop us from using our right to self defense. We DO have a right to self defense. HOWEVER, capriciously nuking a country is NOT self-defense unless a country poses an active threat. Such agression has domestic COSTS. That is my point. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be willing to bear those costs if necessary, but we should at least acknowledge the possibility that such costs are there. I don't see why you and FatDogs are so rabid in your defense of Muslims. I don't see why you are stumbling over yourselves to suggest that American Muslims would somehow be above terrorism if we randomly nuked a middle eastern country or that they could switch their alligience (as their religion instructs them to do) to a support of jihad within the United States when under attack. You guys seem ultra-defensive as if admitting that there is a risk factor involved somehow means we should just sit back and twiddle our thumbs while we are under attack or give up our right to self defense. There is NO such implication in my posts anywhere.

In the first place, even if it were true that the annihilation of our worst enemy (Iran) would motivate some of these bastards to stage suicide attacks, that would not justify allowing the Iranians to develop nuclear weapons and the ability deliver them to our soil.

I agree. You aren't saying anything new or saying anything contrary to what I have said. I never once said that we should cede our right to self defense or that we should allow Iranian nukes.

Second, and equally important, I would resist to the death the idea of giving Muslims in America the ability to dictate when, how and if we can defend ourselves from threatening regimes. That would be an act of moral suicide more deadly than any Islamic bomber.

I agree. Your point is entirely irrelevant to this discussion because I never advocated that we let American Muslims dictate the method or timing of when we defend ourselves from threatening regimes...but I agree with it.

What do you think is going to stop them? Diplomacy? Threats from the United Nations?

Erh. The Israeli military? Targetted bombing by the U.S? The U.N is inept, stupid, and immoral. Diplomacy with terrorists is the moral equivalent of compromise and should be avoided like the plague.

What will stop Iran is military force against MILITARY targets which I advocate. I DON'T advocate that we sit around and do nothing. In fact, personally...I think we have waited WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too long. I think we should have declared war on them the minute they declared their intentions.

Yes, absolutely, we should annihilate Iran right now, completely out of the blue and the more out of the blue, the better. (The choice of how to do this is a military question. But I think with our overwhelming air power, we can do it with bombing alone.) Any nation that is an overt sponsor of international terrorism, that chants "Death to America" at all of their major government functions and openly advertises their intent to wipe England, America and Israel off the map, is a completely legitimate target. It is suicidal idiocy to stand by and allow these monsters to develop nuclear weapons.

I say we should destroy their military and remove their government and make it known that anyone else who tries to pull any of this Ayatollahesque bull**** will get a boot to the face courtesy of America or Israel.

I have no problem with nuking the military and destroying Iran's ability to harm anyone. I DO have a problem with callous displays of force that are more symbolic in nature, however (like nuking civilian populations which serves little military function and definitely does nothing to make us more safe).

Nuking civilians in Tehran (ala Hiroshima) is unnecessary. Killing people does NOT kill ideas. The more useful approach would be to destroy Iran's capacity to make war and eject the mullahs from Iran and then offer Iran the options Douglas McArthur offered Japan. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the way you think Iran should be anhilitated? I think if we used my plan of action, we could actually have a chance at something of value.

If a man points a gun at your head, you need not wait for him to pull the trigger before destroying him to eliminate the threat. Likewise, if a man declares openly his intent to procure a gun and kill you, you need not wait for the threat to materialize before taking action against him. Indeed, prudence dictates that you act sooner rather than later.

Yes. I agree 100%.

I don't think random or capricious nuking has been suggested by anyone.

WRONG.

from FatDogs:

Simplest solution really is to just nuke one Arabic country after another on the basis that if the Muslims dont' completely stop terrorism after the first bomb then we drop a second. Eventaully I think they will get the point.

And if you are truly not advocating appeasement to placate our domestic Muslims (or any other Muslims), what exactly are these costs you refer to?

The costs ARE things like domestic terrorism. Those are REAL costs. I'm saying that we should acknowledge those costs and at least look at them. I'm not saying that should mean that we just kick back and do nothing. Sure, we should take out REAL threats to our security. Iraq was NOT one of those threats. Iran IS one of those threats. So we take out Iran's capacity to threaten us (or Israel) and that is a GOOD thing.

However, threatening to nuke the entire middle east is silly. Some of the countries aren't worth the price of the nuclear weapons we would be using to eliminate them. Why waste bullets and wantonly kill when crap countries like Saudi Arabia don't pose a real threat to anyone?

You guys do realize that the Saudi military is a JOKE, right?

Edited February 2, 2006 by Evan

[hunterrose]

If the people aren't philosophically ready for better leaders than Ayatollah Kohmeini then those kind of guys are all you are going to get voted into office which mitigates any potential benefits of establishing democracy in the country (because we get the same situations).

If we want change in these regions, then the people have to have the capacity to enact it. Even in cases where "evil" democracies could develop, a democracy still puts the power of change in the hands of people who benefit from smart decisions. A bellicose madman has nothing to gain from enacting safe and rational policies, and much to lose. While I admit your scenarios are possible, democracy still allows for rationality to win out, while the other possibilities make that unlikely.

If we inflict sufficient damage to the regime and to the nation's economic infrastructure, it won't matter what happens in the aftermath; whoever is left will not have the resources to mount any sort of threat to us.

The poorest country in the world has the resources for plane tickets to America and some box cutters.

If a man points a gun at your head, you need not wait for him to pull the trigger before destroying him to eliminate the threat. Likewise, if a man declares openly his intent to procure a gun and kill you, you need not wait for the threat to materialize before taking action against him. Indeed, prudence dictates that you act sooner rather than later.

And do the man's children need to wait for your threat to rematerialize before taking action against you? You have no problem with this idea of a war of attrition?

[AisA]

A is A:

Right. We also had allies in that war as well that were *fighting* the Japanese in those other countries.

As I said, the Japanese were *localized* and the source of the war was NOT religious.

We put Japanese-Americans in internment camps which is what you also fail to mention here.

Yes, I know about Japanese Kamikazes, etc. They also weren't inspired by religion.

I don't think the Japanese Imperial Army was "inspired by religion", but I do think the Japanese people's support of Hirohito was influenced by religion. The Shinto religion held that emporer Hirohito was a god and by all accounts the Japanese people believed this. Consider this: The war ended only after Hirohito went on the radio and told the Japanese people they had been defeated. Prior to that, even after Tokyo had been firebombed and two other cities leveled by atomic bombs, the people were still willing to fight to the last man, if that is what Hirohito wanted. Do you think Hirohito's influence over the Japanese people was based on reason?

Bushido is not a religious concept. Death worshipping philosophy? Not quite. The death part only came in if life was seen as being unwinnable or honor was broken. The Japanese even then didn't have the idea that death was something to happily push for unless it was in the pursuit of honor, etc. Honor is a concept attached to value. Keep in mind that the Japanese were also fighting IN DEFENSE of their homeland (admittedly after they attacked us). They valued something and they fought for it to the death. The willingness to die for a value doesn't mean that you worship death. It also Islamists on the other hand are more than just willing to die for their cause they value. They seek out ways in which to martyr themselves as a way of getting a special ticket to heaven. That isn't comparable to the Japanese philosophy at ANY point in their history.

Muslims will tell you that their suicide bombers are fighting for their homeland just as surely as any Japanese kamikaze. And they will tell you that they, too, value something enough to fight for it to the death. They will also tell you that suicide bombings are a tactic of last resort, to be used only when all other alternatives have been exhausted. So these distinctions are not the bright line you make them out to be.

Japan was obviously able to be cowed because we had the ability to hold nuclear weapons over their head after we used two of them to show that we could kill ridiculous amounts of Japanese with no cost to American soliders. That only works when you enemy is contained to one region.

Why? We have the ability to drop nuclear weapons on any area of the globe.

But this is really irrelevant, because the issue here is not the behavior of the die-hard hardliners. The issue is your contention that we dare not use overwhelming force because if we do, the fence sitters will join the battle against us. History does not support this notion.

Perhaps that is because you are using bad historical examples .

Your smirky face notwithstanding, history does not support your overall contention, which is: the use of overwhelming force against our enemy will cause those who live in our midsts to turn into suicidal maniacs. History is replete with examples that demonstrate that it is appeasement and appearing weak that emboldens one's enemies and causes more of them to take up arms against you, not the overwhelming use of force to stike at his home base. I am not aware of a single example where the use of overwhelming force (such as the United States possess) causes the fence sitters to join the war for the other side.

NO. I never proposed we give veto power to ANYONE, let alone Muslims in this country. Go back and read what I actually said. The purpose of my post was to highlight a cost that nobody seems willing to acknowledge. I never said that the presence of American Muslims should be enough to stop us from using our right to self defense. We DO have a right to self defense. HOWEVER, capriciously nuking a country is NOT self-defense unless a country poses an active threat. Such agression has domestic COSTS. That is my point. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be willing to bear those costs if necessary, but we should at least acknowledge the possibility that such costs are there.

I acknowledge the possibility, but do not accept it as inevitable.

I don't see why you and FatDogs are so rabid in your defense of Muslims. I don't see why you are stumbling over yourselves to suggest that American Muslims would somehow be above terrorism if we randomly nuked a middle eastern country or that they could switch their alligience (as their religion instructs them to do) to a support of jihad within the United States when under attack.You guys seem ultra-defensive as if admitting that there is a risk factor involved somehow means we should just sit back and twiddle our thumbs while we are under attack or give up our right to self defense.

I am not rabid, stumbling or ultra-defensive; I just question your assertion that the use of overwhelming force against our enemies in the mid-east will necessarily "radicalize" the American Muslims into becoming suicidal maniacs. You have not given us any evidence to support this assertion.

To this point, we have bombed two cities in Libya (in 1986) killing dozens of Muslims, invaded Kuwait (in 1991) and killed tens of thousands of Muslims, invaded Afghanistan (2001-2002) and killed many more thousands of Muslims and invaded Iraq (2003) and killed still more thousands of Muslims. Yet this American "radicalization" process has not occurred (with one possible exception: the belt-way snipers).

On the other hand, Spain and Great Britain, who have participated in the war on terror to a far lesser extent and who have bent over backwards to appease their domestic Muslims, have suffered home-grown terrorist attacks. France, the most egregious appeaser of all, has thousands of "radicalized" Muslims roaming the streets every night burning cars and buildings. Pacifist Holland and Denmark have similar Muslim problems, certainly far worse than we have seen here. So the "lets go easy so we don't radicalize the Muslims" argument is weak at best. If anything, we see once again that appeasement invites attack.

I agree. You aren't saying anything new or saying anything contrary to what I have said. I never once said that we should cede our right to self defense or that we should allow Iranian nukes........

There is NO such implication in my posts anywhere.

NO such implication? Here is what you posted in response to previous suggestions that we use nuclear weapons against the Islamic nations of the middle east.

The point I'm making is that you would radicalize NON radical Muslims by just nuking a random country in the middle east. People that *were* content to just live their life as is would probably think that the U.S had initiated World War III and that it was their duty to defend what they believe in much in the same way a Catholic would feel if we nuked the Vatican.

The United States hasn't seen suicide bombs. Do you really think that there wouldn't be Muslims who were content to live in peace that WOULDN'T strap bombs on their chest if we decided to start attacking Muslim countries with nuclear weapons? Probably not. I don't know about you, but having to worry about suicide bombs when I go to StarBucks IS a cost of such a rash policy (nuking Muslim nations).

Trust me, I have no love for Muslims and I really don't have a problem with such a policy. I just don't think that it would achieve the desired end. (Emphasis added)

So what do you propose? Concentration camps? Exporting our Muslim population (some of which ran from oppression and don't support terrorism any more than I do) back to a country we plan to nuke? Shipping them to a free country that doesn't want them? Do you want to forgo the Star of David badges Hitler made the Jews wear and opt in for a Star and Crescent? Seriously...what is your plan? How do you propose to "get rid" of all of the Muslims? The only way to do so is to become a statist country and kill all people that are Muslim or send them elsewhere. Assuming they have legal citizenship status...that is a pretty damn dangerous trend to set into motion. Initiate the use of coercive force against people who have a particular belief set who have not initiated the use of force against anyone is a really crappy thing to do. Do you think that Objectivists could sleep safe in their beds at night after such policies were enacted? After all...if we opposed U.S government collectivism...we TOO could be nuked, liquidated, or exported off to some country that is about to be nuked. Such a mindset ("get rid of them all") throws any conceptions of "rights" right out the window.

This doesn’t sound like a ringing endorsement for the use of overwhelming force against our enemies in the middle east.

Perhaps you are now saying that the use of overwhelming force will not cause problems provided it is justified? It is just the capricious use that will backfire?

Erh. The Israeli military? Targetted bombing by the U.S? The U.N is inept, stupid, and immoral. Diplomacy with terrorists is the moral equivalent of compromise and should be avoided like the plague.

What will stop Iran is military force against MILITARY targets which I advocate. I DON'T advocate that we sit around and do nothing. In fact, personally...I think we have waited WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too long. I think we should have declared war on them the minute they declared their intentions.

Without considering the domestic "costs"? I agree with you, but if you look at your earlier post, they do not sound sympathetic to the idea of an immediate attack.

I say we should destroy their military and remove their government and make it known that anyone else who tries to pull any of this Ayatollahesque bull**** will get a boot to the face courtesy of America or Israel.

I have no problem with nuking the military and destroying Iran's ability to harm anyone. I DO have a problem with callous displays of force that are more symbolic in nature, however (like nuking civilian populations which serves little military function and definitely does nothing to make us more safe).

Nuking civilians in Tehran (ala Hiroshima) is unnecessary. Killing people does NOT kill ideas. The more useful approach would be to destroy Iran's capacity to make war and eject the mullahs from Iran and then offer Iran the options Douglas McArthur offered Japan. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the way you think Iran should be anhilitated? I think if we used my plan of action, we could actually have a chance at something of value.

I agree except I think the civilians in Iran are also legitimate targets. Killing people may NOT kill ideas, but it can sure dampen the enthusiasm for them.

The costs ARE things like domestic terrorism. Those are REAL costs. I'm saying that we should acknowledge those costs and at least look at them. I'm not saying that should mean that we just kick back and do nothing. Sure, we should take out REAL threats to our security. Iraq was NOT one of those threats. Iran IS one of those threats. So we take out Iran's capacity to threaten us (or Israel) and that is a GOOD thing.

However, threatening to nuke the entire middle east is silly. Some of the countries aren't worth the price of the nuclear weapons we would be using to eliminate them. Why waste bullets and wantonly kill when crap countries like Saudi Arabia don't pose a real threat to anyone?

You guys do realize that the Saudi military is a JOKE, right?

Just let me say that in the war on terrorism, the military force of our enemies is not the only potential threat. I believe the Saudi's are funding many of the terrorist groups, which makes them a legitimate target. However, rather than wholesale destruction of the country, I would advocate we seize the oil fields and return control of them to their rightful owners, the American oil companies that created them. (Provided this is militarily feasible; I think it is, but would defer to someone with greater military expertise.)

But on the broader point, I don't think we have to nuke the entire middle east. I think one extremely thorough, totally ruthless destruction of one enemy country -- and Iran is my preference -- featuring vast, wholesale destruction of regime, military, civil and economic infrastructure, regardless of how many civilian casualties results, would bring the entire Islamic world to its knees. We will never get them to like us, but I believe we can get them to fear us.

[hunterrose]

We will never get them to like us, but I believe we can get them to fear us.

You can't be serious.

[Evan]

A is A:

I don't think the Japanese Imperial Army was "inspired by religion", but I do think the Japanese people's support of Hirohito was influenced by religion. The Shinto religion held that emperor Hirohito was a god and by all accounts the Japanese people believed this. Consider this: The war ended only after Hirohito went on the radio and told the Japanese people they had been defeated. Prior to that, even after Tokyo had been firebombed and two other cities leveled by atomic bombs, the people were still willing to fight to the last man, if that is what Hirohito wanted. Do you think Hirohito's influence over the Japanese people was based on reason?

I don't think it was based on reason, but who cares? Some people in Russia still support the memory of Stalin and fight to erect statues in his honor...do they do so based on reason? No. There are definite degrees that separate how bad certain philosophies. I would argue that Islam is probably the LEAST rational of any, including the Shinto religion.

