PeterDavid.net

Rationally, sure, you'd go for it. Couldn't hurt, and the potential gains are certainly worth it.

Realistically, not a chance in hell. Emotions in too many quarters run too high to even consider it, to say nothing of the pundits. I'm certain Ann Coulter (Her Cerebral Phosphorescence) among others would have many interesting things to say on the subject, none of which would be at all productive.

I'd love to see Al Qeada genuinely want peace and be willing to work toward it. But at the monet, I honestly don't think enough people with influence on our side truly want peace to make it possible.

The first thing I thought when I read about this was, I wonder if the stakes are getting too high and they are not willing to use the methods that Al Qeada employs? The impact of the violence they have used lessens when others use planes to hit targets. Either way, I applaud any group who is willing to lay down arms and talk. We will also sit at the table with terrorists as soon as they indicate willingness. Hopefully it will be sooner, rather than later.

The analogy doesn't hold. A unified Ireland ceases to be a threat, A muslim world unified under the equivilant of Osama or Mao becomes the greatest threat since W.W.II
As to the question of "can you stomach working with former terrorists?" I have to ask if you can afford not to if it means a stop to the bloodshed.
Even though I believe these tactics reprehensible, America, Israel, & South Africa have all been accused of terrorism.
All we can hope for the future is that sane and rational people will finally be able control the forces of their own governments.

Then it wouldn't be Al Qaeda anymore. The IRA had specific reasonable goals (although their methods were barbaric) and they could be compromised with. Al Qaeda seeks the conversion or subjugation of all non-Muslims, and a worldwide caliphate headed by Arabs (they look down upon Muslims of other races). That's a fundamental part of their world view, and they are not going to stop until they achieve it. Negotiating with such an organization would be pointless.

The IRAs' greatest source of revenue was from Irish-Americans. This source has dried up since 9/11, no doubt, in some small part to Mr. Blair probably telling Mr. Bush that if the United States wanted Britians' support, the United States government would need to take an active roll in curbing and elimanating this financial subsidy to terrorism.

In order for Al Qaeda to sue for peace, two things would need to occur; Bin Ladens' money would need to be dried up or otherwise gone, and a greater threat than themselves would have to come on to the world scene.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Hasn't the IRA basically forgone violence already and this is a press release restating the obvious?

One huge, honking, disgustingly offensive, repugnant detail leaps out at me:

The IRA largely avoided civilian casualties, preferring to target political and military figures -- to the point of phoning in warnings before bombs would go off. Al Qaeda, alternately, seems to prefer killing innocents by the thousands.

To compare the two, to place them on the same level, is to compare a guy who robs convenience stores with a Jeffrey Dahmer. With a kid caught with an M-80 around the end of June with Timothy McVeigh. To a guy jacking deer (that's "hunting out of season," "hunting without a license," or violating some other hunting laws to you flatlanders) with the guy in the clock tower. To say they differ only in degree is obscene.

J.

Heya Jay,

There's a problem with that distinction in my mind. It casts the United States in the same light as Al Qaeda. The States certainly weren't phoning in when and where they were bombing and clearing out civilians from the fire zone. Even the conservative websites that offer body count numbers put the innocent Iraqi dead in the tens of thousands. The liberal ones come in at over one hundred thousand.

And I'm betting not one of them got a warning.

A rabbi friend of mine once told me about the Jewish tradition of not counting humans. Count livestock. Count sheep. Count bushels of grain. But never count humans. One life is an infinite loss, he would say. You cannot count higher than infinity. And to try only diminishes the worth of the first.

So in that vein, there is no difference between the IRA and Al Qaeda. Split that hair and you are splitting infinity.

It's an interesting hypothetical, but it took the IRA many, many decades to come to this point. I don't think an al Qaeda conversion is going to come in our lifetimes, particularly as we continue perpetuating a society not as tolerant of Islam and "brown people" as we are of warring Christian sects among white people.

I'd love to see Al Qeada genuinely want peace and be willing to work toward it. But at the monet, I honestly don't think enough people with influence on our side truly want peace to make it possible.

I know I won't persuade most of you, but this type of thinking is both wrong and counterproductive. What did we do to cause the attacks in the first place? The attacks were happening at least with Clinton, and I would argue even earlier. I don't care whether it is a Republican or Democrat in control, America as a people have been for peace, and I would argue that every President (including currently) has wanted peace. To suggest otherwise is strictly a matter of demonizing someone you don't like.

To answer PAD's broad question, you only have to go back to the 1980's with Ronald Reagan. While the situations are obviously different, his slogan still applies: "Trust but verify." Whether it was G W Bush or a President 3 terms from now, I am certain that if any terroist group did what the IRA has done, they would talk to them. PAD's question, do we work with them, all depends on wha they actually do, not what they say.

I accept that many of you disagree with Bush. That is your choice. But let's look beyond the white house for a moment. This country, as imperfect as it obviously is, has provided more freedom and done it consistently for a longer amount of time than any other country in history. Yes, slavery, etc., demonstrates America was not (and still is not) perfect. But name for me one other country that holds a candle to the freedom we have had in the USA. And because of that, the people in this country DO overwhelmingly want peace for us and for others. Again, we are not perfect. I understand the arguments that this current war, for example, will make things worse rather than bring peace. But that is worlds apart from us as a people (and through us, the leaders we elect) not truly pursuing peace.

Until some of you finally understand that Al Qeada truly is worse and more evil President Bush ever was or will be, the cause of peace will be delayed or even prevented.

