Charlie Wilsons War.

[De Selby]

I'm against both nuclear war and genocide, as are all sane-minded people.  But humans are humans, and there are times when sanity takes a back seat to our primal natures.  The ability to question morality is a luxury reserved for people living in safe and stable times.

Does this mean that, in your opinion, middle easterners and afghanis should not be held morally responsible for any support they might give to terrorists, since they don't have the luxury of safe times to sit back and worry about attacks on civilians?

No, obviously it does not.

I'm curious, why would you ask such a stupid question?

I don't think it's stupid.  You stated that "morality is a luxury for people living in safe and stable times." 

People in the middle east do not, and have not, lived in safe and stable times for a good number of years before the rise of terrorism.

So how come your standard doesn't apply to them?  Are they not humans without the luxury of being able to question morality? 

You seem to be willing to write off genocidal impulses that might come up in America as human nature.  But now you're calling it a stupid question when I ask why the same standard doesn't apply to middle easterners.  How come the middle east's instability doesn't give rise to a situation where "right/wrong don't apply", like it would in your analysis of America?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

"Safe and stable" is relative. 

We're discussing what societies do when their very survival is unlikely, what sorts of options become attractive when the only consideration is living to see another day.  In those sorts of times people can and will do anything to endure.  They'll do the unthinkable and worry about the moral quandries later.  Morality questions are postponed for a later date when (if) they have the opportunity to worry about anything other than how to keep on living.

In that context, the middle east is safe and stable.  Their lot may not be as ideal as ours here in the US, but they have more than enough breathing room to contemplate the Jihadis' actions and judge terrorism for what it is: immoral, unnecessary, unjustifiable, uncivilized, self-destructive, and just plain wrong.

[LAK]

Seeker_two

The problem is.....we didn't finish crushing the enemy in Iraq & Afghanistan before we started the nation-building. In WWII, we almost annihilated Germany & were prepared to do the same to Japan (by A-bomb or invasion) before we went in, maintained control over there government and resources (for reparation to us and them) for decades, and then granted independence. You can't do that in a couple of years.

We are never going to "crush the enemy" in the entire region of greater central asia. And not even in the mid east, far east, indonesia or north africa. It is not going to happen. Another nonstarter; a dead horse.

Germany was a nation. Islam is a pan-global belief. And not just any belief - it happens to be one of the bigger population chunks of planet earth. With a unified general culture and ideology, and loyalties. The idea that we are going to convince the muslim people of the world that it is "only Al Kidya we are after" already does not wash. It is like trying to sell the idea that the ATF is only there to bring "dangerous armed killers to justice".

And A-bombs? If we start tossing nukes around the caspian region, Russia and China are not going to sit idle and watch. That is a certainty.

That is the insanity of this bloody cherade - it has no tangible end. None. Except a very good chance of bringing about our complete financial collapse, sacrificing all our young and strongest - and starting WW3.

-------------------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[Firethorn]

50 nukes couldn't do the trick? I don't think we'd be too happy after being hit by them.  And that's excluding the certainty that not only will the nukes they can use be used, the expertise to build them will go elsewhere and make more...to be used.

No, 50 nukes wouldn't do the trick.  Sure, they could mess up a number of cities, but 50 nukes of the class the middleast has, all together, would have a hard time leveling NYC, much less causing destroying the rest of the country.

And our response would be Genocide in retaliation.

In response for a terrorist attack that destroyed 2 towers(and damaged the pentagon) we invaded 2 countries.  Our response to a sniper is to call in a air or artillery strike, etc...  Proportional response isn't necessarily in our dictionary.

How do you glass the middle east, south Asia, central asia, and southeast asia without annihilating the economies of most of the nuclear states in the world?

Don't need to.  We glass just the Islamic areas of the middle east and we're pretty good.  A could years and we can put the oil infrastructure back in.

Right, but what's your opinion?  Where do you personally stand on using genocide, and using nuclear weapons to stop genocide?

If a society, a culture, even a religion proves that it can't get along, can't even be altered to get along, it needs to be destroyed.  Nuclear weapons would work very well when they're relatively geographically isolated.

We're descendents of barbarians who took Rome's ruthless methods and improved on them in many ways.  We might have a thin veneer of civilization, but we still have that reserve of hideously effective violence simmering.  The terrorists have violence - but not on a cultural level like we do.  Sure - they'll commit genocide, but we'll do it scientifically.

[roo_ster]

How do you glass the middle east, south Asia, central asia, and southeast asia without annihilating the economies of most of the nuclear states in the world?