The real power of the emperor as far as WWII goes has always been questioned and is definitely questionable as military decisions were made by advisors and generals. Moreover, the absolute rule of the emperor as a "god" (or anything else for that matter) wasn't always the case in Japanese history. Individual daimyo ruled for quite some time and later ruled collectively as the shogunate. The Meiji restoration is what brought the emperor BACK to power and he might have been labeled a god (it was actually written in the Japanese Constitution of 1889), however....the emperor's rule was far from absolute. The historical influence of Shintoism on Japan is negligible compared to the influence of Islam. Islam has been around for FAR longer and has WAY stronger ties to the actual governments of the countries in question than Shinto EVER has.

Muslims will tell you that their suicide bombers are fighting for their homeland just as surely as any Japanese kamikaze. And they will tell you that they, too, value something enough to fight for it to the death. They will also tell you that suicide bombings are a tactic of last resort, to be used only when all other alternatives have been exhausted. So these distinctions are not the bright line you make them out to be.

No, Muslims won't necessarily tell you that they are fighting for their homeland unless we are talking about Palestinian Muslims. What Muslims WILL tell you is that they are fighting for a martyr's death which will place them in a glorified place in heaven instead of living here on earth which is far superior in their eyes. A fight for a homeland is a secondary concern to suicide bombers....after all, they aren't going to be alive to enjoy it. Unless they are Palestinian Muslims, they aren't probably fighting for a homeland to begin with.

As for what they value enough to fight for the death? The answer is death itself...aka "martyrdom."

The values that the Japanese had were LIFE based values. The same isnt' true for the Muslims. There IS a bright line. Moreover, Muslims won't tell you that suicide bombings are a tactic of last resort because that just isn't what they believe. They point to the Koran which tells them to smite the infidels and attack.

You need a better understanding of Islam as a distinct philosophical poison apart from other collectivist variants (socialism, communism, religion, etc).

I HIGHLY recommend reading the following article:

Islam On Trial: The Prosecution's Case

Read the article and it should become readily apparent how Islam is separate and distinct as a death worshipping philosophy than any other historical example you could possibly bring up.

Why? We have the ability to drop nuclear weapons on any area of the globe.

Yes, HOWEVER the point I was making is that the Japanese and Muslim comparisons are unwarranted.

The Japanese were localized to the same region and it wasn't our OWN territory.

The issue is AMERICAN-Muslims radicalizing due to American actions. American Muslims LIVE in America and can stage terrorist attacks/suicide bombings from inside the country. They aren't "over there" so to speak. So the fact that we can drop nukes anywhere on the globe is absolutely irrelevant to the issue of radicalized American Muslims. The point is, the 4 million American Muslims living in this country know damn good and well that we aren't going to use nukes within our own borders because if we DID, we would inflict greater losses on our own civilian population than the Muslims could ever hope to inflict.

Thus, nuclear weapons are NOT a deterrent to wannabe American-Muslim terrorists anymore than the deterrence effect of nukes was felt by Timothy McVeigh.

The Japanese were deterred by nuke weapons. You can even argue that Saudi Arabia or Iran would be deterred by nukes. You CAN'T argue that radical Muslims living in the U.S will be deterred by nukes.

To this point, we have bombed two cities in Libya (in 1986) killing dozens of Muslims, invaded Kuwait (in 1991) and killed tens of thousands of Muslims, invaded Afghanistan (2001-2002) and killed many more thousands of Muslims and invaded Iraq (2003) and killed still more thousands of Muslims. Yet this American "radicalization" process has not occurred (with one possible exception: the belt-way snipers).

No, such a process of radicalization hasn't happened, I agree. Perhaps because we didn't nuke a Muslim country capriciously/randomly? Look, there is a CLEAR difference between defending ourselves and fighting terrorism (which several if not most American Muslim groups condemn) and using nuclear force. Bombing Libya (who supported the terrorist attack on the Pan Am flight) or defending Kuwait from an aggressor (an aggressor who was a secular Sunni) or going after terrorists (Afghanistan) or liberating Iraq are VASTLY different propositions than going to a map of the middle east and randomly pointing to a country then saying, "Lets nuke this one."

I can see a pretty big difference, yet for some reason you think American Muslims are incapable of identifying such differences?

Your smirky face notwithstanding, history does not support your overall contention, which is: the use of overwhelming force against our enemy will cause those who live in our midsts to turn into suicidal maniacs. History is replete with examples that demonstrate that it is appeasement and appearing weak that emboldens one's enemies and causes more of them to take up arms against you, not the overwhelming use of force to stike at his home base. I am not aware of a single example where the use of overwhelming force (such as the United States possess) causes the fence sitters to join the war for the other side.

Yes, appeasement is bad...but once again, you are in the realm of the non-topical. I'm not talking appeasement nor have I ever. I'm talking FatDog's initial proposition that we start randomly nuking Middle Eastern countries and issuing ultimatums. Saying that we refrain from such behavior is NOT appeasement.

Besides, historicism is absolutely silly philosophically speaking. Didn't John Galt buck the historical trend philosophically speaking? Isn't that part of the point? Trying to say that just because history doesn't support a certain idea misses the boat entirely. What happens if an entirely new circumstance happens that doesn't have historical precedent? What do you use to make inferences then? For example...the Cold War dynamic was something that was new (historically speaking) due to a NEW technological development (nukes). I have proven that Islam is quite distinct in its form as a religious philosophy apart from other historical philosophies. THAT is why your historical examples ARE bad examples. You can't infer anything from them.

I acknowledge the possibility, but do not accept it as inevitable.

You are telling me that a country with 4 million Muslims won't probably have any radicalization among its members due to randomly nuking a middle eastern country? For Christ's sakes, nuking a middle eastern country would definitely give ANYONE the idea that Islam is under attack militarily. Muslims are instructed via the Koran to fight in defense of Islam. That is what jihad IS. Unless American Muslims magically decide to abandon their religious identity, I can't see why it wouldn't be inevitable. What exactly do you think would act as a deterrent?

On the other hand, Spain and Great Britain, who have participated in the war on terror to a far lesser extent and who have bent over backwards to appease their domestic Muslims, have suffered home-grown terrorist attacks. France, the most egregious appeaser of all, has thousands of "radicalized" Muslims roaming the streets every night burning cars and buildings. Pacifist Holland and Denmark have similar Muslim problems, certainly far worse than we have seen here. So the "lets go easy so we don't radicalize the Muslims" argument is weak at best. If anything, we see once again that appeasement invites attack.

Frickin' A...stay on topic! I'm not talking about appeasing ANYONE. Yes, appeasement sucks.

I never said, "let's go easy so we don't radicalize the Muslims." So yes, that argument is weak. It isn't MY argument, however, so try to stay on topic or this debate just wastes my time and is useless.

Yes, other countries have worse problems with Muslims. I agree. Whopee de doo. Those countries DO appease Muslims. We don't. We don't see problems, they do. Wonderful. You are saying that by refraining from using nukes at random on middle eastern countries that I'm somehow an appeaser. That is a GROSS representation of my argument. If there is a definite threat from a middle eastern country, we have every right to attack in our self defense and we SHOULD without regard for appeasing ANYONE.

However, the statement I disagreed with was from Fat Dogs. Do I really need to repeat it again? Apparently I do because you keep making the same bad insinuations that I'm some sort of moral coward or that my arguments are tantamount to moral cowardice (appeasement).

HERE is the statement I disagreed with:

"Simplest solution really is to just nuke one Arabic country after another on the basis that if the Muslims dont' completely stop terrorism after the first bomb then we drop a second. Eventaully I think they will get the point."

You see that? FatDog's argues that we should just start nuking Arab nations (not all of which sponsor terror by the way) and hold them accountable for actions committed and sustained outside of their borders. What the hell does Syria have to do with terrorism supported and directed from Iran? Unless there is PROVEN coordination between and among Arab states that supports terrorism, there is NO reason to tie global terrorist activity to ONE nation. Saying, "I'm going to hold Syria accountable for all of the world's terrorism by threatening them with a nuke and if terrorism doesn't stop I'm going to nuke Lebannon" is absolutely goofy. It is counterproductive and is based on a sort of collectivist ethic that holds one group accountable for the actions of another group that it doesn't necessarily have control over.

MOROEVER, as I have proven...the largest populations of Muslims exist OUTSIDE of the middle east! So what the hell purpose does nuking the middle east have when you have 4 million Muslims in the U.S? Do you really think nuking a country 5,000 miles away is going to stop radical American Muslims from engaging in terrorism? How about terrorist Muslims in England? FatDogs suggests that we keep nuking MIDDLE EASTERN countries if Muslims don't stop terrorism. What about non-middle eastern Muslim terrorists?

If you can't see the fact that FatDog's argument has a hole you could drive a frickin' semi through than I don't know what I could say to give you sight.

I just question your assertion that the use of overwhelming force against our enemies in the mid-east will necessarily "radicalize" the American Muslims into becoming suicidal maniacs. You have not given us any evidence to support this assertion.

What the heck would STOP them from picking up a gun and taking it into Wal-Mart or a bank to exact revenge for nuking the middle east? What would STOP them from retaliating with suicide bombs? Read the article I linked to and THEN come back to this debate. Muslims see death as a value if it is death given for Islam because such a death makes them martyrs and gives them benefits in the afterlife according to their religion. What better cause to die for than avenging their Muslim brethren in the middle east that just got nuked because they couldn't police terrorist Muslims in England? You couldn't HAND Muslims a better cause on a platter. Why not nuke the Kabba for Christ’s sakes. Do you think THAT wouldn't radicalize Muslims?

I think that if the U.S nuked the Vatican, there would be Catholics that would be radicalized in the U.S. Would they take up arms or blow themselves up? Probably not because Catholicism isn't quite as bad as Islam. However, they WOULD radicalize. Islam is a violent religion and when Muslims radicalize they generally don't radicalize peacefully. People aren't always born a terrorist. People make CHOICES to do suicide bombings, etc. Sometimes all it takes is for someone's sister to get blown up by an Israeli helicopter that missed it's mark to bring people to the breaking point. I'm not excusing terrorists...I'm saying that they make choices. Are those violent choices be based on excuses? SURE. If a Palestinian guy's sister is killed by an Israeli military mistake...that doesn't justify or excuse violence. However, such death can be used as an excuse that is SUPPORTED by religious doctrine which gives the excuse legitimacy (at least in the eyes of the people that become terrorists). A man that might not ordinarily pick up a gun becomes emboldened because suddenly he sees "Allah" as being on his side morally speaking and he wants vengeance for his family. I'm sure there are people who haven't even lost anything (no family members, etc) that just are violent people that use Islam as an excuse to blow stuff up or hurt people. Do you think that American-Muslims wouldn't make the same connections mentally if we nuked the middle east? Do you think that they wouldn't use their religion as an excuse to be violent? Why wouldn't they? It isn't like they all value their lives to begin with nor is it like their religion values human life. Islam is ANTI-life. How would nuking the religion NOT be perceived as a direct attack on Islam? Such an attack would HAVE to be fought by jihad because that is what the Koran commands Muslims to do! Unless they are cowards or they aren't really Muslim, they would NOT be able to just ignore such a blatant attack on their religion. Such attacks would be widely condemned by Muslim leaders here in America and abroad and fatwas would be issued. I can't imagine any Imam NOT urging jihad if you started nuking the middle east. Sorry, it just wouldn't happen.

NO such implication? Here is what you posted in response to previous suggestions that we use nuclear weapons against the Islamic nations of the middle east. This doesn’t sound like a ringing endorsement for the use of overwhelming force against our enemies in the middle east. Perhaps you are now saying that the use of overwhelming force will not cause problems provided it is justified? It is just the capricious use that will backfire?

Yes, I posted that nuking the middle east would NOT achieve its desired end if it was done AS FATDOGS suggested. Look...HE argued one thing and YOU argue another. HE argued for randomly nuking middle eastern countries. YOU argue for nuking in self-defense against countries that threaten us. Can't you see that my argument is NOT with you? It wasn't then and it isn't now.

I repeat, I never once said that we should cede our right to self defense or that we should allow Iranian nukes........There is NO such implication in my posts anywhere.

I said that nuking the middle east wouldn't achieve the desired ends. The purpose of using nukes is to protect our own self interest and to defend this country. That end can only be met if the use of nuclear weapons is for the purpose of self defense. The capricious use of nukes that FatDogs suggested is what I have been arguing against all along, NOT using nukes as a defensive weapon against aggressors (like Iran).

Without considering the domestic "costs"? I agree with you, but if you look at your earlier post, they do not sound sympathetic to the idea of an immediate attack.

In cases where we are being threatened (like Iran), I don't think domestic costs can be considered in the way you are meaning. The must be recognized, but they must not be given any weight. If Russia hypothetically attacks us, we MUST consider the domestic costs of nuclear retaliation. We must recognize that A is A and that the law of causality MUST be observed. If we press the red button, Russia would nuke us back. Avoiding that fact or avoiding looking at that fact is an act of evasion. However, that doesn't mean that we cede our right to self defense. It doesn't mean that we DON'T press the red button. It just means that we do so with the full realistic picture of what is going to happen when we do. That is ALL I'm saying.

As for my earlier posts, they were in response to FatDog's proposition which is substantially different than yours (random aggression as opposed to self-defense).

Just let me say that in the war on terrorism, the military force of our enemies is not the only potential threat. I believe the Saudi's are funding many of the terrorist groups, which makes them a legitimate target.

It makes them a legitimate target, yes. It doesn't mean that a nuclear response is smart AT ALL. What we SHOULD do is freeze their assets and seize their oil fields to prevent them from FUNDING terrorism. Their military is not a sufficient threat to justify the use of nuclear weapons. As I said, the Saudi military is a joke. They aren't a direct threat to us. They pose a threat because they fund people who ARE a threat. Thus, to solve the issue you take away their ability to do such funding and you get rid of the government while making it clear that ANYONE that comes into power and tries to pull the crap that the Saudis have pulled will face the full force of the U.S military.

But on the broader point, I don't think we have to nuke the entire middle east. I think one extremely thorough, totally ruthless destruction of one enemy country -- and Iran is my preference -- featuring vast, wholesale destruction of regime, military, civil and economic infrastructure, regardless of how many civilian casualties results, would bring the entire Islamic world to its knees.

Amen. I have no problem with sending Iran back to the stone age. It would send a hell of a message, wouldn't it? I don't think we would really have to send such a message twice. Such a message is also JUST because it addresses a credible threat (unlike nuking random nations like Saudi Arabia or Syria).

We will never get them to like us, but I believe we can get them to fear us.

1) No, they will never like us.

2) I doubt they will ever fear us. Fear is a product of valuing something that is tied to life. People that really embrace a death worshipping philosophy are the most fearless people you will ever meet because they have nothing of value to lose. In fact, they stumble over themselves to give it up in the name of holy martyrdom.

The issue is not making them fear us, but making them know that they have no realistic chance of winning and showing our commitment to our position. If Muslims really DO seek nuclear annihilation (let's make the assumption that we go ahead and nuke Iran as you suggested) and continue to support terrorism whole heartedly, I see NO reason why we shouldn't oblige them.

Edited February 5, 2006 by Evan

[Praxus]

2) I doubt they will ever fear us. Fear is a product of valuing something that is tied to life. People that really embrace a death worshipping philosophy are the most fearless people you will ever meet because they have nothing of value to lose. In fact, they stumble over themselves to give it up in the name of holy martyrdom.

The issue is not making them fear us, but making them know that they have no realistic chance of winning and showing our commitment to our position. If Muslims really DO seek nuclear annihilation (let's make the assumption that we go ahead and nuke Iran as you suggested) and continue to support terrorism whole heartedly, I see NO reason why we shouldn't oblige them.

I think you are inappropriately assuming that all Muslims worship death consistently. If that were the case they would all kill themselves immediately. This obviously isn't the case.

[edit]AisA does have history on his side. Just look at how the Mongol Hulagu dealt with the Muslim assassins. How Alexander defeated the Persians, how the Romans defeated the Carthaginians, Spaniards, and the Gauls, to innumerable other instances. I can not think of one instance where overwhelming military force (when available) caused a long term growth in support for their enemies.

Edited February 5, 2006 by Praxus

[Evan]

I think you are inappropriately assuming that all Muslims worship death consistently. If that were the case they would all kill themselves immediately. This obviously isn't the case.

No, I'm NOT making that assumption. If you actually read what I wrote, I said quite clearly that Muslims aren't BORN terrorists (and not all Muslims ARE terrorists anyways). Muslims make choices when they decide to become terrorists. Those choices are almost ALWAYS supported by their religion. A lot of Muslims don't worship death at all and then they use personal loss (like a family member getting killed) augmented by the Koran's teachings to justify their violent behaviors. I never once implied that ALL Muslims worship death consistently. In fact, the whole point of this debate has been me trying to prove that NON-radical Muslims (read = Muslims that don't worship death consistently) would become radicalized at a capricious use of nuclear force. If I was assuming that all Muslims worshipped death ALL the time, there wouldn't be any debate on my part because there would be no way to radicalize Muslims at all because their radical nature would be a metaphysical given. It obviously ISN'T a given and they don't all worship death consistently, which is why such a debate can take place at all. In short? You are 100% wrong.