Iowa Jim

Name you a country that holds a candle to the freedom you've had in the USA? How about three: Canada, the UK, Australia. More? New Zealand, France, post-Soviet Estonia? Post-WWII Germany (obviously only West Germany until recently). I'm sure there others... maybe post-imperialism India?

And all of these have had those freedoms without bullying the rest of the world to the extent the US has. Not that they're perfect nations by any stretch... but I think they've probably done far less harm than the US overall while having comparable freedoms.

Yeah, and Al Qaeda might be as bad as Bush if they had access to the resources and spin machine that Bush does. Insidious, self-righteous, and self-deluded evil is always more dangerous than obvious, "let's blow up civilians for the primetime news" evil.

Okay, who had 11 on the post number where the USA was bashed and Bush declared worse than Al Qaeda?

Anyway, to address PAD's question- Honestly, it depends on the collective memory of both the American people and the news outlets. After all, we as a nation were willing to deal with Arafat and the PLO for years despite numerous terrorist attacks that targeted military, political and civilian targets alike.

Much as I hate to say it... I guess we'll have to see.

I think the Irish Republican Army (or at least most of them, except for splinter groups like the "Real IRA") has been in a very long cease-fire recently, which led Erik to say that they'd renounced violence already. And they'd been waiting and seeing if the Protestant Irish and their British friends were going to live up to most of their promises before declaring the cease-fire permanent and starting to destroy their weapon caches.

I'd want Al Qaeda to do a long cease-fire before accepting that they're willing to be non-violent and trusting them very far at all. But I'd be willing to stop hunting Osama if they're willing to promise to stop helping al-Zarqawi and other insurgents in Iraq (and we see progress on that score). That'd be a place to start.

Do the IRA really deserve credit? As mentioned before above one of the reasons they have made this announcement now is that their primary source of funding (from irish americans) dried up after sept 11th. Having seen first hand the terror i guess they found it more difficult to justify funding a band of foreign criminals to go around blowing up, shooting and kneecaping their way around the streets of northern ireland.
The other more immediate reasons is that the people that they claimed to speak for told them enough, the bank raid and the MacCarthy murder in the bar were enough to get the wives, sisters and mothers to say no more.
Thats not to say that the IRA finally decided to get into the modern world and accept debate and democracy better than the bullet and the bomb is a bad thing, just saying don't idolise them.
Al-quaeda is a different beast being set up for a global jihad (and to take over saudi for its oil revenues) and so it is difficult to see what they would feel they would gain out of talking.

I'm from (and i live in )Spain so as first thing, excuse me for my poor english. I'll do my best.
There's really a hard decision, do you trust the ones that have been killing people for decades, or do you not?
I think there are two points where we can never be sure:
1.could you think that they have already given ALL their arms?
2.do every one in IRA accept this resolution?

I'll answer myself:

1.That's clear that, even if they really lay down their arms today, the political thinkings of this people are not going to change.So, if they don't get at last what they're looking for, it seems reasonable they will be back to their original means.

2.I expect, but i don't thik so. In that case...wich are the possibilities about the creation of a new terrorist force based in some present people of IRA? Maybe in a couple of months we have IREO (don't look meaning to this)or some other thing like that.

After this...
I wish the best for english and irish people. I hope they will find the rigth solution. I expect the politics see what i can't see and trust what i cant't trust.
Because after all...how i wish ETA and Al Qaeda say this one day.

Greetings from spain.

Hi. I am too from spain.

Perhaps we can accept that.
But, will those who have lost family or friends in a terrorist action, accept that the people who killed them go unpunished?

I do not know.
I wish it could be possible, but I have not lost friends this way...

As a Brit let me try and give the view from over the pond. First, the IRA caused enormous numbers of civilian casualties. Second, they tried to kill the entire British government - like them or loathe them they were still elected, no one has ever voted for the IRA. Third, their aims are only "reasonable" if your an Irish Republican. The majority of people in Northern Ireland consider themselves British, not Irish.

The "but" is though the IRA were not and have never been fascist which is more than I can say for Al Qeada. There can be no middle ground for dealing with fascism, Al Qeada seeks both the destruction of the United States and her allies and a global Islamic state whether the rest of the world wants it or not. There can be no appeasement. Too many times the West, and particularly the US and her close allies like the UK, have supported and maintained brutal regiemes because it is a convenient solution. This time I don't think there can be any accomodation for what is no more than a fascist death-cult.

Posted by Kevin Hall: This time I don't think there can be any accomodation for what is no more than a fascist death-cult.

***

As Stephen Colbert would say...

I dunno... We've put up with the Texas judicial system for a while now... What's one more?

J/K

This is a situation without any real good solution. If they want peace, thousands of innocents go unavenged. They continue to war, and thousand smore die.

Add to that that Al Qaeda very obviously doesn't want peace to begin with, and it seems a moot point.

And to those complaining over the comparison of Bush and Al Qaeda, if it ever came down to a fistfight between Bush and Osama, I'd genuinely have trouble rooting for either one. One's responsible for thousands of deaths across the globe and the fermentation of worldwide hatred. And the other's Osama.

Yeah, you're right, Mike. That's why we carpet-bombed Tikrit a couple of months ago. And why Fallujah was flattened without several weeks' warning and urging for civilians to evacuate. Why that medic last week, after being shot by a sniper, wounded his assailant and instead of treating his injuries, shot him seven more times and left his head on a pike. And why we have destroyed literally dozens of mosques the terrorists have used as hidey-holes and nests to launch their ambushes from.

