Bill Frist - Taliban Appeaser?

[CAnnoneer]

I was wondering when the other muslim-loving leftie would chime in, hehehehehe...

all the people who leave these nuked cities will be intent on killing you, no matter where they end up.

And you know that how? History does not support your conclusions. Otherwise no invasion and conquest would ever have been successful. Re-read the thread more carefully.

The idea that you can discredit a religion which posits an invisible God by destroying some stones and buildings is ridiculous.

Again, history disagrees with you. A number of religions disappeared off the face of the earth when the believers were conquered, their priests killed off, and their idols, relics, and holy places smashed and razed to the ground. Most people go to a deity for protection. If the deity is shown to be weak, those will turn away. Yes, a few fanatics will not no matter what, and that is why you kill them while re-educating the others.

Brutality is the best gift you could ever give the terrorists, since it would unite the vast majority of the Muslim world with them against the rest of the world.

You are afraid of a short-term deterioration that will produce a long-term victory. As a result, you sentence yourself to a guaranteed long-term failure.

You are, plain and simple, living in a fantasy world if you think these kinds of tactics will solve anything.

I am not the one ignoring abundant historical record because it does not agree with my dainty sensibilities.

Of course, you could always try genocide...but if that's what you're after, well, we should be sending people like you to guantanamo alongside the terrorists.

If it comes to that, then that is how it must be. As jtfuser said, if your friends light up a nuke in one of our cities, we'll see just what options are on the table. I would just say that a conventional 9/11 was answered by  conventional Afghanistan and Iraq.

[CAnnoneer]

Some have pointed out that the Kaaba is protected by Allah, and if it were destroyed, this would completely discredit Allah, thereby destroying Islam.  Of course, this would be meaningless to more "liberal" Muslims, but they are not the ones we are worried about.

Correct.

[richyoung]

When one runs out of logic, one must emote.

It doesn't seem like he ran out of logic to me. Rather, it seems that he ran out of patience in dealing with a genocidal maniac.

Since * I * am the person being discussed, let me make it PERFECTLY CLEAR that I am in NO WAY advocating genocide"  Arab Christians, athiestists, and even Muslims that are willing to forgo their apparently Koran-mandated forcible conversion dictate, I have no problem with.  Followers of Mohammad who wish to attack my country, REGARDLESS if they be Arab, Persian, black asian, whatever, I am willing to apply as much force as is necessary to convince them to take up a different hobby.  Incase anyone hasn't NOTICED, overwhelming application of force is the ONLY thing that has EVER subdued Islamic violence:  Under the Turkish Ottoman Empire, and later the British, violence, whether intra-mural or totherwise, was NOT TOLERATED.  Same with the muslims in the serb-kosovo area under the thumb of Communism.  Same until the U.S> Navy put down the Barbery Coast pirates.  In the absence of EXTERNAL FORCE, brutally and swiftly applied, the Islamists happily kidnap, rape, and kill foreigners singly or in wholesale lots when they take a break from killing each other over whether the Prophet Mo's son's brother-in-law's granma's second niece's godfather was an inspired prophet or blasphemer.

You are, plain and simple, living in a fantasy world if you think these kinds of tactics will solve anything.

You have hit on the crux of the problem with CAnnoneer's so-called "logic": it's all tactic and no strategy. The simple fact is that CAnnoneer has no idea what would happen if we implemented his tactics because he has not even thought about the end results of his tactics.

CAnoneer's tactics are the ONLY ONES THAT HAVE HISTORICALLY WORKED:  see: "Ottoman Empire", "Lawrence of Arabia", "Ghengis Khan", "Roman Empire", "Stalin", "Mao", "Sun Tzu", "Alexander the Great",

[CAnnoneer]

It doesn't seem like he ran out of logic to me. Rather, it seems that he ran out of patience in dealing with a genocidal maniac.

Follow his "performance" in this and other threads. Personal attacks, non-sequiturs, emoting, redirection, third-grade demagogy, absurd black-and-white statements, running for the "moral" hills are standard in his arsenal.

problem with CAnnoneer's so-called "logic": it's all tactic and no strategy. The simple fact is that CAnnoneer has no idea what would happen if we implemented his tactics because he has not even thought about the end results of his tactics.

On the contrary, I have thought very carefully about it and used plenty of historical parallels to arrive at my recommendations. You are free to dislike my tactics and disagree with my strategy, but saying the above is simply silly.

Like all emotional infants, he selfishly seeks to gratify his base instincts without thought for how that effects others. Again, this could be a description of the Bush administration's foriegn policy.