Good question.  I think I'll tackle it as an academic exercise.

1. I suspect you are overly generous with your estimate of what would need to be glassed.  I would slice it as follows:
a. Most of the ME
b. A minority of S Asia.  Why nuke the Hindus?
c. C Asia could likely be passed over
d. The vast majority of SE Asia could be preserved.

2. The ugly truth is that most Muslim-majority countries* don't produce much at all, economically, the exception being petroleum.  (Obvious rejoinder: "Yes, Mrs. Lincoln, but other than the ending, how did you enjoy the play?"

3. The oil-producing lands are rather small relative to the rest of the ME.  Perhaps they could be spared.  If they were, the global economy would not suffer much with the loss of the ME economies.


* I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the Muslim community in N Texas produces more, in terms of GDP, than any single ME Muslim country if you take petroleum out of the mix.

[De Selby]

jfruser,

a. Most of the ME being glassed would destroy a huge percentage of the global oil economy. 
b. 20 percent of India is not Hindu; if you think you can destroy Pakistan and have no upset or breakaway there, you have to think again.
c. If Central Asia is passed over, it will become the location of more nuclear smuggling than has ever been done before.  They might even manage to get weapons from Russia.  I don't see how you could pass over central asia and still have eliminated any population that would be motivated by genocide to retaliate with nukes against the U.S.
d.  How do you preserve Southeast Asia while eliminating Malaysia, Indonesia, half of Thailand, and probably having to eliminate Singapore? 

It's simply not possible-the idea that "they exist at our mercy" is just as much fantasy as the Bin Ladenite idea that the US will just crumble and go away someday.  They're opposite sides of the same coin.

[De Selby]

"Safe and stable" is relative. 

We're discussing what societies do when their very survival is unlikely, what sorts of options become attractive when the only consideration is living to see another day.  In those sorts of times people can and will do anything to endure.  They'll do the unthinkable and worry about the moral quandries later.  Morality questions are postponed for a later date when (if) they have the opportunity to worry about anything other than how to keep on living.

In that context, the middle east is safe and stable.  Their lot may not be as ideal as ours here in the US, but they have more than enough breathing room to contemplate the Jihadis' actions and judge terrorism for what it is: immoral, unnecessary, unjustifiable, uncivilized, self-destructive, and just plain wrong.

So at what point does a culture become threatened enough such that "right/wrong" don't matter?

[De Selby]

Don't need to.  We glass just the Islamic areas of the middle east and we're pretty good.  A could years and we can put the oil infrastructure back in.

Do you seriously believe that the rest of the Muslim (and non-Muslim) world would just accept that, even ignoring the damage that a year with no oil from the middle east would do to their economies and ours?

We're descendents of barbarians who took Rome's ruthless methods and improved on them in many ways.  We might have a thin veneer of civilization, but we still have that reserve of hideously effective violence simmering.  The terrorists have violence - but not on a cultural level like we do.  Sure - they'll commit genocide, but we'll do it scientifically.

Wait, are you saying that we're barbarians who can't be relied on not to commit genocide?

How does that square with your claim that nuclear weapons can be used to eliminate people who "can't get along"?

Would another people be justified in nuking us out of existence because we "improved on Rome's ruthless methods" and because we have "a reserve of hideously effective violence simmering" that may wipe out whole peoples?

I can't see how you could justify nuking "the terrorist people" (whoever that means) out of existence, but at the same time would refuse to see why someone outside America would read that line about "thin veneer of civilization" as demonstrating that "we" are the biggest threat to others, and that we can't be relied on to get along.

Or was all that talk about how barbaric and roman like we are just talk?

I'm really not sure how your reasoning on this works.  You claim that we are vastly disproportionate in using violence.  You then claim taht we're violent barbarians who could snap and commit genocide if the "thin veneer" is broken. 

And you also think that nuking people who "can't get along" is okay.  That seems to me like you're making a perfect case for someone else to say "well, I guess we'd better destroy the US-after all, they're dangerous barbarians with unparalleled means of violence and no real restraint in their use of it."

[De Selby]

That is the insanity of this bloody cherade - it has no tangible end. None. Except a very good chance of bringing about our complete financial collapse, sacrificing all our young and strongest - and starting WW3.

-------------------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

This is the biggest danger of the "genocidal master of the universe" fantasy, as I like to call it.  It tends to goad people into bloodthirsty support for wars that in all probability will kill most of the species-for the sake of what?