Whoops, my mistake. Tikrit's still standing. Civilian casualties in Fallujah were relatively low. The medic in question DID treat the wounded terrorist sniper. And we have extremely restricted rules on attacking structures as mosques, schools, and hospitals, no matter how many terrorists are inside, shooting out at our forces.

You know, if Bush was really as evil and all-seeing as you seem to think he is, why the hell hasn't your ass been hauled off to Guantanamo by now? Why is Teddy Kennedy still free to drink himself into oblivion? Why hasn't the ACLU all been rounded up and shot? Why are the CBS satellites still working? Why is the United Nations Building still a building, and not the United Nations Smoking Crater?

J.

Except for the Shiites of Iran, and now Iraq, isn't the Muslim world pretty much unified now? Aren't we allied with almost every Muslim nation, now including Libya? Aren't we already giving hundreds of millions of dollars to Palestine, and isn't Egypt practically a member of NATO? Didn't the CIA train al-Qaida?

Until some of you finally understand that Al Qeada truly is worse and more evil President Bush ever was or will be, the cause of peace will be delayed or even prevented.

Straw man, Jim. Nobody here has said (or, IMO, even implied) otherwise.

In terms of America truly wanting peace, I agree that the group of neocons running the country wants peace -- but a very specific peace. The PNAC documents are very clear and very damning -- they see US domination as the key to a peaceful world. They'd like us to be the one and only superpower in the world, with enough influence that everybody will work with us, or at least not try to oppose us.

Now, I agree that such an approach might bring about peace ... for a while. However, I for one don't believe it would last. I also think the aftermath, when the superpower topples, would be much worse than the current state of affairs. Lastly, I don't believe the US has the moral superiority to be justified in saying "hey, we'll bring peace, just let us run the world for a while." No single country has that.

And as for knowing you won't convince most of us ... well, no, not when your first phrase after that is "this type of thinking is wrong."

TWL

The obvious answer is "yes," assuming that their goal is really and sincerely to unify the area under some sort of peaceful umbrella.

Unfortunately, I think it's just an interesting hypothetical exercise. With all the strife in the area, both historical and political, from without and within, I just don't see it happening.

Along similar lines, I wonder sometimes what Iraq will look like in ten years. Heck, I wonder sometimes what the USA will look like in ten years. In 1995 I certainly didn't expect we'd be where we are today.

dj
st. paul, mn

Wow!Tim that was very well put
As far as the topic at hand,I think if Al Queda elements were to come forward with the peace proposal we most at least consider it.It may not work,ultimately it might fail but if there is a way to peacefully resolve conflicts without the death and destruction of thousands we must consider it.
Unfortunately with the influence of Neoconservatives and blind media zealots like Coulter and limbaugh this would never happen unless it was somehow in thier(the neocons) best interests,whatever that may be

"Until some of you finally understand that Al Qeada truly is worse and more evil President Bush ever was or will be, the cause of peace will be delayed or even prevented."

I think we understand that. What we don't understand is this bizarre, almost perverse conservative compulsion to turn EVERY question about world politics into a referendum on Bush and then start howling that Bush is constantly being attacked. The only mention of Bush until you brought him up was a passing observation that indicated he might have had a hand in getting the IRA to publicly declare the end of its terrorist activities, which is hardly an attack. And frankly, since you're the first one to bring up "evil" and "Bush" in the same posting, to me that suggests that you have one serious guilty conscience rattling around in your head.

"You know, if Bush was really as evil and all-seeing as you seem to think he is, why the hell hasn't your ass been hauled off to Guantanamo by now? Why is Teddy Kennedy still free to drink himself into oblivion? Why hasn't the ACLU all been rounded up and shot? Why are the CBS satellites still working? Why is the United Nations Building still a building, and not the United Nations Smoking Crater?"

Patience, patience. These things happen incrementally, not all at once. You can't just toss aside ALL civil liberties and human rights in one shot. First you have to pass things like the Patriot Act. Then you have to say that the Geneva convention is "quaint" and "doesn't apply." Then you have to let opponents know that resistence will be met with below-the-belt retaliation (like, say, outing a CIA operative). Then you nominate a Supreme Court justice who appears to be opposed to limitations on presidential power. That kind of thing. You have to work your way up to the really big stuff.

Man, with all these conservatives linking "evil" and "Bush" together, we liberals don't have to do a thing except sit back and laugh.

PAD

I would argue that every President (including currently) has wanted peace. To suggest otherwise is strictly a matter of demonizing someone you don't like.

I would argue that suggesting otherwise is a sign I read the newspapers. Bush has said he wanted peace. Cheney said military action in the Middle East should be a last resort. Many of the words are good. Actions speak louder, and the actions have NOT been peaceful.

the people in this country DO overwhelmingly want peace for us and for others.

Yes we do. But we're not really represented in the government these days.

Until some of you finally understand that Al Qeada truly is worse and more evil President Bush ever was or will be, the cause of peace will be delayed or even prevented.

Is this finally a tacit admission that President Bush IS evil?

Actually, Al Qaeda has put forth their peace proposal. It calls for the removal of all Western influence from Muslim lands, and the end of persecution of Muslims worldwide.

Of course, the devil is in the details:

1) Once a land is Muslim, it is Muslim for all time. That means a good chunk of Spain has to be given back to them, for starters. And kiss Israel goodbye. And since Jews are "Westerners," they're pretty much gone from the Middle East entirely.