This statement above is a self-condemning testament of naivety. If you do not understand why the ruling class decided to invade Iraq and why it wants to remain there, you are hopelessly out of your league in dealing with these issues.

[Darwin]

A number of religions disappeared off the face of the earth when the believers were conquered, their priests killed off, and their idols, relics, and holy places smashed and razed to the ground.

You mean like how the Jewish religion disappeared off the face of the earth after millennia of persecution, including Hitler's execution of 6 million of them? Or how Christianity disappeared off the face of the earth after the Romans crushed them? Oh, wait, those religions are still with us. Which major religions disappeared off the face of the earth again? Also, if you insist that you are not advocating genocide, yet you advocate wiping an entire religion that comprises 27 percent of the earth's population off the face of the earth, I fail to see your distinction between genocide and non-genocide.

You are afraid of a short-term deterioration that will produce a long-term victory.

And what, exactly, does your "long-term victory" look like? I suspect that if you ever bother to think that one through and form a strategy, you may well abandon your tactics.

Richyoung, I hesitate to engage you because you clearly don't know what you are talking about (have you ever read "The Art of War?"), but I can't let your slander of T.E. Lawrence go unchallenged. Lawrence once defined tactics as "the means towards a strategic goal, the steps of its staircase." The tactics he advocated were the polar opposite of what you advocate. So what, exactly, is your strategic goal (other than genocide; ie. the extermination of the Muslim religion)?

[Darwin]

On the contrary, I have thought very carefully about it and used plenty of historical parallels to arrive at my recommendations. You are free to dislike my tactics and disagree with my strategy, but saying the above is simply silly.

I'm calling B.S. on that one. We can't disagree with your strategy because you haven't clearly stated it. Sometimes you say your goal is to wipe out the Muslim religion. Other times you say you don't advocate genocide. Which are we to believe? If your goal is genocide, then killing every Muslim has to be your tactic. Fortunately I don't think you'd even get Dick Cheney on board with this idea, so it's highly unlikely that we will pursue your goal or use your tactics.

If, as you also say, genocide is not your goal, then what is your goal? If your goal is to subdue the Muslim world, why do you advocate tactics that will accomplish nothing but inflaming the Muslim world?

This statement above is a self-condemning testament of naivety. If you do not understand why the ruling class decided to invade Iraq and why it wants to remain there, you are hopelessly out of your league in dealing with these issues.

Okay, I'll bite. If I do not understand these things, go ahead and explain them to me.

[CAnnoneer]

Sorry, Darwin, but I am not going to recount the entire thread for you. Cool down, then carefully read what I said, without jumping to conclusions. It is all here. fistful got me, you can too.

[Darwin]

I've read the thread, which is why I've come to the conclusion that you have no strategy other than a vague concept of genocide, and to pursue that you'll resort to barbaric tactics. Just because Fistful has come to a different conclusion doesn't change that. I disagree with Fistful on pretty much everything and am not terribly impressed with his logic.

Am I missing something?

[CAnnoneer]

Okay, I'll bite. If I do not understand these things, go ahead and explain them to me.

In a nutshell, our ruling class wants:
1) Israel safe
2) Relative stability in the region
3) "The Oil Must Flow"
4) Strategic positioning for the "end of oil" rush
5) No attacks on home soil
6) Justification for military expenditures
7) Avoid "brutal tactics" as possible

They accomplish or believe they can accomplish all of the above by invading Iraq and holding it in one form or another. So far, they seem to have been proven mostly successful.

Bush has very little to do with anything. Saddam simply was at the wrong place at the wrong time.

[The Rabbi]

A number of religions disappeared off the face of the earth when the believers were conquered, their priests killed off, and their idols, relics, and holy places smashed and razed to the ground.

You mean like how the Jewish religion disappeared off the face of the earth after millennia of persecution, including Hitler's execution of 6 million of them? Or how Christianity disappeared off the face of the earth after the Romans crushed them? Oh, wait, those religions are still with us. Which major religions disappeared off the face of the earth again? Also, if you insist that you are not advocating genocide, yet you advocate wiping an entire religion that comprises 27 percent of the earth's population off the face of the earth, I fail to see your distinction between genocide

There is no distinction other than "exterminating their leadership and leveling their cities" sounds macho and patriotic and "killing them down to the women and children" sounds like the words of a nutjob.
There is a small but influential percentage of Muslims who are jihadists etc.  They will garner tremendous following when they are proven right in their contention that the U.S. is waging war on Islam after the U.S. destroys their holiest shrines.
LooseCAnoneer's historical "examples" are all entirely flawed, with the wrong lessons drawn from each, important distinctions ignored, and counter-examples dismissed just because he can't deal with them.