[Firethorn]

Wait, are you saying that we're barbarians who can't be relied on not to commit genocide?

No, just that we're extremely efficient at doing so when we set our mind on it.  That we haven't started yet shows how much restraint we have.

How does that square with your claim that nuclear weapons can be used to eliminate people who "can't get along"?

A weapon is a weapon, when it comes down to it.  For an outright genocide, nuclear weapons would be extremely effective.

Would another people be justified in nuking us out of existence because we "improved on Rome's ruthless methods" and because we have "a reserve of hideously effective violence simmering" that may wipe out whole peoples?

We're also willing to get along.  Unlike the ones I was talking about that couldn't.

I can't see how you could justify nuking "the terrorist people" (whoever that means) out of existence, but at the same time would refuse to see why someone outside America would read that line about "thin veneer of civilization" as demonstrating that "we" are the biggest threat to others, and that we can't be relied on to get along.

We're a 'tit for tat' society today.  They insist on committing tat, we'll tit them back. 

Or was all that talk about how barbaric and roman like we are just talk?

Nope, just that they haven't pushed far enough yet.  The veneer might be thin, but it's still strong.

I'm really not sure how your reasoning on this works.  You claim that we are vastly disproportionate in using violence.  You then claim taht we're violent barbarians who could snap and commit genocide if the "thin veneer" is broken. 

We're a civilized society.  We're capable of getting along with others, of adapting, trading for goods, etc...  We're also in the position we're in because our ancestors were the most effective at violence in the world's history. 

And you also think that nuking people who "can't get along" is okay.  That seems to me like you're making a perfect case for someone else to say "well, I guess we'd better destroy the US-after all, they're dangerous barbarians with unparalleled means of violence and no real restraint in their use of it."

This is like saying that we need to put CCW holders in prison because they might kill somebody in self defense.  As a society, as a culture, we're willing to take the occasional punch in the name of getting along.  On the other hand, do the metaphorical equivalent of pulling a knife and suddenly we're a whole lot nastier.

[HankB]

As a society, as a culture, we're willing to take the occasional punch in the name of getting along. 

And that does us credit . . . but how many hits from the same people are we going to put up with before we tire of it the way Rome tired of warring with Carthage?  Remember, it wasn't until after the third Punic war that Rome settled things once and for all with that enemy.

[Strings]

SS, I think you might have kust shown a lack of knowledge about different cultures...

>d.  How do you preserve Southeast Asia while eliminating Malaysia, Indonesia, half of Thailand<\b>, and probably having to eliminate Singapore?<

Can't speak for the other places you mention, but I CAN speak for Thailand (seeing as dad lives there)...

 Yes, there are Muslims there, and they ARE causing some trouble. But the military fully supports the king, and the king is an American citizen. The nation as a whole is VERY pro-US. And I honestly think it won't be too much longer before the threat from Muslims in the hinterlands of Thailand is pretty well wiped out...

[De Selby]

 Yes, there are Muslims there, and they ARE causing some trouble. But the military fully supports the king, and the king is an American citizen. The nation as a whole is VERY pro-US. And I honestly think it won't be too much longer before the threat from Muslims in the hinterlands of Thailand is pretty well wiped out...

Yeah, I love thailand myself and am a frequent visitor.  But a world where the US nukes multi-millions of Muslims is one where the Thais of the South become uncontrollably dangerous. 

The threat from the "muslim hinterlands" started to subside when the Muslim general removed Thaksin from power.  You know that guy, Mr. clean up thailand, was Muslim, right?

[Firethorn]

The threat from the "muslim hinterlands" started to subside when the Muslim general removed Thaksin from power.  You know that guy, Mr. clean up thailand, was Muslim, right?

Maybe I should state that while Muslims(specifically Arabic ones) are currently our 'bad boy' for not getting along, I don't think that we've reached the point, by any means, of deciding to perform the draconian actions I've talked about.

[Strings]

>The threat from the "muslim hinterlands" started to subside when the Muslim general removed Thaksin from power.  You know that guy, Mr. clean up thailand, was Muslim, right?<

Does not change the fact that the military (and the rest of the population) support the king completely. So long as the king is in power, the "Muslim threat" in Thailand is, at the very worst, contained.

 Of course, this says nothing about what happens when the king dies...

[De Selby]

Does not change the fact that the military (and the rest of the population) support the king completely. So long as the king is in power, the "Muslim threat" in Thailand is, at the very worst, contained.

 Of course, this says nothing about what happens when the king dies...