2) "Persecuting Muslims" is defined as preventing them from establishing the Caliphate, the Muslim world-state. Which means that the non-Muslim world will be constantly redefined to mean a smaller and smaller space, and eventually none at all.

Al Qaeda's peace offering was, in essence, "leave us alone and we'll give you a little more time before we conquer you." Great starting position, that.

J.

PAD writes; "Do we accept that? Do we start working with them?"

And I say; Yes. Yes we do.

If it stops more killing on both sides?

Of course we do.

If Osama called tomorrow and said he wanted to sue for peace, we'd be hypocrits to not consider it. Granted, our terms would be unconditional surrender, and we'd undoubted call for the trials of the terrorist leaders, but the rank and file? Agree to disarm, and never take up arms agains the US again, and they're free to go about their lives.

Someone feel free to correct, me, but isn't what I've decribed pretty much what we did with Nazi Germany at the conclusion of WWII?

why the hell hasn't your ass been hauled off to Guantanamo by now?

You tell me. I think he deserves to be.

isn't the Muslim world pretty much unified now?

Not really.

If anything, I think it's more likely for the Muslim world to be unified against us than for most of the Muslim world to be unified with us while a couple of rogues run about.

I'm sure many Muslim leaders were happy that Saddam was ousted, but at the same time, pissed because it's created a bigger mess with more terrorists that threaten everybody (as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Spain, and the UK can attest).

Al Qaeda's peace offering was, in essence, "leave us alone and we'll give you a little more time before we conquer you." Great starting position, that.

Obviously that's a sarcastic 'great starting position' in your opinion, but it is a valid one for Muslims.

From the way I understand things, bin Laden got his start because he wanted the US out of Saudi Arabia. Conveniently, our government trained him to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Saudi Arabia is bin Laden's homeland, and, although he is in exile, it's not unreasonable for him to see the US as a foreign invader.

I know, I know, that's traitorous thinking - everybody wants the US to come in, guns blazing, right?

But this does go back to the unified aspect - for many Muslims, religious pride is more important than national pride. Thus, they're willing to fight on what would otherwise be considered foreign soil if they perceive an attack on Islam.

And when Western powers have been mucking about in the Middle East for over a century, perhaps Arab Muslims have a point.

Sure, but that scenario seems only slightly more likely than the Axis powers declaring that they were sorry, willing to give back all the land they'd conquered, and, hey, the Jew folks ain't that bad after all.

It's possible that if we keep on eliminating the leaders that eventually the organization will evolve into something very different, which seems to be more or less what happened to the IRA (and I have to disagree very much with the poster who said the IRA did not target civilians, btw. Even if one is sympathetic to the purported gaols, there is nothing admirable in the IRA).

Indeed, rightly or wrongly, the IRA wanted an independant Republican Ireland. Al Qaedia simply want their version of the Muslim faith to be the dominant one around the world.

Patience, patience. These things happen incrementally, not all at once. You can't just toss aside ALL civil liberties and human rights in one shot. First you have to pass things like the Patriot Act. Then you have to say that the Geneva convention is "quaint" and "doesn't apply." Then you have to let opponents know that resistence will be met with below-the-belt retaliation (like, say, outing a CIA operative). Then you nominate a Supreme Court justice who appears to be opposed to limitations on presidential power. That kind of thing. You have to work your way up to the really big stuff.

There's also labeling people "enemy combatants" so as to deny people a fair trial Jose Padilla), rounding up people who protest (Republican convention), having the FBI collect thousands of pages of survalliance on groups that oppose the president, random & useless searches of transit riders

I also forgot to make another point abuot Ireland (getting back to PAD's orginally question...) was that the troubles over there go back at least 400 years to Oliver Cromwell's time. Cromwell pursued a murderous campaign against the Irish as did his successors, not least including doing nothing during the terrible potato famines leaving the Irish to starve. Fast forward a few hundred years and the pattern is repeating itself in the Middle East, not least the fact that we've tried to dominate that part of the world since the time of the Crusades, pre-dating even Ireland. The point is though, none of us want several hundred years struggle with Al Qeada because neither side can deliver a knock-out blow. Personally though I think a fascist cause will rot from the inside, as all causes written in terms of absolutes always do. Al Qeada has given us no alternative other than putting up the most fierce resistance to their campaign of hate and death - I really don't think they have it in them to renounce violence and negotiate with purely legitimate means.

Jim: "Until some of you finally understand that Al Qeada truly is worse and more evil President Bush ever was or will be, the cause of peace will be delayed or even prevented."

Tim: "Straw man, Jim. Nobody here has said (or, IMO, even implied) otherwise."

Now, Tim, we reference back to Finley's post:

"Yeah, and Al Qaeda might be as bad as Bush if they had access to the resources and spin machine that Bush does. Insidious, self-righteous, and self-deluded evil is always more dangerous than obvious, 'let's blow up civilians for the primetime news' evil."

Finley did indeed state (pretty clearly, it seems to me) that Dubya is more evil than the entire al-Qaeda organization.

Jonathon,

Actually, it wasn't Findley, it was then previous poster and anyway, he posted AFTER Iowa Jim. Of course, one could argue that IJ did his post knowing that someone would snap at the bait and prove him right...you don't have to be here long to learn that it's not hard to get knees jerking on both sides...

"Now, Tim, we reference back to Finley's post:

"Yeah, and Al Qaeda might be as bad as Bush if they had access to the resources and spin machine that Bush does. Insidious, self-righteous, and self-deluded evil is always more dangerous than obvious, 'let's blow up civilians for the primetime news' evil."