AisA does have history on his side. Just look at how the Mongol Hulagu dealt with the Muslim assassins.

From Wikipedia's article on Hulagu

"Hulagu easily destroyed the Lurs, and his reputation so frightened the Assassins that they surrendered their impregnable fortress of Alamut to him without a fight."

and From Wikipedia's article on the Assasins:

"Their Muslim contemporaries were extremely suspicious of them; in fact they were described in terms (Batini) which suggested they were only nominally Islamic. This constant religious estrangement would eventually see them go so far as allying with the Occidental Christians against Muslims on a number of occasions. It is even suggested that they attempted to negotiate their own conversion to Christianity with Amalric I of Jerusalem, but were foiled by Templar machinations, perhaps on the basis that this would exempt them from onerous taxes on non-Christians in the Holy Lands, which were profitable for the knightly orders. Plainly, their connection to mainstream Islam was tangential at best."

In short? Your historical examples are equally bad as A is A's.

How Alexander defeated the Persians, how the Romans defeated the Carthaginians, Spaniards, and the Gauls, to innumerable other instances

1) Alexander the Great was born in 356 BC.

Islam didn't even START as a religion until around 600 AD

Thus, Alexander's conquest of the Persians is 100% irrelevant as the Persians weren't remotely Muslim at the time of their conquest.

2) The Roman conquest of Carthage happened 300 years before Islam even existed.

3) The Spaniards EXPELLED all of the Muslims from Spain and pushed them back militarily out of Europe. There weren't any Muslims really left in Spain to radicalize. Moroever, the dark ages were more or less Islam's golden age. Islam had many learned scholars at the time and wasn't the religion it is today.

If you really do have innumerable other examples to support your contention, I suggest you bring those up now because your current examples hold absolutely no water so to speak. As of now, history isn't on your side either .

Edited February 6, 2006 by Evan

[Praxus]

No, I'm NOT making that assumption. If you actually read what I wrote, I said quite clearly that Muslims aren't BORN terrorists (and not all Muslims ARE terrorists anyways)...

{edit}Then why do you think that they probably will not fear us?

"Hulagu easily destroyed the Lurs, and his reputation so frightened the Assassins that they surrendered their impregnable fortress of Alamut to him without a fight."

and From Wikipedia's article on the Assasins:

"Their Muslim contemporaries were extremely suspicious of them; in fact they were described in terms (Batini) which suggested they were only nominally Islamic. This constant religious estrangement would eventually see them go so far as allying with the Occidental Christians against Muslims on a number of occasions. It is even suggested that they attempted to negotiate their own conversion to Christianity with Amalric I of Jerusalem, but were foiled by Templar machinations, perhaps on the basis that this would exempt them from onerous taxes on non-Christians in the Holy Lands, which were profitable for the knightly orders. Plainly, their connection to mainstream Islam was tangential at best."

In short? Your historical examples are equally bad as A is A's.

What are you arguing against? The examples I gave were general examples of how overwhelming force was effectively used to defeat an enemy.

1) Alexander the Great was born in 356 BC.

Islam didn't even START as a religion until around 600 AD

Thus, Alexander's conquest of the Persians is 100% irrelevant as the Persians weren't remotely Muslim at the time of their conquest.

That's not the point. It shows that overwhelming force has been used to great effect throughout history.

2) The Roman conquest of Carthage happened 300 years before Islam even existed.

More like 750 years (Third Punic War was in the mid 2nd century BC). I think you're thinking of the sack of Romanized Carthage in 439 AD. But again, that isn't the point.

) The Spaniards EXPELLED all of the Muslims from Spain and pushed them back militarily out of Europe. There weren't any Muslims really left in Spain to radicalize. Moroever, the dark ages were more or less Islam's golden age. Islam had many learned scholars at the time and wasn't the religion it is today.

I was referring to the Roman conquest of Espania by Scipio Africanus in the Second Punic War.

If you really do have innumerable other examples to support your contention, I suggest you bring those up now because your current examples hold absolutely no water so to speak. As of now, history isn't on your side either .

Look exactly what my "contention" was and you will find that you are arguing against a strawman. My only claim was: "I can not think of one instance where overwhelming military force (when available) caused a long term growth in support for their enemies."

You need to check your tone, it's not appreciated.

Edited February 6, 2006 by Praxus

[Evan]

My only claim was: "I can not think of one instance where overwhelming military force (when available) caused a long term growth in support for their enemies."

That is what A is A was saying as well. I already addressed this with him so I guess I must repeat myself for the bajillionth time. Next time I suggest you read the thread entirely and understand what is going on before you interject on anyone's side.

Here is what I said to A is A who made nearly the exact same claim as you did:

historicism is absolutely silly philosophically speaking. Didn't John Galt buck the historical trend(philosophically speaking)? Isn't that part of the point [of Atlas Shrugged]? Trying to say that just because history doesn't support a certain idea misses the boat entirely. What happens if an entirely new circumstance happens that doesn't have historical precedent? What do you use to make inferences then? For example...the Cold War dynamic was something that was new (historically speaking) due to a NEW technological development (nukes). I have proven that Islam is quite distinct in its form as a religious philosophy apart from other historical philosophies. THAT is why your historical examples ARE bad examples. You can't infer anything from them.

Who cares that you cannot think of one instance when military force caused support for enemies of the country that used such military force? The reason WHY you can't think of such examples is because you (and A is A) are straw manning MY position. I'm arguing quite clearly that the current context is REALLY different than anything else you will find in world history. Nuclear weapons have only been used against human beings twice in the history of the world. We have never in our history randomly nuked a country and then threatened to nuke another country if they didn't do what we asked (which is what FatDogs suggested and what I disagreed with). I said quite clearly that nuking a middle country and then threatening the rest of the middle east would radicalize Muslims that don't live in the middle east (the majority of Muslims don't live in the middle east). You can't think of historical examples to disprove what I'm saying because the hypothetical foreign policy that FatDogs suggested has never been tried before historically speaking. In all of the historical examples you and A is A have used...the countries that have used overwhelming military force against their enemies didn't have 1% of their population consist of "the enemy" with the enemy being philosophically as death worshipping as Islam. I have clearly shown how Islam is the worst death worshipping philosophy on the planet right now. Comparing it to Shintoism or Communism is NOT going to work. Give me an example where any country randomly used a WMD against the middle east and the Muslims in the country that used the WMD didn't radicalize. You can't because no such historical example exists. THAT is why trying to draw historical parallels is a silly waste of my time and the time of everyone who reads this board.

The examples I gave were general examples of how overwhelming force was effectively used to defeat an enemy.

Who cares? I'm not debating that overwhelming force doesn't work or is ineffective...if I was then I wouldn't support nuking Iran, would I (which I clearly did in my last post to A is A)? This is how you and A is A are straw manning MY position and why both parties need to stay on topic if any sort of worthwhile debate is to take place. You cluttered up the board with historical examples that have nothing to do with the debate. The whole point of me saying that the Assasins weren't even really Muslims was to show that you aren't on topic here. If someone else jumps onto this debate and says, "historically speaking...ovewhelming use of military force is why Poland fell to the Germans" that is a factual statement. It doesn't have any relevance to this debate, though because Germany didn't have 4 million death worshipping Poles in it's midst when it used crushing force against Polland. Thus, we can't debate whether or not such overwhelming military force lead to polarization (no pun intended) among the country that used the military force. Such an example is useless and does nothing for the debate.

For a historical parallel to be drawn...the variables in play must be parallels.

If for example you say,

"Historically speaking...there were 4 million Communists in Country X and County X (which is a non-Communist country) randomly used a WMD on Russia and threatened to nuke China afterwards and the Communists in Country X did NOT radicalize or take up arms against country X" THAT would be an example that is relevant and could be debated.

That example would at least be relevant because Communism is a death worshipping philosophy (like Islam), we have the foreign policy that FatDogs suggested (randomly nuking the death worshipper's countries and threating another country) , and we also have the result of such a foreign policy (whether or not the death worshippers radicalized and took action or if they stayed benign).THOSE are the important variables in play here. You are using examples that lack all of the variables and trying to draw historical parallels to prove my point wrong. You can't see why your examples are blatantly incorrect and a total straw man of my position? If you used the example involving Communism that I just provided , I would argue that Islam is a worse ideology and is MORE death worshipping...so there would be a debate. However, it would be a topical debate and not a debate of straw men.

That's not the point. It shows that overwhelming force has been used to great effect throughout history.

Sure. Ok. You made your point. I agree with it. That isn't what this debate has EVER been about which is why I say that such examples are a waste of my time. I never disagreed or argued that overwhelming force hasn't been effective.

Look exactly what my "contention" was and you will find that you are arguing against a strawman.

You are correct. I'm arguing against your arguments which don't pertain at all to the debate. When I straw manned your arguments, I gave them more credibility than they deserved. I honestly thought that you were making an attempt to draw historically parallel without much knowledge of history which is why I tried to show that your historical examples weren't really good ones if you were trying to make a parallel that concerned the actual debate in question. I didn't realize that you knew your history and were injecting historical examples to prove a point that was and is entirely irrelevant to this debate. That was MY fault. I shouldn't have given you such a benefit of the doubt and should have pressed you for clarification (in which case it would have become readily apparent that your examples prove absolutely nothing and have nothing to do with the debate between A is A and myself concerning FatDog's foreign policy proposition).

I don't disagree with your contention that overwhelming force works militarily and I have NEVER disagreed with that. I can think of numerous examples myself that would support your contention that overwhelming force works militarily speaking. Such examples do nothing for the debate because that isn't what the debate is about. You and A is A are trying to draw bad philosophical parallels between events that share NOTHING in common with what is being debated (whether or not randomly nuking a middle eastern country and threatening another would radicalize the Muslim segements of the United States' population.).

You need to check your tone, it's not appreciated.

You so far have contributed nothing to the debate and have cluttered up the board with bad historical parallels that do nothing to disprove my overall point. My tone is a valid response to that.

Then why do you think that they probably will not fear us?

I addressed this in my last post to A is A.

Here is what I said:

I doubt they will ever fear us. Fear is a product of valuing something that is tied to life. People that really embrace a death worshipping philosophy are the most fearless people you will ever meet because they have nothing of value to lose. In fact, they stumble over themselves to give it up in the name of holy martyrdom.

Edited February 6, 2006 by Evan

[hunterrose]

Then why do you think that they probably will not fear us?

Another thing to think about, besides the points Evan made, is that overwhelming a nation is entirely different from overwhelming disparate and anonymous terrorists.

[Evan]

Another thing to think about, besides the points Evan made, is that overwhelming a nation is entirely different from overwhelming disparate and anonymous terrorists.

Yes, EXACTLY. Thank you for saying succinctly what I have been trying to say for numerous posts.

[AisA]

A is A:

I don't think it was based on reason, but who cares?

I care. You attempt to dismiss the comparison of Muslim fanatics to Japanese fanatics on the grounds that the latter were rationally defending secular goals while the former are pure worshippers of death as an end in itself. Both depictions are caricatures intended to obliterate obvious similarities.

No, Muslims won't necessarily tell you that they are fighting for their homeland unless we are talking about Palestinian Muslims. What Muslims WILL tell you is that they are fighting for a martyr's death which will place them in a glorified place in heaven instead of living here on earth which is far superior in their eyes. A fight for a homeland is a secondary concern to suicide bombers....after all, they aren't going to be alive to enjoy it.

The same can be said of a Kamikaze pilot; he, too, will not be alive to enjoy the homeland he is defending. Whether the motivation is a glorified place in heaven or avoiding dishonor, the fact remains that both parties choose death as a means to their goals. I see no basis for dismissing this similarity out of hand.

Unless they are Palestinian Muslims, they aren't probably fighting for a homeland to begin with.

As for what they value enough to fight for the death? The answer is death itself...aka "martyrdom."

The values that the Japanese had were LIFE based values. The same isnt' true for the Muslims. There IS a bright line. They point to the Koran which tells them to smite the infidels and attack.

The justification for terrorism most often cited by Muslims is the presence of Israel on “Muslim land”. Osama bin Laden's primary rationale for declaring war against the west is our presence on "Muslim land". The goal of restoring the caliphate – a central goal to the combat wing of Islam – is a desire to retake what they consider “Muslim land”. The pilgrimage to Mecca – i.e. the requirement to return to “Muslim land” at least once in one’s life – is a central tenet and requirement of Islam. And when they pray five times daily, where do they face? Mecca, the Muslim holy place. These facts do not support your contention that a homeland is unimportant to most Muslims.

Moreover, Muslims won't tell you that suicide bombings are a tactic of last resort because that just isn't what they believe.

Do you really think you know what every Muslim believes? I know I don’t. But a recurring theme I hear from Muslims is that suicide bombings are justified because this is the only way to fight back against the technologically superior forces of America and Israel.

The Japanese were deterred by nuke weapons. You can even argue that Saudi Arabia or Iran would be deterred by nukes. You CAN'T argue that radical Muslims living in the U.S will be deterred by nukes.

No, we cannot deter them with threats of nuclear weapons dropped on our own soil. But whatever we threaten them with (such as, for instance, mass deportation should they “radicalize”), it would be a far more credible threat if we first demonstrated a willingness to inflict mass death and destruction on our enemies, regardless of civilian casualties and regardless of U.N. and world opinion.

No, such a process of radicalization hasn't happened, I agree. Perhaps because we didn't nuke a Muslim country capriciously/randomly? Look, there is a CLEAR difference between defending ourselves and fighting terrorism (which several if not most American Muslim groups condemn) and using nuclear force. Bombing Libya (who supported the terrorist attack on the Pan Am flight) or defending Kuwait from an aggressor (an aggressor who was a secular Sunni) or going after terrorists (Afghanistan) or liberating Iraq are VASTLY different propositions than going to a map of the middle east and randomly pointing to a country then saying, "Lets nuke this one."

I can see a pretty big difference, yet for some reason you think American Muslims are incapable of identifying such differences?

I wonder what you really believe. Are American Muslims mindless followers of Islam who will overnight become insane, maniacal suicide bombers when the Koran or a fatwa so instructs – or are they capable of reason and restraint, able to distinguish a proper American response from an improper one? You depict them as the former when issuing blanket warnings about the “costs” of “radicalizing” them – but then you retreat to the latter to explain their current behavior. It is difficult to believe that both depictions are true.

What is not clear to me now is what actions you think they will take under what circumstances. Where on the continuum between the actions we have taken so far, and the random nuking of middle east countries (which you originally claimed beyond any doubt would trigger suicidal madness) do you assert this radicalization will kick in? And what do you propose to do about it?

Yes, appeasement is bad...but once again, you are in the realm of the non-topical. I'm not talking appeasement nor have I ever. I'm talking FatDog's initial proposition that we start randomly nuking Middle Eastern countries and issuing ultimatums. Saying that we refrain from such behavior is NOT appeasement.

The topic here is an evaluation of your assertion that under certain conditions, American Muslims will "radicalize". Now, if you rule out all evidence of Muslim behavior available to us at present, if you declare that there is not a scintilla of evidence available on this subject, neither historical nor present day, then you have ruled out all evidence for evaluating your claim. That would make it an arbitrary claim, i.e. one for which no supporting or contradicting information is available. Are you familiar with the Objectivist concept of the arbitrary?

Besides, historicism is absolutely silly philosophically speaking. Didn't John Galt buck the historical trend philosophically speaking? Isn't that part of the point? Trying to say that just because history doesn't support a certain idea misses the boat entirely. What happens if an entirely new circumstance happens that doesn't have historical precedent? What do you use to make inferences then? For example...the Cold War dynamic was something that was new (historically speaking) due to a NEW technological development (nukes). I have proven that Islam is quite distinct in its form as a religious philosophy apart from other historical philosophies. THAT is why your historical examples ARE bad examples. You can't infer anything from them.

Well you have certainly erected another straw man to blow over with your ALL CAPITALS shouting. I have not advocated historicism, at least not insofar as it means “historical determinism”. ( In fact, if anything in this discussion reflects a belief in determinism, it is your depiction of Muslims.) So denouncing it as “silly” and invoking John Galt is simply irrelevant to what I have actually said.