[richyoung]

Richyoung, I hesitate to engage you because you clearly don't know what you are talking about

...and the psychological phenomenon known as "projection" displays itself in all its natural glory...

(have you ever read "The Art of War?"),

...I have two well-highlighted copies of the James Clavell version by Delecorte Press in the bookcase behind me as I type, right next to "The Americna Way Of War" - volumes I rely on as I control oposition forces in computer simulations the U.S. Army uses to train officers, NCOs, warrants, and unit battle staffs.  And you do...what, exactly for a living?  I wait in eager antidcipation...

but I can't let your slander of T.E. Lawrence go unchallenged. Lawrence once defined tactics as "the means towards a strategic goal, the steps of its staircase." The tactics he advocated were the polar opposite of what you advocate.

...perhaps because he was fighting WITH arabs, in nominal support of an arab cause?  Do ya think?

So what, exactly, is your strategic goal (other than genocide; ie. the extermination of the Muslim religion)?

GENOCIDE is the extinction of a GENOTYPE: that is to say, it is RACIALLY BASED.  What I advocate is application of sufficient force to anyone, of any race, creed, nationality, that seekd to do me and mine harm, to cause them pause to reflect "do I * REALLY * want to keep playing this game?"  You know, sorta like Imperial Japan after the two loud booms.

[The Rabbi]

...I have two well-highlighted copies of the James Clavell version by Delecorte Press in the bookcase behind me as I type, right next to "The Americna Way Of War" - volumes I rely on as I control oposition forces in computer simulations the U.S. Army uses to train officers, NCOs, warrants, and unit battle staffs.  And you do...what, exactly for a living?  I wait in eager antidcipation...

ROFLMFAO!!!

[Darwin]

...perhaps because he was fighting WITH arabs, in nominal support of an arab cause?  Do ya think?

Yes, "ya think," which is why I questioned your entire premise. The fact that you used Lawrence for an example indicated to me that you didn't know what you were talking about and was the primary basis of my questioning of your ability to reason.

For the record I publish books on a variety of topics, including military history.

[richyoung]

Then, as someone with more than a passing familiarity with military history, surely you understand the lesson of Vietnam:  every so-called "great victory" the communists won was actually a military disaster for them - Tet, Khe sahn, Hue - all devasted the viet cong.  It was failure of the national will, on the part of the US to aggressively persue a war that some generals said could be won in 6 weeks, that tied our troops hands with stupid, insane rules of engagement, that arbitrarily started and stopped bombing campaigns that gave the enemy a chance to recover, that first convinced the ENEMY that he could win the WAR while LOOSING every BATTLE.  The situation now is similar, but the stakes are the survival of civilization as we know it.  We CANNOT, WE DARE NOT, pussy foot around with militant Islam - the casualties will be FAR LESS on BOTH SIDES if we convince the enemy, and ourselves, that we will rain utter and total devastion on the enemy, wherever it may be found if IT DOES NOT CEASE AND DESIST!  If we fail this time, it won't be boat people and Cambodians robbed, raped, beaten, re-educated and killed, it will US, and our sisters, and mothers and bothers, fathers, and children.  If I can avoid that by destroying their sacred stone, or nuking Mecca, so be it.  If anyhting short of that will work, thats fine as well, bu tthe ENEMY needs to be convinced that WE WILL NOT STOP short of complete victory.  How far we have to go is up to them.

[richyoung]

...I have two well-highlighted copies of the James Clavell version by Delecorte Press in the bookcase behind me as I type, right next to "The Americna Way Of War" - volumes I rely on as I control oposition forces in computer simulations the U.S. Army uses to train officers, NCOs, warrants, and unit battle staffs.  And you do...what, exactly for a living?  I wait in eager antidcipation...

ROFLMFAO!!!

Care to clue the rest of us in on the joke?

[richyoung]

If they refuse to reign in their more extreme "brothers" - what do we have to loose?

What do we have to "loose"? I think you know the answer to that alread. Hint: it's black, sticky, carbon-based, and without it our entire way of life will grind to a halt.