"Finley did indeed state (pretty clearly, it seems to me) that Dubya is more evil than the entire al-Qaeda organization."

Number one, that doesn't change the fact that Iowa Jim was still the first person to link "Bush" and "evil" at a point where no one else was, making it a straw man argument at the time that he said it.

Number two, I'm pleased it seems so clear to you what Finely said and didn't say. Curiously, it seems clear to me that Finley, in fact, said no such thing. Joey Connick made the post you're referring to.

Suddenly things seeming less clear?

PAD

There's no way for this set of assumptions to happen. If al-Qaeda is functional in 10 years then they will still have the manpower, firepower and finances to keep up what they are doing. The only reason you lay down weapons for peace is if you can better accomplish goals through politics and/or trade. However, al-Qaeda has nothing to trade, and there's no country out there who will publically negotiate with al-Qaeda on their political ends. Right now their political goals are to remove governments from power in favor of stricter Islamic control.

May I say how much I love the fact that several people are going after my claim on Iowa Jim's straw man, and not one has made any substantive response to the rest of my post? Gotta love the web sometimes...

[And yes, for the record, when I responded to Jim I'd only read as far as his post, not the rest, and thus hadn't seen Joey Connick's entry.]

TWL

Ah, "The Irish Problem". Here are a few things to keep in mind:

1) Most Americans get their impression of the IRA from the songs they hear at the local Real Authentic Irish Pub(tm), and fail to realize that the Provisional IRA of today (not to mention the Real IRA, the Official IRA, and the Fuck-You-We're-the-IRA) are NOT the same organization that fought for Irish independance ninety years ago, and tend to thus over-romanticize them.

2) Even during the worst of the "Troubles" of the '70s and '80s, the per capita homicide rate--including terrorist attacks and sectarian violence--in Northern Ireland was no higher than the homicide rate in the US. Often lower.

3) By the 1990's, most of the paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland, on BOTH sides, had essentially become gangs of common street thugs wrapping themselves in religious, ethnic and political rhetoric.

As for the al-Qa`ida question, well, in the past 36 years, the PIRA is blamed for about 1700 deaths, about 500 of which were civilians. Republican paramilitaries overall are blamed for about 2000 deaths, about 740 of which were civilians. Al-Qa`ida has a LOT more to answer for. This doesn't meen negotiations are impossible, but the situations are very different. For my money, the IRA and the UVF are more comperable to the Bloods and the Crips than to al-Qa`ida.

I think much of this rests on how you define "evil". If you are just looking at total civilian bodycount, there is no question that the US government is worse than al-Qa`ida. But if you look at MOTIVATION, al-Qa`ida is FAR worse. If bin-Ladin had access to our level of military force, he would have nuked Israel by now.

I, for one, think that unintentional civilian deaths resulting from a directed military campaign--even a botched and arguably illegal one--are not as MORALLY reprehensible as deliberate, malicious killings of civilians that serve no larger military purpose. That doesn't make them remotely OK, but it is the difference betweem negligent homicide (or possibly "depraved indifference") and murder with malice aforethought.

The US has killed, or contributed to the deaths of, a staggering number of Iraqis, but we didn't do it out of hatred. They are just as dead, but there is a fine moral difference.

Oh, here is the source for the Irelans statistics:

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/index.html

Something about Al Qaeda.
A spanish international analist said last friday that Al qaeda isn't really a terrorist group but an revolution movement, if we look for their tactics an their objectives.
He said that they're reliyng to an action-reaction strategy that allows them to maximize their recruitment.
Doesn't make you think if we're acting our best?

Greetings from spain.

Jack,

I would like to know why you think that it Bin Ladden had the resources of America that he would nuke Israel? This is considered Muslem holy land with a Muslem holy city in it. Destroying it would be an act against God/Allah/Jehovah/Howard.

Just in case anyone was wondering, Howard is from an old joke on Gods name in the Lords Prayer:

"Our Father, who art in Heaven, Howard be thy name."

I don't know why people are so quick to believe the rhetoric of those who claim to do evil "in the name of God" (or Allah, or Howard, or Hendrix) whenit is obvious even to a marsupial that what they do is, by any literate study of the basic beiefs of their religion, AGAINST the will of God. You'd have to be crazy to think that anyone in the IRA is a devout Catholic and it is equally obvious that the leadership of Al Qaida doesn't believe their own words--you don't see the top guys going for that sweet 72 virgins deal now do you?

My point is, it would not stun me if Bin Laden got a nuke and did something as totally unexpected as bomb Mecca itself, in the hope that it would make every Muslim worldwide rise up in pure homicidal rage. No matter what evidence there was, there is no way that most would not believe that the Israelis did it. (Hell, even some supposedly educated folks think they were involved with 9/11!).

What would stop him? A belief in Allah? I am dubious. I think that Bin Laden may be pinning his hopes on a heaven right here on Earth. The religious ferver of his followers is just the morter to build those heavenly gates.

PAD, I wish this site was less about your petty political ideas and more about comics.

But that's just me.

"PAD, I wish this site was less about your petty political ideas and more about comics. But that's just me."

See, whereas I wish it was less about petty fans showing up and being snotty, but that's just me...

Oh, wait. It's not.

PAD

I wish this site was less about your petty political ideas and more about comics

I wouldn't consider global terrorism to be petty politics.

Here are some sites about comics, free of politics:
http://www.newsarama.com/
http://www.comicon.com/

Craig, you ARE aware that the US pulled out all our troops from Saudi Arabia a little while ago? At the request of the Saudi government?