Nor have I said that “just because” history does not support your idea, it is false. But the fact that history does not support your idea is at least potentially relevant. I find it curious that on the one hand you adamantly maintain that you do not advocate appeasement -- yet at the same time, you are anxious to show that appeasement's historical record of failure does not apply to your predictions about Muslim behavior. If you are not advocating appeasement, why do you care about its historical record?

You are telling me that a country with 4 million Muslims won't probably have any radicalization among its members due to randomly nuking a middle eastern country? For Christ's sakes, nuking a middle eastern country would definitely give ANYONE the idea that Islam is under attack militarily. Muslims are instructed via the Koran to fight in defense of Islam. That is what jihad IS. Unless American Muslims magically decide to abandon their religious identity, I can't see why it wouldn't be inevitable. What exactly do you think would act as a deterrent…………….

What the heck would STOP them from picking up a gun and taking it into Wal-Mart or a bank to exact revenge for nuking the middle east? What would STOP them from retaliating with suicide bombs? Read the article I linked to and THEN come back to this debate. Muslims see death as a value if it is death given for Islam because such a death makes them martyrs and gives them benefits in the afterlife according to their religion. What better cause to die for than avenging their Muslim brethren in the middle east that just got nuked because they couldn't police terrorist Muslims in England? You couldn't HAND Muslims a better cause on a platter.

The burden is not on me to disprove your assertion. It is on you to support it. Since you have declared that all existing information on Muslim behavior, both historical and present day, is irrelevant to your assertion, it will be interesting to see you prove it.

Furthermore, I sense another shift on your part. The “radicalization” of a small portion of the population is a significantly different problem than the specter of all 4 MILLION of them blowing themselves up or showing up at Walmart with a gun. So again, you need to clarify your position: how many do you expect to detonate and under what conditions?

Personally, I think the behavior of American Muslims under current conditions is relevant and constructive. For one thing, I think it shows that you are painting with too broad a brush when you characterize all Muslims as being equally committed to the worship of death. Consider the recent nonsense of the cartoons of Mohammed. Muslims in Pakistan are burning the Danish embassy and rioting in the streets. Nothing of the sort is going on here in America. Why not? What is to STOP them from joining their Muslims brothers in such riots? Something accounts for this difference; what do you think it is?

Frickin' A...stay on topic! I'm not talking about appeasing ANYONE. Yes, appeasement sucks.

I never said, "let's go easy so we don't radicalize the Muslims." So yes, that argument is weak. It isn't MY argument, however, so try to stay on topic or this debate just wastes my time and is useless.

Yes, other countries have worse problems with Muslims. I agree. Whopee de doo. Those countries DO appease Muslims. We don't. We don't see problems, they do. Wonderful.

I do not find sarcasm persuasive.

It would be useful for you to explain the distinction between your argument and “lets go easy so we don't radicalize the Muslims", because frankly I don't see such a distinction. You have exhorted me to "consider the costs" of "radicalizing" the American Muslims -- but if you declare that this consideration is not to have any affect on our actions, what is the point? If you are not arguing, in any sense at all, for a "lets go easy" approach, then what is the relevance of this whole "radicalization" issue to my proposed course of action?

You are saying that by refraining from using nukes at random on middle eastern countries that I'm somehow an appeaser. That is a GROSS representation of my argument. If there is a definite threat from a middle eastern country, we have every right to attack in our self defense and we SHOULD without regard for appeasing ANYONE.

You should drop the pretense of being an injured party. I did not accuse you of advocating appeasement. I merely pointed out that history does not support your notion that the use of overwhelming force causes the fence sitters to join the other side; history shows the opposite. Since you have declared history irrelevant to this issue, why should you care what it shows?

However, the statement I disagreed with was from Fat Dogs. Do I really need to repeat it again? Apparently I do because you keep making the same bad insinuations that I'm some sort of moral coward or that my arguments are tantamount to moral cowardice (appeasement).

HERE is the statement I disagreed with:

"Simplest solution really is to just nuke one Arabic country after another on the basis that if the Muslims dont' completely stop terrorism after the first bomb then we drop a second. Eventaully I think they will get the point."

You see that? FatDog's argues that we should just start nuking Arab nations (not all of which sponsor terror by the way) and hold them accountable for actions committed and sustained outside of their borders. What the hell does Syria have to do with terrorism supported and directed from Iran? Unless there is PROVEN coordination between and among Arab states that supports terrorism, there is NO reason to tie global terrorist activity to ONE nation. Saying, "I'm going to hold Syria accountable for all of the world's terrorism by threatening them with a nuke and if terrorism doesn't stop I'm going to nuke Lebannon" is absolutely goofy. It is counterproductive and is based on a sort of collectivist ethic that holds one group accountable for the actions of another group that it doesn't necessarily have control over.

MOROEVER, as I have proven...the largest populations of Muslims exist OUTSIDE of the middle east! So what the hell purpose does nuking the middle east have when you have 4 million Muslims in the U.S? Do you really think nuking a country 5,000 miles away is going to stop radical American Muslims from engaging in terrorism? How about terrorist Muslims in England? FatDogs suggests that we keep nuking MIDDLE EASTERN countries if Muslims don't stop terrorism. What about non-middle eastern Muslim terrorists?

If you can't see the fact that FatDog's argument has a hole you could drive a frickin' semi through than I don't know what I could say to give you sight.

This is a nice straw man argument, because I don't think FatDog advocates the use of “goofy” tactics against nations that have “NO” ties to terrorism. You have jumped on his unfortunate choice of the word “Arab” instead of “Islamic” and on the fact that he did not specify the sequence in which he would attack, and twisted these as ungenerously as possible so as to be able to claim that he advocates the random nuking of countries without regard to their relationship to terrorism; so, unless I have missed something in one of his posts, you have seriously mischaracterized his position into one that, superficially, seems to justify your response. I don’t know what you think that accomplishes or proves.

I think that if the U.S nuked the Vatican, there would be Catholics that would be radicalized in the U.S. Would they take up arms or blow themselves up? Probably not because Catholicism isn't quite as bad as Islam. However, they WOULD radicalize. Islam is a violent religion and when Muslims radicalize they generally don't radicalize peacefully. People aren't always born a terrorist. People make CHOICES to do suicide bombings, etc. Sometimes all it takes is for someone's sister to get blown up by an Israeli helicopter that missed it's mark to bring people to the breaking point. I'm not excusing terrorists...I'm saying that they make choices. Are those violent choices be based on excuses? SURE. If a Palestinian guy's sister is killed by an Israeli military mistake...that doesn't justify or excuse violence. However, such death can be used as an excuse that is SUPPORTED by religious doctrine which gives the excuse legitimacy (at least in the eyes of the people that become terrorists). A man that might not ordinarily pick up a gun becomes emboldened because suddenly he sees "Allah" as being on his side morally speaking and he wants vengeance for his family. I'm sure there are people who haven't even lost anything (no family members, etc) that just are violent people that use Islam as an excuse to blow stuff up or hurt people. Do you think that American-Muslims wouldn't make the same connections mentally if we nuked the middle east? Do you think that they wouldn't use their religion as an excuse to be violent? Why wouldn't they? It isn't like they all value their lives to begin with nor is it like their religion values human life. Islam is ANTI-life. How would nuking the religion NOT be perceived as a direct attack on Islam? Such an attack would HAVE to be fought by jihad because that is what the Koran commands Muslims to do! Unless they are cowards or they aren't really Muslim, they would NOT be able to just ignore such a blatant attack on their religion. Such attacks would be widely condemned by Muslim leaders here in America and abroad and fatwas would be issued. I can't imagine any Imam NOT urging jihad if you started nuking the middle east. Sorry, it just wouldn't happen.

You seem to be under the impression that mere repetition of an assertion lends it weight, especially when accompanied by words in ALL CAPITALS, which is the equivalent of raising your voice.

I am struck by this passage in particular: “Do you think that American-Muslims wouldn't make the same connections mentally if we nuked the middle east? Do you think that they wouldn't use their religion as an excuse to be violent? Why wouldn't they? It isn't like they all value their lives to begin with nor is it like their religion values human life.”

So, how many American Muslims would you say do not value their lives? And how do you know?

I think you are making the mistake of equating Islam and Muslims. Islam is inherently anti-life because it is anti-mind. But there is no reason to believe that every Muslim believes and practices all of Islam's tenets.

Yes, I posted that nuking the middle east would NOT achieve its desired end if it was done AS FATDOGS suggested. Look...HE argued one thing and YOU argue another. HE argued for randomly nuking middle eastern countries. YOU argue for nuking in self-defense against countries that threaten us. Can't you see that my argument is NOT with you? It wasn't then and it isn't now.

I see nothing in FatDogs statements that argues for random nuking; he did not specify the order in which he would attack, but that is far from an explicit advocacy of random attacks.

1) No, they will never like us.

2) I doubt they will ever fear us. Fear is a product of valuing something that is tied to life. People that really embrace a death worshipping philosophy are the most fearless people you will ever meet because they have nothing of value to lose. In fact, they stumble over themselves to give it up in the name of holy martyrdom.

This is another example of painting with too broad a brush. The leaders of the Islamic nations, as well as the leaders of the various terrorist organizations, cannot be confused with the small percentage of the rank and file that are actually willing to become suicide bombers. One virtually never sees these leaders taking such actions. In fact, they have made a career out of exhorting others to sacrifice without doing it themselves.

If all Muslims worshipped death as an end in itself, we would not have a problem; they would all commit suicide and that would be the end of it. But even the suicide bombers go to great lengths to insure that they die on their terms and at the time and place of their choosing. They are afraid of death -- if it is a death on our terms. And that is what we can threaten them with: death that does not defend Muslim land and does nothing to protect Islam. That is not a death they would welcome; if it were, they would inflict it on themselves today.

[AisA]

You and A is A are trying to draw bad philosophical parallels between events that share NOTHING in common with what is being debated (whether or not randomly nuking a middle eastern country and threatening another would radicalize the Muslim segements of the United States' population.).

You continue to egregiously misrepresent FatDog's position, and you are mischaracterizing this debate by pretending it is focused solely on a blatantly irrational proposal which, as far as I can tell, no one has advocated.

What is at issue here (among other things) is whether the proper use of overwhelming force against our enemies will cause the fence sitters to join them in battle against us or encourage them to remain sidelined. That is the question I first raised and it is the question I have continued to ask. It is in this context that I have raised historical examples.

If you wish to argue that Muslims are so unique history can tell us nothing about their potential reactions to the use of overwhelming force (which I do not believe), fine. But please do not make it sound like I have claimed that there is an historical parallel to the straw-man scenario that you keep invoking. Don't start misrepresenting my position as well.

Edited February 6, 2006 by AisA

[Evan]

I'm going to use the underline function to highlight A is A's arguments and then I will respond to them immediately afterwards.

I care. You attempt to dismiss the comparison of Muslim fanatics to Japanese fanatics on the grounds that the latter were rationally defending secular goals while the former are pure worshippers of death as an end in itself. Both depictions are caricatures intended to obliterate obvious similarities.

Even if I agree (for the sake of argument) that the Japanese were JUST as death worshipping as fanatic Muslim. So what? The situation in World War II STILL wasn't remotely comparable to what FatDogs suggested, which is what this debate centers around.

We didn't nuke Japan with 4 million Japanese on our own soil. We interned 120,000 or so Japanese 2/3 of which were American citizens. So those Japanese that we DID have on our own soil weren't going to radicalize against American in retaliation for Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they source of Japanese radicalism in Japan was secular statism that was mixed with Shintoism (which historically is similar to hippy Buddhism and NOT like aggressive Islam). The Japanese on American soil didn't have nationalist feelings for Japan because many of them weren't raised in that environment and had allegiance to the United States.

From Wiki:

Lieutenant Commander Kenneth Ringle, a naval intelligence officer tasked with evaluating the loyalty of the Japanese American population, estimated in a 1941 report to his superiors that "better than 90% of the Nisei [second generation] and 75% of the original immigrants were completely loyal to the United States." A 1941 report prepared on President Roosevelt's orders by Curtis B. Munson, special representative of the State Department, concluded that most Japanese nationals and "90 to 98 percent" of Japanese American citizens were loyal. He wrote: "There is no Japanese `problem' on the Coast ... There is far more danger from Communists and people of the Bridges type on the Coast than there is from Japanese."

FBI director J. Edgar Hoover opposed the internment of Japanese-Americans. Refuting General DeWitt's reports of disloyalty on the part of Japanese Americans, Hoover sent a memo to Attorney General Francis Biddle in which he wrote about Japanese-American disloyalty, "Every complaint in this regard has been investigated, but in no case has any information been obtained which would substantiate the allegation."

and However, a sizable number did volunteer to serve from the camps, including in the famed and highly decorated 442nd Regimental Combat Team which operated in Europe (not Japan, as some believe). This unit was the most highly decorated in United States military history. Most notably, the 442nd was known for saving the 141st or the "lost battalion" from the Germans. No greater example of fortitude and courage was shown during World War 2.

Thus, your historical comparison has no way of possibly working. The situations just weren't comparable. What is important to note is that regardless of how fanatical the Japanese were in JAPAN, the American Japanese were not radicalized because the source (philosophically speaking) of their radicalization was NOT the Shinto religion (which unlike Islam IS a peaceful religion), it was the introduction of nationalist/statist elements when Shinto was made a state religion by the Japanese government.

Also from Wiki:

Following the Meiji Restoration, Shinto was made the official religion of Japan, and in 1868 its combination with Buddhism was outlawed. During this period, it was felt by numerous scholars of kokugaku that Shinto was needed in order to unify the country around the Emperor as the process of modernization was undertaken with all possible speed. The psychological shock of the Western "Black Ships" and the subsequent collapse of the shogunate convinced many that the nation needed to band together if it was going to resist being colonized by outside forces. As a result, Shinto was used as a tool for promoting Emperor (and Empire) worship, and Shinto was exported into conquered territories like Hokkaido and Korea.

In 1871, a Ministry of Divinities was formed and Shinto shrines were divided into twelve levels with Ise Shrine (dedicated to Amaterasu, and thus symbolic of the legitimacy of the Imperial family) at the peak and small sanctuaries of humble towns at the base. The following year, the ministry was replaced with a new Ministry of Religion, charged with leading instruction in "shushin" (moral courses). This was a major reverse from the Edo period, in which families were registered with Buddhist temples, rather than Shinto shrines. Priests were officially nominated and organized by the state, and they instructed the youth in a form of Shinto theology based on the official history of divinity of Japan's national origins and its Emperor.

As time went on, Shinto was increasingly used in the advertising of nationalists’ popular sentiments. In 1890, the "Imperial Rescript on Education" was passed, and students were required to ritually recite its oath to "offer yourselves courageously to the State" as well as protect the Imperial family. The practice of Emperor worship was also further spread by distributing imperial portraits for esoteric veneration. All of these practices were used to fortify national solidarity through patriotic centralized observance at shrines. This use of Shinto gave to Japanese patriotism a special tint of mysticism and cultural introversion, which became more pronounced as time went on.

Such processes continued deepening until the Showa Period, before coming to an abrupt halt in August 1945. Somewhat ironically, the invasion by the West so feared at the start of the Meiji era had come at last, due at least in part, to the radicalization of Japan permitted by its religious solidarity.

The actual beliefs of Shinto are quite peaceful and have historic ties to Buddhism. It wasn't Shintoism that made people death worshipping crazies in Japan (how many militant Buddhists do you know of historically speaking?), it was the statist crap perpetuated by the Japanese government. That manipulation of Shinto did NOT occur in the U.S which made the American-Japanese philosophically immune to the perversion of Shinto in America which is why they didn't radicalize. The situation with the Muslims is not REMOTELY comparable.

The same can be said of a Kamikaze pilot; he, too, will not be alive to enjoy the homeland he is defending. Whether the motivation is a glorified place in heaven or avoiding dishonor, the fact remains that both parties choose death as a means to their goals. I see no basis for dismissing this similarity out of hand.

See above.

The justification for terrorism most often cited by Muslims is the presence of Israel on “Muslim land”. Osama bin Laden's primary rationale for declaring war against the west is our presence on "Muslim land". The goal of restoring the caliphate – a central goal to the combat wing of Islam – is a desire to retake what they consider “Muslim land”. The pilgrimage to Mecca – i.e. the requirement to return to “Muslim land” at least once in one’s life – is a central tenet and requirement of Islam. And when they pray five times daily, where do they face? Mecca, the Muslim holy place. These facts do not support your contention that a homeland is unimportant to most Muslims.