I think the fact that a Muslim general was running the army is pretty good evidence that there isn't a muslim threat-a tribal one, yes, but a religious one? No.

[Strings]

Ok SS, looks like we're kinda on the same page there...

 Of course, there's at least one prince there who could cause the entire nation to go up in flames, so...

[LAK]

Latest fuel thrown into the propaganda fire (SOP: got to keep it burning else folk tend to lose interest - read the article title twice at least). Wait for it to "break" here, so they can ratchet up the controls .....

---------------------

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/AlQaeda39s-white-army-of-terror.3667425.jp

Published Date: 13 January 2008
Source: Scotland On Sunday
Location: Scotland

Al-Qaeda's white army of terror

By Richard Elias

HUNDREDS of British non-Muslims have been recruited by al-Qaeda to wage war against the West, senior security sources warned last night.

As many as 1,500 white Britons are believed to have converted to Islam for the purpose of funding, planning and carrying out surprise terror attacks inside the UK, according to one MI5 source.

Lord Carlile, the Government's independent reviewer of anti-terrorism legislation, said many of the converts had been targeted by radical Muslims while serving prison terms.

Security experts say the growing secret army of white terrorists poses a particularly serious threat as they are far less likely to be detected than members of the Asian community.

Since the 7/7 and 21/7 London bombings, police and intelligence services have had considerable success in identifying, disrupting and stopping extremist plots. As a result, groups such as al-Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Harkat-ul-Mujahideen have been forced to change tack. Converting white non-Muslims has been one response.

The trend is well established in the United States. American-born Adam Gadahn is one of the FBI's top 10 most-wanted terrorists after converting to Islam and rising through al-Qaeda's ranks to become a prominent spokesman.

One British security source last night told Scotland on Sunday: "There could be anything up to 1,500 converts to the fundamentalist cause across Britain. They pose a real potential danger to our domestic security because, obviously, these people blend in and do not raise any flags.

"The exact figure of those who have converted to Islam and turned to terror is not precisely known. Not everyone who converts becomes radicalised and it may be that just two-fifths go down that path, but it remains a significant and dangerous problem."

Carlile said he was not aware of specific numbers, but confirmed to Scotland on Sunday that Whitehall was aware of the new threat and was actively tackling it. He said: "These people are an issue and are potentially very dangerous. There have been cases of non-Muslims converting before, and of these, Richard Reid, the so-called Shoebomber, is the most obvious example.

"They are more difficult to detect and the security services are right to place some focus on this issue."

Carlile said the majority of converts were targeted when they were in prison: "These (converts] are outside the standard type of profile which most police forces would have of a terrorist, which is male, young, and of Middle Eastern or Asian appearance. That is why they are so potentially dangerous."

Carlile added: "The Home Office has a lot of money, millions of pounds, which is being put forward for communities and fighting radicalisation. There is no question how tackling this issue is best achieved: it is achieved at a community level."

Security experts say radical Muslims in prison have become adept at identifying potential new recruits to their cause. Those in custody for the first time, the young and the lonely are particularly susceptible.

Initially, the approach is made to comfort, console and support, with very little reference, if any, to religion.

However, after several 'chats', the conversation will be turned towards the subject and, gradually, over a period of weeks or months, it is possible to complete the conversion.

Robert Leiken, director of the Immigration and National Security Programme and a specialist on European Muslims based at the Nixon Centre in Washington DC, said: "To me, the figure of 1,500 seems reasonable as many, perhaps less than a third, will actually go on to become radicals.

"New religious recruits always tend to be more zealous than those who have grown up with that specific religion."

Edwin Bakker, a Dutch-based security specialist, has studied at length the issue of radical conversions. He said: "The question is relevant and timely. Newcomers to Islam are extra-sensitive to perceived discrimination of Muslims and Islam-bashing.

"They feel they have to defend Islam  one of the essential concepts of Jihad  and they feel they have to prove themselves as newcomers."

But one of Scotland's leading Muslims disputed the claims of radicalisation, saying Islam's strict moral code made it unattractive to many westerners.

Bashir Maan added: "I do not know of any Islamist terror group in Scotland and, considering as a Muslim a person must pray five times daily, abstain from drinking (and] sex outside marriage, adhere to strict dietary and many other rules, it is impossible to convert to Islam a young person brought up in this very liberal society.

"I agree that the security services must be vigilant and keep their eye on everybody, but I think in this case they seem to be over-reacting."

Last Updated: 12 January 2008 9:54 PM

-------------------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org