And when you describe that starting point as "a valid one for Muslims," aren't you engaging in racism? Are you saying that certain things are reasonable and acceptable when put forth by one group, but not normally others? That unreasonableness and irrationality are cultural traits?

And yeah, the West has been "mucking around" in the Middle East for over a century. More like about 10 centuries, if you go back as far as the Crusades (and a lot of them do). Even longer, if you consider the Jews "Westerners" (and a lot of them do).

I will agree with you on one point: you say that the irrational beliefs of the Muslims are understandable. They're a product of centuries of toxic culture. Where you and I differ is that you take it further and consider it acceptable when they wish to impose their irrationality on us. I don't.

And before you go and call me names for calling their culture "toxic," go and look up how women, homosexuals, and non-Muslims are treated. More importantly, look at their formal legal status -- if you're not a Muslim man, you're pretty much camel-crap legally.

And they want that to become the law of the land for the whole world. No, thanks. We fought several wars over people who considered themselves the "master race" and wanted to impose that belief on Americans (the Civil War, World War II), and I think we, as a nation, are willing to do it again.

J.

And they want that to become the law of the land for the whole world.

No, actually, MOST don't. Some do, just as some folks (coughcoughTomBugfuckDelay) have stated publicly that their role in government is to establish a Christian, biblical worldview. Most, however, see it as their personal faith and no more.

How many Muslims do you actually know, Jay?

No, thanks. We fought several wars over people who considered themselves the "master race" and wanted to impose that belief on Americans (the Civil War, World War II), and I think we, as a nation, are willing to do it again.

Ooh, I get to be the first one to yell "Godwin" in a crowded thread. Cool.

TWL

PAD wrote:

"See, whereas I wish it was less about petty fans showing up and being snotty, but that's just me...

Oh, wait. It's not."

And I just have to BWAHAHA... It's rude but heyy the guy asked for it.

Comic book writing, although it may be grounded in a flair of escapism, always has to be grounded in reality also - observations of what is going on in the real world.

A comic book fan who just wants the comic book stuff from a writer of comic books isn't rrrreally a comic book fan... IMHO.

Have a good 1 y'all!

/Bob

Patience, patience. These things happen incrementally, not all at once. You can't just toss aside ALL civil liberties and human rights in one shot. First you have to pass things like the Patriot Act. Then you have to say that the Geneva convention is "quaint" and "doesn't apply." Then you have to let opponents know that resistence will be met with below-the-belt retaliation (like, say, outing a CIA operative). Then you nominate a Supreme Court justice who appears to be opposed to limitations on presidential power. That kind of thing. You have to work your way up to the really big stuff.

There is now a Kansas State Attorney General wanting record of 90 women, most over the age of consent, from Planned Parenthood.He claims he's fighting child rape, but he's apparently only asked for the record of so-called "abortion clinics" and mostly of women of age.

As of tomorrow a federal law prohibits you from purchasing medications that contain pseudoephedrine without giving your name, presumably you'll have to show i.d.

It's always in small increments and always,always couched in "security" of some kind.

Michael J Norton

What bothers me is that PAD's politics boil down to is simplistic "Republicans are bad, and therefore I disgaree with everything they do. Even if that means I end up looking like an ass making asinine comparisons between two things that are only comparable in my mind."

But again, I'm kooky that way. Had I such an audience I wouldn't be turning them off right and left with arrogant partisan political rantings.

My political rantings would hopefully seem less petty and more perturbed at the pathetic state of the American political system. I think that is where the vast majority of Americans are. We're stuck with two shitty parties and no way out.

I mean what kind of choice is a choice between two parties so continually corrupted and devoid of actual ideas?

It's no choice.

But yeah, Democrats, YAY!

They're our corrupt guys, corrupt Men of The People, they talk touchy feely nanny state bullshit, instead of corporate militarist bullshit.

Still bullshit. Still corrupt.

Sad state of affairs. And ain't nothing PAD says makes it any less sad.

I thought you were smarter than this, it's your type of petty partisan rancor that's gonna lead to bad shit. And even if it doesn't get violent, what are you gonna do when this current two party system falls apart? It has happened before, it's just taking longer for it to happen this time. Doesn't mean it won't. And it's needed.

But how will you answer for your adherence to the party line of a corrupt dying party?

I'd ask the same of any Republican. What does anyone see in obviously corrupt, morally bankrupt parties? Don't you feel icky aligning with the Karl Roves and Terry McAuliffes of the world?

An analogy
PAD* is to Democrats as Sean Hannity is to Republicans.

But I'm looking forward to the new Spider-Man book. Sounds fun.

ElCoyote
-

*fill in the blank, really, I could name a hundred more, Al Franken, Howard Dean, etc

And when you describe that starting point as "a valid one for Muslims," aren't you engaging in racism?

How the hell is that being racist any more than it not being a surprise when black slaves rose up against white owners back in the 1800's?

And before you go and call me names for calling their culture "toxic," go and look up how women, homosexuals, and non-Muslims are treated.

Why would I call you names for it? I consider Christianity, in some quarters, just as "toxic".

We fought several wars over people who considered themselves the "master race" and wanted to impose that belief on Americans (the Civil War, World War II), and I think we, as a nation, are willing to do it again.

Only this time, the US is just as willing to become the "master race" via our right-wing conservative Christian government.

Do you think calling the war on terror a "Crusade" was an accident?

In other news, this one was quietly under the radar, but a bunch of (dumbass) Democratic Senators have put forth a bill that would place a 25% tax on all internet porn (and you know how broad the term 'porn' is these days) and make age verification mandatory for all sites.