The fight for a Muslim "homeland" is taking place in Palestine. The fight to kick out Americans from Saudi Arabia isn't done so the Muslims can have a "homeland" unless the Muslims in question are Saudis. Terrorists from Yemen aren't fighting for their homeland...they HAVE a homeland...it is called Yemen. I'm taking issue with your blanket use of the term "homeland." In the case of Japan, there is a single Japanese homeland and it is called Japan. For Islam, the center of the religion is in Saudi Arabia with the two main holy sites being Mecca and Medina. That is the "spiritual" homeland versus the physical homelands that many Muslims don't not share (a Jordan Muslim's homeland is Jordan whereas an Iraqi Muslim's homeland is in Iraq, obviously). That is a distinction YOU failed to make which is why I said that not all Muslims are fighting for a homeland in the physical sense that the Palestinians are fighting for land. Only Palestinians can be compared to the Japanese who were fighting for a physical piece of land. The rest are fighting for a spiritual idea...the idea of Sharia, the expulsion of all Americans from the region, etc.

You can see for yourself by reading Bin Laden's fatwa here.

But a recurring theme I hear from Muslims is that suicide bombings are justified because this is the only way to fight back against the technologically superior forces of America and Israel.

Ok, sure. That doesn't mean that they view suicide bombings as a "last resort" but whatever. It just means that they are unwilling to use other means.

But a recurring theme I hear from Muslims is that suicide bombings are justified because this is the only way to fight back against the technologically superior forces of America and Israel.

Why would you need to demonstrate a willingness to kill to make a threat of deportation credible? If you are simply kicking people out of the country you don't need to show that you are going to kill hundreds of thousands of people. I think illegal Mexican immigrants know that deportation IS a credible threat if they are caught by INS and we didn't need to nuke Mexico to show such a willingness to act.

This is largely irrelevant however, because you admit that nuke weapons don't serve as a deterrent for Muslims on our own soil which makes your Japanese comparison entirely irrelevant. The situations are completely different. The Japanese capitulated to the overwhelming use of military force because they were all in the same region of the world and were NOT scattered amongst the globe and in America's midst.

Are American Muslims mindless followers of Islam who will overnight become insane, maniacal suicide bombers when the Koran or a fatwa so instructs – or are they capable of reason and restraint, able to distinguish a proper American response from an improper one? You depict them as the former when issuing blanket warnings about the “costs” of “radicalizing” them – but then you retreat to the latter to explain their current behavior. It is difficult to believe that both depictions are true.

No, I don't depict them as the former when issuing blanket statements about them. What I DO say is that Muslims that USE their mind and read the Koran will inevitably be lead to the conclusion that being a Muslim has a certain identity. A is A remember? Such Muslims will realize that an improper use of nuclear force (like FatDogs suggested) would be an attack on their religion and for many of them an attack on their "homeland" (as you put it). The Koran specifically instructs faithful Muslims to come to the defense of their religion if it is under attack from a military threat. That is called jihad. For a thinking Muslim, the choice becomes simple: abandon your religious identity in the face of an attack (ignore the Koran and what it instructs as well as your Imams, etc) or respond AS a Muslim. What do you really think is more likely?

I never once said that American Muslims would be mindless followers of Islam that decide to become terrorists due to collectivist influence. The choice to be a terrorist is an individual choice.

Now, if you rule out all evidence of Muslim behavior available to us at present, if you declare that there is not a scintilla of evidence available on this subject, neither historical nor present day, then you have ruled out all evidence for evaluating your claim.

I haven't ruled out "all" evidence. I have ruled out using past historical examples to draw FALSE parallels. You can't make inferences about a certain situation based on historical examples if the historical examples share little in common with the current situation. THAT is what I'm disagreeing with quite clearly. I'm not ruling out "all evidence."

Go back to the topic as you yourself stated: The topic here is an evaluation of your assertion that under certain conditions, American Muslims will "radicalize".

The evidence I say proves my point is the fact that there are millions of practicing Muslims in the United States. That religion has a given identity. Go look at your screename. A IS A. To be a Muslim is to have a certain identity...to believe in a certain set of beliefs. Those beliefs stem from the Koran. Muslim's religious identity is explicitly tied to the Koran and that is factual evidence. Thus, based on such an identity I'm making a logical connection that Muslims will act according to their nature. That is called a hypothesis.

We both agree that the situation we are debating has NOT happened.

I'm saying given condition X (using FatDog's foreign policy), Y will happen (American Muslims will radicalize) for Z reason (the fact that Islam itself DEMANDS such radicalization as part of it's religious identity).

YOU are saying given condition X (using FD's foreign policy) Y will NOT happen (American Muslims will NOT necessarily radicalize) because of Z reason (the fact that you can't find such an example in history).

Both of our claims are tantamount to informal logical syllogisms (If X then Y due to Z).

The only difference is that my claim is based on a logical evaluation of the situation. The situation has evidence that we can evaluate such as what Islam entails (the beliefs) and how religions inspire radicalism when attacked (many historical examples).

Contrary to your big time misrepresentation, that IS evidence and I'm not dismissing "all evidence" when it comes to this debate. I'm dismissing your attempts to admit bad examples into this discussion and try to call it evidence. In courts of law, certain evidence is admissible and inadmissible. In debates, the same is true. Some stuff just isn't topical or just won't show anything.

If we both admit that we haven't seen a historical example of the EXACT nature of what we are discussing, then we can't look to history for parallels. Thus, we must look to logic to make inferences about what will most likely happen due to the fact that entities must act according to their nature.

Let me give you an example.

Let's say the year is 1960 and we are both debating whether or not the Soviet Union will collapse economically.

I say, "No, the Soviet's economy will not collapse because it is Communist. America's economy collapsed during the Great Depression and IT wasn't Communist."

You say, "Wait a minute, you have no historical precedent to back your contention up. There has never been a Communist state until the U.S.S.R. Communism is new historically speaking. There is no historical evidence; you are comparing apples and oranges."

I reply by saying, "You are dismissing all historical evidence past and present to validate your point. You must be bringing up the arbitrary."

Gee, whiz. Sound familiar?

In a situation such as the above, the only way to debate the future of any given policy is to either

1) Look at the past and draw conclusions

OR

2) If no past examples suffice or there aren't any historical parallels to be drawn, analyze the nature of the entities in question because such entities MUST act according to their natures. In other words, you can make a LOGICAL inference based on a logical hypothesis.

This is what Ayn Rand did on the very topic of Communism. She stated (quite accurately) that Communism was a variation in form of the tribal collectivist junk that had existed historically for quite some time with equally bad results (which is why the West progressed and the people embodying the tribal spirit were indigenous people living in hovels compared to the enlightened west with the skyscrapers of New York City).

The nature of Communism is such that it could be compared to other variations of tribal/collectivist philosophies (which is what Ayn Rand did to debunk Communism).

However, Islam has a unique nature which warrants that it be discussed separately outside of past historical examples (unless the historical examples directly involve Islam or the behavior of Muslims...not Japanese kamikaze pilots).

I'm doing #2 because #1 just is NOT sufficient in this case.

That doesn't mean I'm dismissing all evidence or going into the realm of the arbitrary. I'm just debating what constitutes proper evidence in this case. Historical evidence does not suffice and I have already explained why a bazillion times.

That would make it an arbitrary claim, i.e. one for which no supporting or contradicting information is available.

No, actually it wouldn't make it an arbitrary claim. An easy way to disprove my logical inference (X policy results in Y due to Z reasons) would be to prove that the nature of Islam would NOT mandate that American Muslims pick up jihad as a response to FatDogs policy. Proving that Islam would NOT warrant such radicalization would by logical extension show that most Muslims would not become radicalized which would directly contradict my point. I'm not asserting a non-falsifiable claim. In cases where you are debating what would happen, all you have is logic and the nature of entities to analyze unless you can bring in a historical example that is topical.

If you can show me a historical example in which a country used massive force against a fanatical religious group outside of its borders while having 1% of its domestic population (which also subscribe to the same religion which is by its very nature, radical and fanatical as even FatDogs admitted) subscribe to that religion...I would like to hear it.

THAT would constitute proof.

Let me give you a hypothetical scenario.

If England nuked the Vatican in response to the IRA's terrorism, do you honestly think the Catholics in England (or the rest of the world) would NOT radicalize?

That would be a comparable situation (which obviously hasn't happened) which would constitute proper evidence that would invalidate my claim. If you can find me an example like THAT that shows that a domestic population stays inert and does nothing in response to the use of a WMD (btw...nuke weapons have only been used twice against enemy populations so your historical examples probably will by nature be scarce), that would qualify as evidence. You would have to show that the religion or belief was also as radical as Islam is to start out with (Catholics might radicalize but such radicalization might not entail taking up weapons or bombs) as well, but that is neither here nor there.

Your Japan example is weak because the country that used the overwhelming force didn't have a domestic population of Japanese that subscribed to the same brand of ideology as the kamikaze pilots in mainland Japan. American Muslims are still Muslims. They still treat the Koran as the primary source of their ideology.

Japanese-Americans were not part of the same group as the Japanese we were attacking.

Are you familiar with the Objectivist concept of the arbitrary?

Yup. Are you?

I have not advocated historicism, at least not insofar as it means “historical determinism”. ( In fact, if anything in this discussion reflects a belief in determinism, it is your depiction of Muslims.) So denouncing it as “silly” and invoking John Galt is simply irrelevant to what I have actually said.

What you actually said was:

history does not support your overall contention, which is: the use of overwhelming force against our enemy will cause those who live in our midsts to turn into suicidal maniacs. History is replete with examples that demonstrate that it is appeasement and appearing weak that emboldens one's enemies and causes more of them to take up arms against you, not the overwhelming use of force to stike at his home base. I am not aware of a single example where the use of overwhelming force (such as the United States possess) causes the fence sitters to join the war for the other side.

My response involving John Galt was not at all irrelevant. You are claiming that you aren't aware of a single historical example to back up my point and you are claiming that is somehow important. It isn't.

John Galt didn't follow what the rest of history's intellectuals had done. He shrugged. There was no historical precedent for that. Just because there is no historical precedent of anyone "shrugging" does NOT mean that I would be wrong for suggesting (prior to John Galt) that man was incapable of taking that action.

I don't depict Muslims in a deterministic fashion whatsoever. I say that Islam has a given nature and that entities must act according to their nature. That isn't determinism, it is reality. It is the law of cause and effect. Causes come from the nature of the elements involved. In OPAR Leonard Peikoff gives the example of a game of pool. The nature of the pool ball is what allows the balls to move each other (subside an egg and you get a different outcome). Saying that a pool ball must necessarily move when it is hit by another pool ball to the exclusion of other outcomes (like turning into a tuna casserole) is not deterministic.

Nor have I said that “just because” history does not support your idea, it is false. But the fact that history does not support your idea is at least potentially relevant.

No, it isn't relevant.

If I was a philosopher prior to Ayn Rand (hypothetically speaking) in 1913 that said, "Mankind doesn't have to put up with the crap people throw at him, he can philosophically 'shrug' due to the nature of man and what that entails," I wouldn’t' be wrong simply because there is a lack of historical examples of men shrugging.

If men (due to their nature) have options X,Y,Z at their disposal and history only shows mankind engaging in behaviors X and Y, that doesn't erase the fact that they still are able to engage in Z behavior. The historical argument in that context has no relevance whatsoever. The fact that history doesn't support my idea is not relevant in the least because the situation that we are discussing hasn't ever really existed in any comparable fashion in history.

I find it curious that on the one hand you adamantly maintain that you do not advocate appeasement -- yet at the same time, you are anxious to show that appeasements historical record of failure does not apply to your predictions about Muslim behavior. If you are not advocating appeasement, why do you care about its historical record?

The reason why appeasement's historical record of failure doesn't apply to my predictions about Muslim behavior is because my predictions aren't centered on an instance of appeasement.

That is why I care about the historical record of appeasement. I want to make it excruciatingly clear that I'm against appeasement 100% because you are 100% correct about appeasement failing historically speaking. Appeasing Muslims (domestically or foreign) right now would be tantamount to ceding our right to self-defense (as you said). I don't argue that we appease ANYONE. That is why I'm "anxious" to show that appeasements historical record of failure doesn't apply to my predictions about Muslim behavior. Quite simply, appeasement has nothing to do with what we are talking about which is why the history of appeasement has nothing to do with my predictions. I'm only concerned with keeping the debate clean of your numerous straw men and bad examples.

The burden is not on me to disprove your assertion. It is on you to support it.

I have supported it. The quote that you are responding to has me labeling exactly WHY Muslims would act in a certain manner. You have NO way to account for any sort of a deterrent mechanism, etc. If you HAVE an alternative theory that better accounts for things, I would love to hear it. Since you don't, I think we can let my evidence stand.

Here is exactly what I said on this issue:

You are telling me that a country with 4 million Muslims won't probably have any radicalization among its members due to randomly nuking a Middle Eastern country? For Christ's sakes, nuking a Middle Eastern country would definitely give ANYONE the idea that Islam is under attack militarily. Muslims are instructed via the Koran to fight in defense of Islam. That is what jihad IS. Unless American Muslims magically decide to abandon their religious identity, I can't see why it wouldn't be inevitable. What exactly do you think would act as a deterrent? What the heck would STOP them from picking up a gun and taking it into Wal-Mart or a bank to exact revenge for nuking the Middle East? What would STOP them from retaliating with suicide bombs? Read the article I linked to and THEN come back to this debate. Muslims see death as a value if it is death given for Islam because such a death makes them martyrs and gives them benefits in the afterlife according to their religion. What better cause to die for than avenging their Muslim brethren in the Middle East that just got nuked because they couldn't police terrorist Muslims in England? You couldn't HAND Muslims a better cause on a platter. .

I think what I said on the subject is a pretty good logical substantiation that it is in the nature of Islam to respond to attacks and that FatDog's foreign policy would be an attack in the eyes of Muslims.

Furthermore, I sense another shift on your part. The “radicalization” of a small portion of the population is a significantly different problem than the specter of all 4 MILLION of them blowing themselves up or showing up at Wal-Mart with a gun.

4 million Muslims ARE a small portion of the U.S population...1% to be exact. I'm not seeing the "significant difference" but whatever. You are the one drawing mindless distinctions. I never implied that all 4 million Muslims would become radicalized or show up at Wal-Mart. The point I was making is that there are a lot of Muslims in the U.S and if only ½ of 1% of Muslims decide to take up arms, that is still 20,000 people.

So again, you need to clarify your position: how many do you expect to detonate and under what conditions?

I can't logically speculate to exactly how many will take up arms. I can definitely give you the conditions though. The people that would take up arms against America as a result of FatDog's foreign policy proposition are the ones that honestly buy into Islam and take it literally. I don't know how many that would be. If 1/2 of 1% took up arms that would be 20,000 people (1% of 4 million is 40,000).

I would be willing to posit that more than 20,000 out of 4 million are firm believers in the literal word of the Koran which does indeed mandate that if the religion is attacked then jihad is the proper response (and proper jihad is smiting off the head of the infidels whenever and wherever you see them).

Personally, I think the behavior of American Muslims under current conditions is relevant and constructive. For one thing, I think it shows that you are painting with too broad a brush when you characterize all Muslims as being equally committed to the worship of death. Consider the recent nonsense of the cartoons of Mohammed. Muslims in Pakistan are burning the Danish embassy and rioting in the streets. Nothing of the sort is going on here in America. Why not? What is to STOP them from joining their Muslims brothers in such riots? Something accounts for this difference; what do you think it is

I think you are using another bad example. What stops American Muslims is that there is a substantive difference (in terms of the religion being "under attack") between a damn cartoon and a nuclear weapon. American Muslims ARE different from their Middle Eastern counterparts in that they are willing to make that distinction. I have always said so. That is why I proposes that non-radical American Muslims would radicalize (i.e. = become more radical) whereas a great majority of the world's other Muslims are already radical. I'm not painting with too broad of a brush. Jeez. Read what I write for a change.

It would be useful for you to explain the distinction between your argument and “lets go easy so we don't radicalize the Muslims", because frankly I don't see such a distinction. You have exhorted me to "consider the costs" of "radicalizing" the American Muslims -- but if you declare that this consideration is not to have any affect on our actions, what is the point? If you are not arguing, in any sense at all, for a "lets go easy" approach, then what is the relevance of this whole "radicalization" issue to my proposed course of action?