Bullpucky.  We got oil we won't even drill for - off shore & in Alaska.  Not to mention thermal depolymerization can make oil out of almost ANYTHING for about 30 bucks a barrel.  Plus you can make oil out of COAL - the Nazi's did it in WWII, and South Africa has been doing it for forever.  Guess what - we gots PLENTY of coal.  Plenty of Uranium too, and breeder reactors - and we know how to turn that uranium into electricity.  Fact is, with a little will, forsight, and planning, the good ol' US of A would be in one of the BETTER positions for a disruption of oil from the mideast, especially compared to China, Japan, Korea, and Europe.  Not to mention the fact that Mexico and other countries htat export are real close by, and that the higher the price goes, the more economical it is to use steam and other methods to continue to extract oil from almost-depleted fields.

(Not to mention we can't rely on them NOT to cut us off - they've done it before)

[roo_ster]

A number of religions disappeared off the face of the earth when the believers were conquered, their priests killed off, and their idols, relics, and holy places smashed and razed to the ground.

Which major religions disappeared off the face of the earth again?

OK, here is a list off the top of my head, no googling required:
1. Nordic/German paganism.  Read up on Charlemagne to see what he did to the Saxons.  Recently, some neo-pagans have attempted to revive a pathetic shadow of the original.  Good luck with that...
2. Aztec paganism.  Seen anybody's heart cut out of their living bodies on top of pyramids in central America, lately?
3. Celtic paganism.  A psychological addiction to Lucky Charms does not count.
4. Pretty much every central & south American paganism.  
5. Levantine paganism.  Not sure if it had a formal name.  The dieties were usually called Baal or Baalim.
6. Egyptian paganism.  After being a Christian and them a Muslim territory, I'm thinking that it is a thinkg of the past.

Most of the above religions were snuffed out when their adherents were soundly thrashed, repeatedly, by another civilization.

[Darwin]

If you think Levantine Paganism and Islam are even remotely comparable, there is nothing I could say that you are capable of understanding.

[The Rabbi]

If you think Levantine Paganism and Islam are even remotely comparable, there is nothing I could say that you are capable of understanding.

You forgot that Ireland wasn't conquered.  It, like a lot of the other places mentioned, were the subject of missionary activity.
And the Zoroastrians seem to be doing just fine.

[roo_ster]

richyoung:

So, is your nickname "Red" Rich at work?

[roo_ster]

If you think Levantine Paganism and Islam are even remotely comparable, there is nothing I could say that you are capable of understanding.

Comparable?  Not sure about that.  It would take some digging to see if any of the old pagan cults in the Levant had any connection with the pre-Islamic Arab pagan religion (and thus some tenuous connection to Islam).  Interesting question, though...

The usual relation if pagan religions & Islam was, ahh, adversarial.  "Convert of be killed" was the muslim response to pagans found in their power.

Anyway, how comparable they are is immaterial to the point.  Your question was, "Which major religions disappeared off the face of the earth again?"  If you read (and understand!) your history, you will learn that major religions have been wiped from the earth due to civilizational struggle.  

If you think Levantine Paganism and Islam are even remotely comparable, there is nothing I could say that you are capable of understanding.

You forgot that Ireland wasn't conquered.  It, like a lot of the other places mentioned, were the subject of missionary activity.
And the Zoroastrians seem to be doing just fine.

True, Ireland did not have to be conquered to lose its (pagan) religion.  A case for missionary conversion can also be made for the Scots, Picts, Welsh, and Celtic Britons.

The Celts in Iberia and the rest of western Europe didn't have it so easy, however, after taking it in the face from the Carthaginians, Romans, and Germans.

All religions & their civilizations were subject to Christian missionary activity almost as soon as they were "discovered" by Christendom.  The large body of determined men ready and willing to make short choppy motions with sharp objects that accompanied the missionaries was usually the deciding factor, however.

The Scandinavian lands were not conquered, true, though the German lands were.  So, about 75% of adherents to Nordic paganism were converted by means of Carolingian conquest & 25% were converted soley by missionary activity.

As for the Aztecs, Incas, the other central & south American religions, Levantine pagans, and Egyptian pagans, conquest is indisputably the cause of their disappearance.

----------

Overly broad statements and rhetorical questions such as, "Which major religions disappeared off the face of the earth again?" only need one example to refute them.

[richyoung]

richyoung:

So, is your nickname "Red" Rich at work?

They call me "El Diablo"....

[Perd Hapley]

I only wish to say that I reject the notion that the Bible has anything to say about people who shapeshift or skin-change.  If you don't remember when that came up in the discussion, don't worry about it.  

I'm hoping this thread is deleted very soon.