Oh, and it's to help protect the children, btw.

This probably has no way of passing... well, actually, I'd give it a fighting chance... but the fact that these things keep getting suggested...

As Michael J Norton just suggested, it's always in small increments.

First thing, I'm from Israel. Secondly, I reached this site looking for news about Fallen Angel, but I seem to be drawn to political arguments for some reason.

The question is difficult because Al-Quida is a complex phenomenon. It is not exactly like the PLO or IRA or ETA, but more like the weathermen, or the Red Brigades, although they have more popular support.

The US problem in Iraq is not Al-Quida per se, but nationalistic groups in Iraq who were inluenced by Al-Quida's Islamic ideology (i.e. Islamic) and methodology (terrorism). The same way that we here in Israel have problems with national Islamist Palestinan groups like Hamas, as much as with national Marxist Palestinian groups.

The US will find itself in a position in which it will be able to achieve cease Fire agreements or even Peace Agreements with such groups in Iraq, and these groups will continue to hold a variant of Islamic ideology and still believe that terrorism was right. But it will be better to have an agreement than not, although there will be very good reasons for mistrust. Think of it in the same terms as agreements the US made with the USSR.

With Al-Quida it is less likely, since their only reason to exist is militant Islamism. What Al-Quida basically does is take any friction in the world involving muslims and casts it in terms of a struggle between Islam and the non-muslims, whether it is the friction between Israelis and Palestinians or between Britons and their muslim minority. It may be possible to try to deal with some of these causes of friction on the local level, and with some of the local organizations involved, but not all of them, and not in a way that will satisfy Al-Quida.

For these reasons and others bargaining with them is much more complicated. It is also more questionable, because it like bargaining with the Mafia. To deal with them is to accept the fact that they have a voice in these local issues, which is unacceptable (as opposed to the local organizations). I dont completely exclude the possibility of dealing with some people in Al-Quida, but it is more complicated. The world should also be clear that there is no way to bargain with Al-Quida in the same way that you would bargain with the IRA or PLO, and also that its current ideology is not one you can bargain with (the ideology is not world domination per se, but it is basically a demand for complete surrender of the non muslim or secular muslim side to radical islamic demands in any place where there is friction).

Another thing to keep in mind the fractured and chaotic nature of Al-Quida. Bin Laden doesn't sit in his cave and plans every attack in the world. There are many independant groups acting seperately who are influenced by Al-Quida ideology and method. That also makes bargaining with them difficult.

Mike: There's a problem with that distinction in my mind. It casts the United States in the same light as Al Qaeda. The States certainly weren't phoning in when and where they were bombing and clearing out civilians from the fire zone.
Luigi Novi: Except that that isn’t terrorism, but one of the inevitabilities of war. What Al Quaeda did doesn’t compare.

Varjak: I'd love to see Al Qeada genuinely want peace and be willing to work toward it. But at the monet, I honestly don't think enough people with influence on our side truly want peace to make it possible.
Luigi Novi: I don’t think Al Quaeda itself wants it either, and I think that’s the slightly bigger problem, since they’re the ones who started the terrorism war, they’re the ones who fly planes in buildings, and they’re ones who deliberately and tactically target civilians. To assert that somehow we’re the ones who don’t “want peace” is absurd.

Joey Connick: Name you a country that holds a candle to the freedom you've had in the USA? How about three: Canada, the UK, Australia. More? New Zealand, France, post-Soviet Estonia? Post-WWII Germany (obviously only West Germany until recently). I'm sure there others... maybe post-imperialism India? And all of these have had those freedoms without bullying the rest of the world to the extent the US has.
Luigi Novi: What type of freedom are we talking about here? The UK doesn’t have a 1st Ammendment, and neither, if I understand correctly, does France. And then there’s economic freedom, and when you rank quality of life by that, not many countries show up at the top of the list with us.

Iowa Jim: Until some of you finally understand that Al Qeada truly is worse and more evil President Bush ever was or will be, the cause of peace will be delayed or even prevented.

Tim Lynch: Straw man, Jim. Nobody here has said (or, IMO, even implied) otherwise.
Luigi Novi: Perhaps not on this particular board, Tim, but there are certainly those on the extreme left who say it outright. And Jim is right when he says that the type of thinking embodied by Varjak’s comment is wrong.

Bobb: If Osama called tomorrow and said he wanted to sue for peace, we'd be hypocrits to not consider it. Granted, our terms would be unconditional surrender, and we'd undoubted call for the trials of the terrorist leaders, but the rank and file? Agree to disarm, and never take up arms agains the US again, and they're free to go about their lives.
Luigi Novi: But I think that’s just it. Peter’s description seems to imply something other than one side surrendering to the other, but the two sides meeting as equals.

ElCoyote: PAD, I wish this site was less about your petty political ideas and more about comics. But that's just me.
Luigi Novi: I wish people would stop trying to tell Peter what to talk about on his own blog, as if the site content were somehow supposed to be democratic, rather than reflective of its owner, and simply skip over blog entries that they don’t like.

ElCoyote: What bothers me is that PAD's politics boil down to is simplistic "Republicans are bad, and therefore I disgaree with everything they do. But that’s just me.
Luigi Novi: The problem with using arguments that utilize phrases like “seems like” or “boil down to” is that it allows you to oversimplify and distort that thing you’re describing. “Republicans are bad and Peter disagrees with everything they do”? Peter never said any such thing. You did. So the only one subscribing to oversimplification is you. If you want to respond to or criticize Peter’s political statements, why not do so with the statements he’s actually made, and explain with some detail why you feel they don’t hold up, instead of employing Straw Men that he hasn’t?