When I say that we need to consider the costs, all I mean is that we should understand what is going to happen as a result of our actions (a simple evaluation of cause and effect). We need a realistic picture of the situation. During the Cuban missile crisis event, we needed to evaluate the costs of our foreign policy and keep that in mind so that way we had the full and proper context of reality in our minds. If you ignore the fact that costs exist, you are evading reality and your actions will reflect that. Such identification is the difference between moral courage and stupidity. Go back to the Cuban missile crisis example. If our president had been a person that didn't admit that there are possible costs of our foreign policy (standing up to the Russians) must ignore the fact that Russia had the option of using nuclear warfare as a result of our hard-line stance. Such an evasive person doesn't understand what is at stake when it comes to making decisions. Such a person is more likely to act in a manner that is out of synch with reality. Perhaps such a president would make a preemptive nuclear strike against Russia because he didn't take into account the fact that the U.S would be destroyed by the Russian counterattack. Such a person is stupid, foolhardy, and rash. Then compare that person to John F. Kennedy. He understood that standing up to Khrushchev could bring us to the brink of nuclear annihilation. He understood that the results of his actions could leave an American city in smoldering ruins. He understood these costs and understood that DESPITE these costs, the costs would be greater if we backed down and gave in to the Russians. J.F.K was morally courageous because he acted according to the full picture of reality (costs, risks, etc). The hypothetical president that didn't account for costs was an idiot who might or might not end up acting in our best interest .

That is the point that I'm making and that is what the relevance is to your approach. I'm clearly not saying that you should "go easy" on anyone (let alone the Muslims). You just have to understand what will happen as a result of any given policy. They have an entire field of mathematics dedicated to this fact...it is called game theory. Look it up if you don't understand its relevance to political science. Evaluating costs is important so you can shape your approaches to given problems. For example, perhaps if we used FatDog's foreign policy we could deal with the threat of the Muslim response by using statist policies (like concentration/internment camps) or mass deportations (which would punish law-abiding Muslims along with the potential terrorists)? I mentioned this in my response to FatDogs and he never responded back. I don't agree with the use of statist policies that I proposed, but I proposed them to highlight the fact that we would have to do something to protect ourselves. The overall point is, you must take into account what costs ARE if you are to make effective decisions. If you acknowledge that some Muslims will indeed take up arms against America as a result of a given foreign policy, that means you need a contingency plan to deal with that.

You should drop the pretense of being an injured party. I did not accuse you of advocating appeasement.

Like hell you didn't accuse me of it!

Here is exactly where you accused me:

So the "lets go easy so we don't radicalize the Muslims" argument is weak at best.'

You are accusing me of advocating a "let's go easy" approach to Muslims which IS appeasement no matter how many ways you want to dance around it. At least have the courage to stand behind your own accusations or apologize for them. You equated my arguments with an appeasing approach and said that my arguments were therefore weak. Don't you dare try to say that A is NOT A and try to hold the pretense that you have any personal integrity or right to hold the screename that you do.

Here is the definition of appeasement from Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary (www.refdesk.com):

ap•pease

Pronunciation: &-'pEz

Function: transitive verb

Inflected Form(s): ap•peased; ap•peas•ing

Etymology: Middle English appesen, from Middle French apaisier, from a- (from Latin ad-) + pais peace -- more at PEACE

1 : to bring to a state of peace or quiet : CALM

2 : to cause to subside : ALLAY <appeased my hunger>

3 : PACIFY, CONCILIATE; especially : to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles synonym see PACIFY

Hmmmm. Let's see. Does a "lets go easy so we don't radicalize the Muslims approach" (what you accuse me of) fall in line with being conciliatory or conceding at the sacrifice of principles? Yes, it clearly does.

You ARE accusing me of appeasement and unjustly so. Unless you apologize, you can drop the pretense of being an Objectivist or a person of integrity. You can also drop the "A is A" screename because if you honestly insist that there is no contradiction between what you said and the defintion of appeasement, then you have no moral right to use such a screename. You can also expect me to cease this debate immediately unless you concede the fact that you did indeed accuse me of appeasement. The evidence is excruciatingly clear and written in your own words.

I merely pointed out that history does not support your notion that the use of overwhelming force causes the fence sitters to join the other side; history shows the opposite

No, history does NOT show the opposite because you have yet to give me an example of fence sitters even being present in the country that used military force (there weren't Japanese "fence sitters" living in America when we dropped the atom bombs against Japan...so that argument is 100% useless).

Since you have declared history irrelevant to this issue, why should you care what it shows?

See above.

This is a nice straw man argument, because I don't think FatDog advocates the use of “goofy” tactics against nations that have “NO” ties to terrorism. You have jumped on his unfortunate choice of the word “Arab” instead of “Islamic” and on the fact that he did not specify the sequence in which he would attack, and twisted these as ungenerously as possible so as to be able to claim that he advocates the random nuking of countries without regard to their relationship to terrorism; so, unless I have missed something in one of his posts, you have seriously mischaracterized his position into one that, superficially, seems to justify your response. I don’t know what you think that accomplishes or proves. You continue to egregiously misrepresent FatDog's position, and you are mischaracterizing this debate by pretending it is focused solely on a blatantly irrational proposal which, as far as I can tell, no one has advocated.

1) Look, FatDogs advocates nuking one country and then threatening to nuke another one if global terrorism doesn't cease. That IS a goofy tactic even if both countries are connected to terrorism. If you nuke Syria and then threaten to nuke Saudi Arabia if all global terrorism doesn't stop...you are holding Saudi Arabia responsible for factions that exist and operate outside of its borders. You are saying that if someone blows up a building in France that Saudi Arabia automatically gets held responsible. That IS goofy and I'm not twisting anything here. I'm using FatDog's own proposition.

Since you clearly have problems with reading comprehension, I will post what FatDogs said once again with the important parts bolded (that is important...pay attention):

"Simplest solution really is to just nuke one Arabic country after another on the basis that if the Muslims dont' completely stop terrorism after the first bomb then we drop a second . Eventaully I think they will get the point."

2)Even if you DO nuke strictly "Islamic" nations, that ignores the fact that there are countries that have a lot of Muslims that aren't "Islamic" countries. Are you going to nuke France if their Muslims start acting up? How about Washington D.C if the Muslims start rioting? Obviously, you aren't going to resort to nukes in those cases. However, those Muslims (Muslims living outside of countries in which the majority population is Muslim) are just as responsible for terrorism. So regardless, FatDog's plan (ordering Muslim nations to stop terrorism or risk nuclear anhiliation) does absolutely nothing to address Islamic terrorism that exists in countries in which the majority population is non-Muslim (like France for example).

FatDog's didn't specify what tie was important or relevant. Is simply funding a terrorist group enough to nuke the country? If so, then we should be nuking Saudi Arabia DESPITE the fact that their military poses no threat to us whatsoever and we could achieve the same goals without using nukes.

3)I haven't twisted anything. I'm going by what FatDogs himself wrote. What would you suggest, "A is -A?" Would you prefer that I use mystical conversations with the spirits to derive FatDog's "true" meaning?

FatDogs corrected himself and said that we are talking about Islamic countries, but that still begs tons of questions as I have repeatedly pointed out. FatDogs hasn't provided ONE example of what kind of a tie or how strong such a tie would have to be to warrant nuking a country and then threatening another one.

You on the other hand have suggested nuking Iran because they are an actual threat (they are developing WMDs). I support your position on Iran. I don't support FatDog's vagaries that are completely indefensible in every way. I agree with you, it IS unfortunate that FatDogs was so damn unclear. However, that is what I have been debating with all along and what I have taken issue with the entire time. I'm using what HE brought to the table. You interject and want to change the standard from what he actually said and claim that me quoting his OWN words is somehow twisting his intent. How else do you derive intent outside of what people actually say?

You snidely commented, "Do you really think you know what every Muslim believes? "

I now ask you, Do you know what FatDogs really believes?

If so, how do you know that outside of what he actually said? Divine revelation? A private conversation? The alignment of the stars?

FatDogs has had many days to clarify his positions. He has also responded to me with numerous posts as well. So I'm not as forgiving as you are, sorry. MY intent and interpretation of his arguments was quite clear from the beginning and he replied without clarifying or changing his position in any respect other than changing his word choice from "Arabic" to "Islamic" (which still misses the point).

You seem to be under the impression that mere repetition of an assertion lends it weight, especially when accompanied by words in ALL CAPITALS, which is the equivalent of raising your voice.

I'm raising my voice because volume stresses and emphasizes the important points. By using all caps, your eyes are drawn to a particular segment of text which stresses their importance. You clearly have problems digesting relatively simple points, so if I were talking to you in real life I would make sure to go extra slow and raise my voice at the appropriate times so that way maybe someday you too would put 2 and 2 together to equal 4. I know that for some people it takes awhile, but I'm extremely patient.

I don't believe the fact that repeating an assertion makes it true as that is a logical fallacy. However, I do believe in reasserting arguments that haven't been addressed adequately to highlight the fact that your responses have been inadequate. It makes a very good point, namely my arguments still stand unchallenged. If you care to change that pattern of behavior, you could start making good arguments or rather...start making arguments, period...in which case we would be involved in a real debate.

I am struck by this passage in particular: “Do you think that American-Muslims wouldn't make the same connections mentally if we nuked the middle east? Do you think that they wouldn't use their religion as an excuse to be violent? Why wouldn't they? It isn't like they all value their lives to begin with nor is it like their religion values human life.”So, how many American Muslims would you say do not value their lives? And how do you know?I think you are making the mistake of equating Islam and Muslims. Islam is inherently anti-life because it is anti-mind. But there is no reason to believe that every Muslim believes and practices all of Islam's tenets.

1) How many American Muslims don't value their lives? That depends on how many Muslims believe exactly what the Koran says. That depends on how many American Muslims really believe in Islam.

2) How do I know? Erh. You agree that Islam is anti-mind. It is more than that, though. Read the article I have linked to numerous times. Islam is much more than an anti-mind philosophy like Communism. Islam also advocates wanton coercion and values death explicitly. Communism is anti-life because it is anti-mind and being anti-mind leads to eventual death. Islam is anti-life because it literally values death in service of Allah. There is a distinction that you aren't able to make because you don't have the knowledge to make such a distinction. Read the article then get back to me.

3) I never said that every Muslim believes and practices all of Islam’s tenets.

What I actually said was, "It isn't like they all value their lives to begin with"

That clearly states that I believe that some American-Muslims do not value their lives because I state that all do not value their lives.

The only way to prove that all American-Muslims do value their lives is to prove that they are in fact are NOT Muslims and don't believe in the Koran at all which I think is a harder proposition than you realize. Do you really want to argue that?

I see nothing in FatDogs statements that argues for random nuking; he did not specify the order in which he would attack, but that is far from an explicit advocacy of random attacks.

It would be random in the sense that it would be unconnected with the actual terrorism in question.

As I said, nuking Syria out of the blue for funding terrorism and then threatening to nuke Saudi Arabia if terrorism ignores the fact that there are terrorists that are outside of Muslim nations' control.

This is another example of painting with too broad a brush. The leaders of the Islamic nations, as well as the leaders of the various terrorist organizations, cannot be confused with the small percentage of the rank and file that are actually willing to become suicide bombers. One virtually never sees these leaders taking such actions. In fact, they have made a career out of exhorting others to sacrifice without doing it themselves.

You are correct, you don't see Muslim leaders becoming suicide bombers. They do encourage others to make such sacrifices. I also I agree with that. However, I'm not confusing the leaders with the rank and file. I'm arguing that Muslim leaders would definitely support jihad against FatDog's proposition because Islam DEMANDS it as a religion. Read the article I linked to, and come back to this debate. Until you do, I'm banging my head against a wall trying to get through to someone who clearly knows very little about the ideology in question (Islam) and how it is philosophically different from other destructive collectivist variants.

If all Muslims worshipped death as an end in itself, we would not have a problem; they would all commit suicide and that would be the end of it. But even the suicide bombers go to great lengths to insure that they die on their terms and at the time and place of their choosing. They are afraid of death -- if it is a death on our terms. And that is what we can threaten them with: death that does not defend Muslim land and does nothing to protect Islam. That is not a death they would welcome; if it were, they would inflict it on themselves today.[/

To a Muslim, death in battle (on the enemy’s terms) is still martyrdom. It isn't martyrdom is they are sitting at home eating potato chips and watching Law and Order, no...I agree. The only way to ensure that their deaths are NOT on their terms is to commit genocide. Is that what you are suggesting?

Otherwise, we can threaten the middle eastern Muslims, but we still haven't put fear into the heart of the American Muslim that is plotting terrorist attacks in Chicago that is sitting at home watching Law and Order.

He isn't afraid because he is plotting and planning on his terms and expects to die on his terms at some point. The only way to put fear into such a man is to preemptively exterminate him. Do you see any other way?

What is at issue here (among other things) is whether the proper use of overwhelming force against our enemies will cause the fence sitters to join them in battle against us or encourage them to remain sidelined. That is the question I first raised and it is the question I have continued to ask. It is in this context that I have raised historical examples.

No, the proper use of overwhelming force against our enemies will probably not cause the fence sitters to join us. Your historical examples fail in this context as well, though because in cases where proper force has been used (like the example of Japan you brought up) there weren't fence sitters in America so your parallels still suck. What is most important here is the fact that we AREN'T debating the reaction to a proper use of force. That was never FatDog's position (his position is anything but proper) and that is not what this debate has been about. This is why I repeatedly accuse you of being off topic.

Besides...even IF the proper use of force (like nuking Iran) would cause fence sitters to join battle against us (like American Muslims) we must not surrender our principles and compromise. I don't encourage appeasement, so discussing the response to a proper use of force is utterly irrelevant. I never claimed that the response to a proper use of force was relevant beyond simply getting a realistic picture of the situation(read = my J.F.K example). We don't disagree in the realm of "the proper use of force."

The only thing we could possibly debate is whether or not FatDog's initial proposition is "proper" or not. I have made quite a substantial number of arguments arguing it isn't.

In conclusion, I'm not really getting much from this debate. I used two hours of my life on this post. I didn't come away with more knowledge or really anything gained. I can't see you contributing anything of relevance because so far, you haven't. So forgive me if I don't hasten to respond to your posts. If you say something insightful or make an interesting point, I will respond. Otherwise, I'm content to let this debate (or lack thereof) stand and let people weigh the arguments for themselves.

I'm not interested in hearing you repeat the same junk for the 5th time and I'm not interested in making the same replies (that keep remaining unaddressed, substantively speaking) for the 5th time. Such an endeavor is counterproductive to both parties.

-E

Edited February 7, 2006 by Evan

[hunterrose]

I think this has gotten a bit off track.

The idea that American Muslims will radicalize in the face U.S. acts of mass death in the Middle East is but one part of the idea that we can intimidate everyone to be against terrorism. "Oderint dum metuant" seems a bit anarchic to me.

I merely pointed out that history does not support your notion that the use of overwhelming force causes the fence sitters to join the other side; history shows the opposite.

Overwhelming force is effective against nations and imminent visible threats. But you really can't compare stopping WW2 Japanese to stopping terrorism.

A military soldier's efforts are effective only as a part of an extensive organization, and a man willing to give his life as part of a military victory is entirely different from a man willing to give his life in order to create fear and sorrow.

Even the suicide bombers go to great lengths to insure that they die on their terms and at the time and place of their choosing. They are afraid of death -- if it is a death on our terms. And that is what we can threaten them with: death that does not defend Muslim land and does nothing to protect Islam. That is not a death they would welcome.

Most terrorism already does nothing to defend Muslim land or Islam. How would threatening them with a preexisting situation significantly change their behavior?

[Evan]

Dr. Yaron Brooks latest editorital titled, "Do not apologize for cartoons of Mohammad"

has the following exerpt:

European newspapers must refuse to apologize for running cartoons of Mohammad. But instead of applauding those papers that have stood their ground defending free speech, the U.S. government has shamefully endorsed Muslim complaints against the "blasphemous" cartoons.

So perhaps that is why Muslims in the U.S aren't antsy in the least? We have a government that has appeasing elements that agree with the Muslims in principle on issues like these. The U.S isn't willing to go all out and utterly reject Islamic crap at it's philosophically crappy root. The Danish newspapers DID do that and the results are written all over the wall. Perhaps that is a useful thing to think about.

[AisA]

In conclusion, I'm not really getting much from this debate. I used two hours of my life on this post. I didn't come away with more knowledge or really anything gained. I can't see you contributing anything of relevance because so far, you haven't. So forgive me if I don't hasten to respond to your posts. If you say something insightful or make an interesting point, I will respond. Otherwise, I'm content to let this debate (or lack thereof) stand and let people weigh the arguments for themselves.

I'm not interested in hearing you repeat the same junk for the 5th time and I'm not interested in making the same replies (that keep remaining unaddressed, substantively speaking) for the 5th time. Such an endeavor is counterproductive to both parties.

Now this is amusing. I love it. According to you, I've said nothing of relevance, I've advanced no debate, I've offered nothing but junk, and I have offered no substantive response -- and it only took you 8,000 words to respond to it!

[hunterrose]

So perhaps that is why Muslims in the U.S aren't antsy in the least? We have a government that has appeasing elements that agree with the Muslims in principle on issues like these. The U.S isn't willing to go all out and utterly reject Islamic crap at it's philosophically crappy root. The Danish newspapers DID do that and the results are written all over the wall. Perhaps that is a useful thing to think about.

Most likely. For me, it's hard to envision a large radical Muslim population in America, and the fact that this uproar is taking place in Denmark(?) is unusual.

If the difference between the Danish and American Muslims' actions is influenced by the governmental response, I also think it has some deeper causes dependent on longer-term government policies and the particular group of Muslims themselves. Or more simply, I don't think the Danish and American responses were so different that they would significantly alter the actions of those countries' Muslims, unless there were also preexisting differences between the populations.

[Evan]

Now this is amusing. I love it. According to you, I've said nothing of relevance, I've advanced no debate, I've offered nothing but junk, and I have offered no substantive response -- and it only took you 8,000 words to respond to it!

Au contraire. If someone is casting junk and calling it pearls, the person objecting has the painstaking work of defining what a pearl is and defining how the junk fails to meet the criteria. The more junk, the more work. That is anything BUT amusing.

[AisA]

Dr. Yaron Brooks latest editorital titled, "Do not apologize for cartoons of Mohammad"

has the following exerpt:

European newspapers must refuse to apologize for running cartoons of Mohammad. But instead of applauding those papers that have stood their ground defending free speech, the U.S. government has shamefully endorsed Muslim complaints against the "blasphemous" cartoons.

So perhaps that is why Muslims in the U.S aren't antsy in the least? We have a government that has appeasing elements that agree with the Muslims in principle on issues like these. The U.S isn't willing to go all out and utterly reject Islamic crap at it's philosophically crappy root. The Danish newspapers DID do that and the results are written all over the wall. Perhaps that is a useful thing to think about.

Au contraire. If someone is casting junk and calling it pearls, the person objecting has the painstaking work of defining what a pearl is and defining how the junk fails to meet the criteria. The more junk, the more work. That is anything BUT amusing.

This thinking is as confused as the rest of what you write.

There is a distinction between the location of a protest and the object of a protest. The absence of protests in America, against America, may or may not be attributable to our appeasement. But the absence of protests in America, against the Danish cannot be accounted for by this fact. Do you grasp that distinction? Muslims are not just protesting in Denmark; they are protesting all over the globe.

If Muslims do not get "antsy" at countries that do not "reject Islamic crap", why are so many Muslims protesting so violently in countries like Britain, who appeases them to a far greater extent than we do?

For that matter, if what gets Muslims 'antsy" is the "rejection of Islamic crap", why are so many Muslims killing fellow Muslims?

And why didn't the Muslims get "antsy" when these exact same cartoons appeared in an Egyptian newspaper last October? There wasn't a peep of outrage at that time.

And why does this Muslim outrage appear now, three months after the cartoons first appeared? Yes, there were some intitial protests, but why the resurgence after a long period when no one seemed to care about them?

The answer, of course, is that the situation isn't as simplistic as you spent the better part of 8,000 words stating and restating. The reactions of the Muslims to these cartoons -- and many, many other examples -- refute your simplistic notion that "Muslims have identity, and entities must act according to their identity, thus Muslims will do what the Koran instructs them to do." If such were the case, we would see uniform Muslim reactions -- and we do not.

The fact is the Koran does not present a single, consistent, uniform message to which Muslims respond robotically in a single, consistent and uniform manner. Neither of these notions is true and single glance at the statements and behavior of Muslims around the world proves it. Like the Bible, the Koran has its share of contradictory exhortations; for every murderous quote cited by bin Laden or Zarqawi, the Muslim apologists can cite one to the contrary. Reading the Koran one comes away with an impression of a book of threats seperated by calls for peace. (Personally, I believe the calls for peace are a smokescreen; but since I am not a mind reader, I cannot be sure whether the Muslims that claim Islam is peaceful are sincere, mislead or outright liars.)

What is clear is that many Muslims, especially the less educated ones in the middle east but also many in Europe, are manipulated and controlled by their local imams and clerics. Islam is religion of a thousand commandments. As I have posted in this forum in the past, one can go to IslamOnline.net and see some 10,000 fatwas issued over the last 5 years clarifying Islam's vast array of rules. Note that these fatwas were issued in response to questions submitted voluntarily by Muslims from around the world. It suggests that Muslims look to these rulings at least as much as they do to the Koran.

The point is clear: whatever the Koran (or other official Islamic texts) may say about creating images of Muhammad, that alone has not "determined" the behavior of Muslims these last few months. Instead, it is far more likely that Muslims have been manipulated into these protests, and those doing the manipulation have chosen countries where they think: 1) they can get away with the protests, 2) the local Muslims are easily manipulated, and 3) the protests will further intimidate the public in those countries, as opposed to turning the public more strongly against them. This would explain why they have not tried anything this violent here. This has obvious implications for your notion that the Koran’s urging of jihad makes radicalization inevitable, though I don't expect you to see it.

I will save you the trouble of protesting that you do not depict Muslims so simplistically by quoting what you said before:

I don't depict Muslims in a deterministic fashion whatsoever. I say that Islam has a given nature and that entities must act according to their nature. That isn't determinism, it is reality. It is the law of cause and effect. Causes come from the nature of the elements involved. In OPAR Leonard Peikoff gives the example of a game of pool. The nature of the pool ball is what allows the balls to move each other (subside an egg and you get a different outcome). Saying that a pool ball must necessarily move when it is hit by another pool ball to the exclusion of other outcomes (like turning into a tuna casserole) is not deterministic.

Trouble is, "Islam" is not an entity. The entities in question are human beings, and if you check my screen name, it will remind you of the law of identity; then perhaps you will remember that the identity of human beings is such that they possess volition and do not behave like pool balls bouncing off one another or off copies of the Koran.

One of your tactics is to cover all sides on an issue. An example of this is the fact that in this most recent post, you strongly suggest that the lack of reaction from American Muslims is a result of our appeasement of them, while darkly hinting that if we dare cease to appease, all hell will break loose (not that you advocate appeasement or anything) . But in the last post when I brought up the lack of reactions to these cartoons, here is what you said:

What stops American Muslims is that there is a substantive difference (in terms of the religion being "under attack") between a damn cartoon and a nuclear weapon. American Muslims ARE different from their Middle Eastern counterparts in that they are willing to make that distinction. I have always said so.

Two different answers to the same question.

This, I suppose, is what it means to “define what a pearl is”: it consists of having as many different positions as one needs on an issue. No wonder you found it to be a lot or work!

I have more to say about the rest of your long post, but in the interest of keeping these things to a reasonable length, I wll do so in another post.

[Evan]

There is a distinction between the location of a protest and the object of a protest. The absence of protests in America, against America, may or may not be attributable to our appeasement. But the absence of protests in America, against the Danish cannot be accounted for by this fact. Do you grasp that distinction? Muslims are not just protesting in Denmark; they are protesting all over the globe.

Yes, I understand the distinction. I was suggesting that the reason why Muslims in the U.S aren't protesting against the U.S is due to the fact that we are appeasing.

In fact from This news article, Bush claims, "We believe in a free press.We also recognize that with freedom comes responsibilities. With freedom comes the responsibility to be thoughtful about others."

That comment suggests that Denmark (and other countries that re-printed the cartoons) were irresponsible and not thoughtful to Muslims and also suggests some sort of moral obligation as "responsibility" and "obligation" are synonyms. Bush clearly didn't agree with the type of response taken against the Danish (violence) but certainly agrees with the Muslims that the Danes were irresponsible and not thoughtful about offending the Muslims (with the corrolary that some sort of moral obligation wasn't met).

I take a harder stand that statements like that "may or may not" be the reason why America itself isn't being protested.

Another reason why Muslims aren't protesting against the U.S is because America isn't reprinting the cartoons which I think is a really significant reason: See this link for more information

When I said that Muslims in the U.S weren't antsy and that appeasement was perhaps why, I was referring to Muslims lacking a motive to protest against the U.S on the issue of the cartoon thing...not protesting against the Danes. I already explained the reasons why American Muslims aren't protesting against the Danes.

Besides, the way to gauge a response to an issue (like a cartoon) is not only by protests of the lack thereof.

Muslims in America might not be violently protesting against Denmark, but it doesn't mean that there hasn't been a negative reaction among the Muslim segment of the population.

From the article I just linked to:

The controversy has also produced a muted response generally among U.S. Muslims, who make up less than 2 percent of the population by most estimates. Leaders say their communities are clearly upset though there have not been demonstrations or noisy public outcries.

If Muslims do not get "antsy" at countries that do not "reject Islamic crap", why are so many Muslims protesting so violently in countries like Britain, who appeases them to a far greater extent than we do?

From the article I just cited:

U.S. Muslims, he [salam al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council] said, are unlikely to take to the streets in outrage. "We admonish against that because we don't find it helpful to our situation in America," he said.

As you yourself stated, there is *more* appeasement abroad in countries like England. Muslims clearly see that in appeasing countries it is in their best interest (or rather, able to "better" their situation) to throw bigger temper tantrums.

The U.S (while still appeasing to some degree) hasn't descended to the level of Europe's appeasement which means that American Muslims understand that they have some leeway, but not enough to where throwing a giant sized temper tantrum would actually improve their lot.

The point of protesting against Demark (even in other countries) is to try to cow the Danish into not repeating the same sort of thing twice. The idea is, "You screw with the Muslims by being blasphemous and we will respond as a gang of thugs."

The Danes (and other appeasing countries) are appeasing (in my opinion) out of a combination of fear AND the same sort of perceived moral obligation to be "thoughtful" towards others. I think Muslims are using thug tactics with the veil of self-rightegousness to remind the Danes of that supposed "moral obligation."

The United States doesn't appear to be as afraid of Muslims as other countries, so they don't appease as much. When they DO appease, it is more out of a stupid sense that political correctness is a sort of moral obligation (like what Bush said) then because we genuinely FEAR Muslims. I think Muslims in America would try to push those "obligation" buttons and not the "fear" button which would mean that they would probably protest in a non-violent manner or try to boycott in the instance that the U.S did the same thing.

For that matter, if what gets Muslims 'antsy" is the "rejection of Islamic crap", why are so many Muslims killing fellow Muslims?

Why did Protestants and Catholics fight in Ireland? In the same way that Catholics believed that Protestants are a departure from all that is holy, the Protestants believed that Catholics are equally morally bankrupt and a rejection of the "true" Christian religion.

Shiites and Sunnis are more than willing to kill each other if they are forced into the same space (like Iraq).

Shiites are also willing to kill their own (the same is true with Sunnis) if a certain segement of the group believes that another segment of the group isn't "holy" enough. Kind of the whole, "you are either with us or against us" mentality. That sort of mentality is why Solomon Rushdie had a fatwa placed on his head. Despite being a fellow Muslim, the Muslims that called the fatwa in essence excommunicated him for the purpose of putting a hit out on him. Does that make sense?

And why does this Muslim outrage appear now, three months after the cartoons first appeared? Yes, there were some intitial protests, but why the resurgence after a long period when no one seemed to care about them?

[AisA]

I was suggesting that the reason why Muslims in the U.S aren't protesting against the U.S is due to the fact that we are appeasing. ....Muslims aren't protesting against the U.S is because America isn't reprinting the cartoons which I think is a really significant reason.

1. American Muslims are not protesting because we have appeased them.

The U.S (while still appeasing to some degree) hasn't descended to the level of Europe's appeasement which means that American Muslims understand that they have some leeway, but not enough to where throwing a giant sized temper tantrum would actually improve their lot.

2. American Muslims are not protesting because we have not appeased them as totally as Europe has.

What stops American Muslims is that there is a substantive difference (in terms of the religion being "under attack") between a damn cartoon and a nuclear weapon. American Muslims ARE different from their Middle Eastern counterparts in that they are willing to make that distinction. I have always said so.

3. American Muslims do not need to be appeased because they are able to see that cartoons are not an attack on their religion.

The fact that this really *isn't* a Muslim issue and it is being construed to be a Muslim issue is why there is a gap between Europe and the U.S in terms of reactions.

4. American Muslims are not protesting because, unlike European Muslims, no one has construed to them that this is a Muslim issue.

It seems that you have now given four different answers to the question.

The reactions of the Muslims to these cartoons -- and many, many other examples -- refute your simplistic notion that "Muslims have identity, and entities must act according to their identity, thus Muslims will do what the Koran instructs them to do." If such were the case, we would see uniform Muslim reactions -- and we do not.

You are asserting that this is a Koranic issue. The burden of proof is on you to make that connection. If it (and the reaction) cannot be justified bya direct reading of the Koran then you cannot claim that it was Muslims acting according to their nature.

Well, you rather missed the point. If it is not a Koranic issue, then the behavior of the rioters proves that they are not guided strictly by the Koran. And if it is a Koranic issue, then the behavior of the non-rioters proves that they are not guided strictly by the Koran. Either way, the situation proves that something other than the Koran is guiding the actions of at least some of the Muslims. That was my point.

You need to learn about Islam before you start making statements like, "the Koran does not present a single, consistent, uniform message" when you clear don't know squat about the book(he Koran) you are talking about. Ditch your assumptions( like the assumption that peaceful quotes from the Koran are as numerous as the murderous ones simply because both are uttered by Muslims) and seek out real first hand knowledge of the subject..............

That isn't the balance that you claim.

You need to find out what people know before denouncing their knowledge and calling them names; otherwise, you look foolish.

I have read the Koran. I did not claim the Koran is balanced. I said it is contradictory. For instance, the one verse titled, "The Disbelievers" says:

109:1 Say: O disbelievers!

109:2 I worship not that which ye worship;

109:3 Nor worship ye that which I worship.

109:4 And I shall not worship that which ye worship.

109:5 Nor will ye worship that which I worship.

109:6 Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.

And then there are these two standbys:

There is no compulsion in religion. 2:256

Whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. 18:29

I read the article you linked to back when you first posted the link. Someone else had linked to it some time back. I would make one distinction that the article does not: There is no question that the Koran is full of threats against the infidels. However, the majority of those threats amount to claims of what Allah will do to the infidels. Explicit instructions telling the believers what to do to the infidels are much fewer in number.

As I have posted in this forum in the past, one can go to IslamOnline.net and see some 10,000 fatwas issued over the last 5 years clarifying Islam's vast array of rules. Note that these fatwas were issued in response to questions submitted voluntarily by Muslims from around the world. It suggests that Muslims look to these rulings at least as much as they do to the Koran.

You have no way of logically coming to that conclusion.

You should read more carefully. I didn't come to a conclusion; I said this vast number of fatwas suggests that Muslims look to these rulings at least as much as the Koran.

I also did not say “they look to these rulings as often as the Koran”. I am not making any claim about the frequency with which they consult the two. I am saying they both can have great influence over Muslim behavior.

If you were not so anxious to find a way to refute something I have said, you might notice that you are actually supporting my position with this:

When a large segement of your population is illiterate, they are easily controlled and what is actually *said* in the Koran often gets distorted by power hungry people making up fatwas and sharia based on sketchy Koranic interpretations. However, the people that listen to such Imams have no way of knowing that the interpretations that their Imam makes are sketchy because they can't read the damn book themselves.

Even for those who are able to read it, the Koran really has few specific instructions, other than granting men the right to dominate their wives and exhorting the believers to hate the infidels. If Muslims truly want to live by the word of Allah, it is not at all surprising that they would need to submit thousands of questions to imams and clerics; after all, much has changed in the 1400 years since the Koran was dictated.

So I am arguing that the clerics and the imams, through the fatwas they issue, their sermons, etc. exert as much influence as the Koran. At least that is what Muslim behavior to date indicates.

The influence of the imams and clerics has obvious implications for a strategy to deal with the American Muslims in the event we ever summon the courage to properly defend ourselves by eliminating states that sponsor terrorism.

Due to your gross misrepresentations of my posts and your lack of ethics (your snide insinuations that I'm somehow unethical or saying two contradictory things despite being unable to actually prove such insinuations) have forced me to close this debate once and for all with this post.

Well, you do not have the power to "close this debate once and for all"; you only have the power to withdraw. I think that would be a good thing for you to do, at least until you can drop the hostility and proceed in a civil manner.

[Evan]

It seems that you have now given four different answers to the question.

They are complementary explanations. They GO together. There aren't any imbedded contradictions in them...so really it doesn't matter if I give 200 answers to the question so long as they work together to explain the same phenomenon.

For example: You and I observe the same car crash.

On one part of my police report I put: "I witnessed car A traveling significantly over the speed limit and this contributed to the crash"

Three paragraphs down I also put down, "The guy driving in Car A was also swigging a tall boy of Budweiser when he crashed into Car B. His driving under the influence also probably contributed to the crash."

Those are 2 different explanations for the same event. Whopee de doo. They aren't contradictory. It is called looking at a problem from multiple angles, something you apparently know nothing about.

Lets look the sentences you just laid out:

1. American Muslims are not protesting because we have appeased them.

2. American Muslims are not protesting because we have not appeased them as totally as Europe has.

Those sentences go together. In fact, if you look at the larger chunks of text that you derrived them from, Sentence One suggests that Muslims see no reason to protest against the United States government because it is sympathetic to the terrorists fatwa against free speech by declaring that with press freedom comes "the responsibility to be thoughtful of others." Sentence two (and the greater part of my post) suggests that Americans aren't as afraid of Muslims as Europeans...so our appeasement isn't as much and doesn't come from the same place. Our appeasement is politically correct appeasement whereas Europes is both politically correct appeasement AND fear based appeasement. Not only does Europe appease a lot more, but they appease in different ways. If the U.S was appeasing in fear based ways (like refusing to put out movies, etc because of death threats or intimidation from Muslims), we would definitely probably have a more violent situation if we also tried to stand up for ourselves and our rights. In other words, if we rejected our politically correct appeasing and tried to stand up for ourselves...but had shown responsive to fear based intimidation, we would have a more volitile situation.

3. American Muslims do not need to be appeased because they are able to see that cartoons are not an attack on their religion.

Look, I don't think anyone NEEDS to be appeased. I have never once advocated that we appease. I have just made descriptive statements saying that we have done so.

HERE is what I'm saying:

In any religion you have N amount of people that practice in that religion. Odds are, there will be some small percent of N that holds radical views. Is this really so unintuitive for you? Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell aren't representative of most ordinaryish Christians. They DO represent a minority.

Same thing with Muslims in the United States. It is THOSE Muslims that are not protesting because Bush/etc are taking an appeasing mentality. It is also THOSE Muslims would would probably be more likely to throw temper tantrums if the U.S was seen as being as week as Denmark was and they thought they could get away with it. The majority of Muslims in the U.S aren't radical like their middle eastern counterparts.

Most of them wouldn't protest violently (they might protest though) regardless of whether or not the U.S was appeasing or not. However, the small segement among their midst of already radical Muslims would feel empowered if we appeared weak in a fear based sort of way (not just appeasing to be in line with political correctness) and would feel like they could get away with violence.

What I'm suggesting is that if nuclear weapons were used in the manner that FatDogs suggested, that would radicalize a segement of the Muslim population that wasn't already radical.

4. American Muslims are not protesting because, unlike European Muslims, no one has construed to them that this is a Muslim issue.

Some Muslims are radical regardless of context and would protest regardless of whether or not it really was a Muslim issue. For those radical Muslims, they will make it a Muslim issue no matter what the context. As you probably know, the word on the streets (so to speak) is that the mullahs in Denmark made up the most offensive cartoons themselves in order to spark violence. Thus, they CREATED part of the issue.

Your sentence 4 is also a little bit off. I said that there was a gap in U.S and foreign reactions because this is being made into a Muslim issue. I never said that there weren't imams or people in the U.S that aren't trying to construe this as a Muslim issue. Most Muslims in the U.S are at least a bit annoyed/angry that people posted offensive depictions of Mohammad. However, U.S Muslims are more intellectually independent than their European counterparts. I never said that nobody has construed this as a Muslim issue in the U.S...but that alone doesn't mean that American Muslims will buy that the issue really IS a Muslim issue lock, stock, and barrel...whereas you YOURSELF argued that the Muslims abroad were probably manipulated because foreign Muslims are easy targets (which I suggest is partially because they are illiterate).

So once more...I go back to your final statement:

It seems that you have now given four different answers to the question.

and I'm forced to ask, "Who cares?"

They aren't contradictory explanations, just explanations from different angles. Do you have a problem with in depth analysis of an issue?

Well, you rather missed the point. If it is not a Koranic issue, then the behavior of the rioters proves that they are not guided strictly by the Koran.

The rioters are FOREIGN Muslims. The topic was whether or not AMERICAN Muslims would radicalize in the face of a certain application of a hypothetical foreign policy (the one fatdogs suggested).

I agree with your statement that the behavior of the rioters (all foreign Muslims) proves that foreign Muslims (who are largely illiterate) are not guided strictly by the Koran. That says nothing about whether or not American Muslims (the ones we are talking about in the bigger picture debate) are guided by the Koran or not. It also doesn't say anything about whether doing what FatDogs initially suggested would be seen as an attack on Islam that must be repulsed through jihad by American Muslims (which are actually capable of being guided strictly by the Koran).

And if it is a Koranic issue, then the behavior of the non-rioters proves that they are not guided strictly by the Koran.

However, it isn't a Koranic issue...so you can't infer squat about the behavior of the non-rioters. Once again, you proved absolutely nothing. Apparently it is indeed you who have missed the point.

I have read the Koran. I did not claim the Koran is balanced. I said it is contradictory.

actually you said : for every murderous quote cited by bin Laden or Zarqawi, the Muslim apologists can cite one to the contrary.

Numerically speaking, from a realistic reading of the Koran, you cannot find as many peaceful quotes as you can muderous ones. That is why I presume to say that you haven't read the Koran. Forgive me...once again I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you were simply ignorant. If you actually have read the Koran and still imply that the murderous quotes are equally numerous as the peaceful ones, then you are just a remarkably poor reader.

Earlier you said : Reading the Koran one comes away with an impression of a book of threats seperated by calls for peace. (Personally, I believe the calls for peace are a smokescreen; but since I am not a mind reader, I cannot be sure whether the Muslims that claim Islam is peaceful are sincere, mislead or outright liars.)

Look, when the majority of the verses are threats and the calls for peace are in the extreme minority, you don't have to be a "mind reader" to put 2 and 2 together and come to the logical conclusion that the peaceful stuff is a smokescreen. Moreover, you can't claim that a religion is peaceful when the majority of its authoritative statements (found in the Koran) are anything but peaceful. It doesn't matter if Muslims making such claims are sincerely mislead, liars, or just sort of stupid. The reality of what Islam IS doesn't change based on what Muslims say about it.

I would make one distinction that the article does not: There is no question that the Koran is full of threats against the infidels. However, the majority of those threats amount to claims of what Allah will do to the infidels. Explicit instructions telling the believers what to do to the infidels are much fewer in number.

Sure, I agree with that distinction. However, as the author mentions, Ramadan is only mentioned one time or so in the Koran, yet it is taken extremely seriously.

You should read more carefully. I didn't come to a conclusion; I said this vast number of fatwas suggests that Muslims look to these rulings at least as much as the Koran. I also did not say “they look to these rulings as often as the Koran”. I am not making any claim about the frequency with which they consult the two. I am saying they both can have great influence over Muslim behavior.

Here is what you said:

As I have posted in this forum in the past, one can go to IslamOnline.net and see some 10,000 fatwas issued over the last 5 years clarifying Islam's vast array of rules. Note that these fatwas were issued in response to questions submitted voluntarily by Muslims from around the world. It suggests that Muslims look to these rulings at least as much as they do to the Koran.

You admit that you say

1) The vast number of fatwas suggests that Muslims look to these rulings at least as much as the Koran

and then in the next sentence you say

2) I didn't say that they look to these rulings as often as the Koran.

The phrase "as much as" is a term that has to do with frequency because it is being applied to a verb ("to look").

If you say, "Because of the vast number of internet porn sites, Person X looks at internet porn as much at least as much as he looks at educational websites online" you are making a claim about the frequency of which I look at both.

That is the same formulation as what you said which was, "Because of the 10,000 fatwas on Islamonline.net, there is the suggestion that Muslims look to fatwas at least as much as they look to the Koran."

in both cases you are making a claim that I look at one numerically MORE than the other. That has to do with numbers/frequency.

The way you could prove that Person X looks at internet porn at least as much as educational websites would be to check his internet history and see if the page views for the porn were equal to or greater than the number of views for educational sites.

On the fatwa issue, just because there are a large amount of Fatwas doesn't "suggest" that any statistically significant group of Muslims actually gives two squirts of pee about what those Fatwas actually say.

A large body of work declaring X doesn't mean that anyone actually buys into X or considers it equally (when making decisions) to Y.

At BEST, all you have proven is that "some Muslims" look to the fatwas issued on islamonline.net and believe that they are worth reading. That doesn't mean that they are looked to remotely as often or with as much weight as the Koran. It doesn't mean that people actually take those fatwas to heart as much as the Koran when making decisions. It just suggests that some people read a website. Unless you compare the whole body of litemeans that they are simply LOOKED at. It also doesn't suggest that any statistically significant group of literate Muslims rate Muslims with internet access and then compare it to the amount of Muslims reading internet fatwas, you can't claim that any statistically relevant amount of Muslims reads those 10,000 fatwas.

Even for those who are able to read it, the Koran really has few specific instructions, other than granting men the right to dominate their wives and exhorting the believers to hate the infidels. If Muslims truly want to live by the word of Allah, it is not at all surprising that they would need to submit thousands of questions to imams and clerics; after all, much has changed in the 1400 years since the Koran was dictated.

Actually, it is suprising because "the word of Allah" isn't the same as what some cleric posts on islamonline.net and I doubt that any sincere Muslim would ever confuse the two. If you want to live by "the word of Allah" and you believe in Islam, it would make more sense to believe only what the Koran itself says and not mix up "the word of Allah" with the words of a cleric. After all, that would be idolatry wouldn't it (equating a fallible man with god)? So if people really wanted to live by the word of Allah, they would only read the Koran because that is the only "word" that is supposed to be authorized by Allah himself.

So I am arguing that the clerics and the imams, through the fatwas they issue, their sermons, etc. exert as much influence as the Koran. At least that is what Muslim behavior to date indicates.

The influence of the imams and clerics has obvious implications for a strategy to deal with the American Muslims in the event we ever summon the courage to properly defend ourselves by eliminating states that sponsor terrorism.

You have nothing to back up your statement that clerics/imams in the U.S extert an equal influence over American Muslims as the Koran itself. The behavior of Muslims abroad suggests that they are influenced by imams/clerics. However, behavior of Muslims in the U.S so far hasn't been correlated to what the imams have said. The burden of proof is on you to make that correlation. Even you admit that Islamonline.net's "10,000 fatwas" came from questions from all over the world. Even if 99% of those 10,000 fatwas were from people in the U.S, that would be 9,900 questions asked by U.S Muslims.

It is really silly to infer that out of 4 million American-Muslims that 9,900 asked questions of a website and based on that number...that imams must infer a magical influence over those American Muslims at least as much as the Koran itself. I'm granting you the benefit of the doubt and saying that 99% of those questions from the U.S. If the number was smaller, your inference only gets sillier.

Well, you do not have the power to "close this debate once and for all"; you only have the power to withdraw. I think that would be a good thing for you to do, at least until you can drop the hostility and proceed in a civil manner.

There can be no debate without two parties. If I cease talking to you, the debate is indeed closed between you and I "once and for all" or rather, until I decide that you are making unbearably bad arguments..which in this case only took one more post from you.

Edited February 12, 2006 by Evan

[AisA]

They are complementary explanations. They GO together. There aren't any imbedded contradictions in them...so really it doesn't matter if I give 200 answers to the question so long as they work together to explain the same phenomenon.

For example: You and I observe the same car crash.

On one part of my police report I put: "I witnessed car A traveling significantly over the speed limit and this contributed to the crash"

This is ludicrous. As anyone who can read can see, you did not state your four explanations as things which merely "contributed"; you stated them absolutely and adamently. And you know it.

I cited those four explanations to demonstrate your tactic of modifying your argument to address the most recent criticism, even if it means contradicting or changing your previous stance. And here you are doing it again by trying to "spin" your statements into something they were not.

Consider the recent nonsense of the cartoons of Mohammed. Muslims in Pakistan are burning the Danish embassy and rioting in the streets. Nothing of the sort is going on here in America. Why not? What is to STOP them from joining their Muslims brothers in such riots? Something accounts for this difference; what do you think it is?

What stops American Muslims is that there is a substantive difference (in terms of the religion being "under attack") between a damn cartoon and a nuclear weapon. American Muslims ARE different from their Middle Eastern counterparts in that they are willing to make that distinction. I have always said so.

There is nothing in your answer to indicate that it is only "part" of the explanation.

Three paragraphs down I also put down, "The guy driving in Car A was also swigging a tall boy of Budweiser when he crashed into Car B. His driving under the influence also probably contributed to the crash."

Oh baloney. You certainly did not offer any of your explanations as "probably" true.

Those are 2 different explanations for the same event. Whopee de doo. They aren't contradictory. It is called looking at a problem from multiple angles, something you apparently know nothing about.

Oh, is this the "nuanced argument" argument? Did you actually vote for the $87 billion before you voted against it

You change positions as often as John Kerry. I am not going to read the rest of your post. If the beginning is any indicator, it is another verbose masterpiece of hairsplitting, insults and sarcasm – in other words, an utter waste of time. Whopee de doo indeed.

[Evan]

I cited those four explanations to demonstrate your tactic of modifying your argument to address the most recent criticism, even if it means contradicting or changing your previous stance.

WTF? I never contradicted myself ONCE. This is one more example of you "spinning" things and just outright lying. NONE of my 4 statements contradict each other.

As far as modifying my statements in the face of criticism, what the hell is wrong with that?

If I start out with Statement A and you start attacking it with Statement B fine. However, if you start introducting other factors or asking me to explain why X pheonomenon is present, then I have the right to clarify my arguments or offer new angles on my original arguments. So long as I don't change my position into something that contradicts my original posisition, I have done nothing morally or ethically wrong. Because there is nothing contradictory about any of my statements, you cannot say I have "changed" my position but rather expanded it to include and address various factors that an initial "simple" formulation was unable to do. So far you just utter nonsense saying I contradicted myself without actually proving anything. When you actually get an argument instead of an unwarranted accusation, I would love to hear it. Of course, coming from you that would be way too much to ask.

And here you are doing it again by trying to "spin" your statements into something they were not.

quote

You are the one who claims that sentence three is my position which is formulated in your own words and is:

3. American Muslims do not need to be appeased because they are able to see that cartoons are not an attack on their religion.

when really I said: What stops American Muslims is that there is a substantive difference (in terms of the religion being "under attack") between a damn cartoon and a nuclear weapon. American Muslims ARE different from their Middle Eastern counterparts in that they are willing to make that distinction. I have always said so.

Notice something? I NEVER FRICKIN' MENTIONED APPEASEMENT OR NEEDING TO APPEASE ANYONE. You apparently have reading comprehension issues, so forgive me if I have to "spin" my arguments around from your distortions back to what they actually are.

I think it is clear to anyone who can read (read = anyone other than you) that you are the one doing the spinning and misrepresenting statements here.

Did you actually vote for the $87 billion before you voted against it.You change positions as often as John Kerry. I am not going to read the rest of your post.

*dies laughing.*

I'm going to quote your own words back at you here:

"you can drop the pretense of being the injured party."

You say:

So the "lets go easy so we don't radicalize the Muslims" argument is weak at best.'

That statement clearly implies that my argument is a "lets go easy" approach which IS appeasement by the dictionary definition of appeasement that I provided. When I get pissed at you for making slimy insinuations that I advocate appeasement, you say:

'You should drop the pretense of being an injured party. I did not accuse you of advocating appeasement.

So yeah, A is -A...you have some pretty big cojones to come onto this forum and accuse ME of misrepresenting arguments or being somehow unethical and offering up contradictory positions.

Unlike you, I have actually PROVEN how your positions are contradictory and I didn't even have to put words in your mouth to do it (like you). You aren't going to read the rest of my post? I would almost be sad about that, except you butchered most of the last ones you tried to respond to, so I guess I feel lucky that I don't have to write 8,000 words debunking your crap. It is unfortunate that nobody actually holds you accountable and makes you respond to the utter tripe you propogate. I'm going to hope that this is the only thread in which you have done this.

Edited February 13, 2006 by Evan