ElCoyote: I thought you were smarter than this, it's your type of petty partisan rancor that's gonna lead to bad shit. And even if it doesn't get violent, what are you gonna do when this current two party system falls apart?
Luigi Novi: Right, because what a sci-fi/fantasy author says on his website is really going to affect current events.

ElCoyote: An analogy…PAD* is to Democrats as Sean Hannity is to Republicans.
Luigi Novi: Given how Sean Hannity is a pathological liar and hypocrite, and I haven’t heard a similar argument illustrating such behavior on Peter’s part, I’d say it’s a pretty poorly-made analogy. Can you give us examples of where or when Peter has done the things Hannity has?

"What bothers me is that PAD's politics boil down to is simplistic "Republicans are bad, and therefore I disgaree with everything they do. Even if that means I end up looking like an ass making asinine comparisons between two things that are only comparable in my mind."

See whereas, again to turn it around, what bothers me are people who fabricate positions for me and then put it in quotes to imply that I actually said it, when all it is is nonsense.

Notice that I usually say "conservatives." I know a good many Republicans who actually believe in core Republican values, are in fact, appalled by actions taken by the neocons and religious extremists who have usurped the Republican party, and are taking positions in opposition to current GOP dogma (including...what's her name? Oh, right. Nancy Reagan.)

At the same time I have expressed disgust with a number of decisions and directions taken by the Democratic party. The only place where positions of mine are stark black-and-white is when they're restated for me by people who slap quotation marks around them even when they're not actually quotes of anything I said.

PAD

"So let's say we flash forward ten years, and Al Qeada is still strong, in business, and a major terrorist force. Iraq is still a fragmented mess. And suddenly Al Qeada announces that it wants to lay down arms and work toward a peaceful unification of Iraq and the Muslim world."

Unfortunately, there are a lot of "ifs" in this idea. The main problem, as far as I can tell, is that Al Qeada has no centralized government or structure. The IRA did, although there were a lot of splinter groups, but the violence was isolated to one area. This isn't a civil war/civil unrest type of situation. Al Qeada is striking all over the world. Who exactly would we try to deal with?

I can understand any reservations regarding peace with groups with a long history of violence, however, nothing can be lost by entering into a peace agreement cautiously and with your eyes open.

The potential benefits far outweight any reasonable apprehension in my humble opinion.

Regards:
Warren S. Jones III

Craig, you ARE aware that the US pulled out all our troops from Saudi Arabia a little while ago? At the request of the Saudi government?

But only because we've found a new place in the Middle East to put them.

Anyone who thinks we'll see all of our troops leaving Iraq within the next ten years is kidding themselves.

To assert that somehow we’re the ones who don’t “want peace” is absurd.

Is it so absurd? I don't think so.

Bush is the one that wanted to bomb Iraq *before* 9/11 happened.

Not exactly a hallmark of a 'peace president', is it?

We want peace. But like many others that want peace, we want it on our terms. Granted, we weren't the ones that took an overly aggressive first strike action to instigate a war...until we were the target of such an action, and after we had made progress in retaliating to those that had attacked us, we then...turned and took an overly aggressive action first strike action to instigate a war.

So, while I'd agree that the US "wants peace." But the current strategy of lashing out on flimsy evidence against a nation that it appears there was at least some pre 9/11 Presidential desire to attack really isn't in line with the "want peace" mentality.

Let's summarize it like this:

The American people want peace.

Our current president, though, is a warmongering a-hole. :-)

Momentary peace that allows an enemy to build strength to again threaten peace is short-sighted. The Islamic Extremist threat grows stronger in peace as they amass weapons that can do even more harm. Is there really any wisdom in a short-term peace that will likely make any future agression even more deadly and widespread?

The Middle East status quo is/was going to change. Only time will tell if Bush's willingness to force that change on our time schedule will work (though if it does, it won't be easy to determine... what would have happened if we'd gotten into the WWII years before? What would have happened if he hadn't gotten involved at all?)

I think the World Wars (part I and Part II) play out Robbnn's statement: Although, in that regard, it wasn't so much a "peace" as it was a "time out." Both sides were running out of bodies, $, and the will to fight. And it's rare in history when there's a peace treaty that one side has such an advantadge over the "losing" side that it can dictate terms. After all, if you can summarily exterminate your opponent, it's not so much a peace, as it is a forced surrender. The losing side in that case is basically appealing to the winner's sense of forgiveness.

Which makes the "war" on terror an interesting study. While you could say that our true enemy is an ideal, there are very real people supporting and spreading that ideal. You can kill as many of the people as you have bullets for, but if you can't counter the ideal, you're never going to win. In WWII, we countered the ideal by uncovering the horrible attrocities committed by the Nazis. Whatever your position on expansionist regimes was, seeing the true evil the Nazis unleashed put them in a class of their own (we just watched "Why We Fight" from Band of Brothers, so some of those emotions are more fresh with me). But the Nazi party was only a small fraction of the German population, and even some of those members did not embrace all that the party did. The so-called terrorist movement, or the militant islamics, seem to have a larger base that embraces the ideal that Americans (and others) are godless infidels that deserve to die. And moreso, that those that serve Allah by killing the infidels will be rewarded.

That's an ideal that's hard to fight. I think it's the main reason why any talk of peace with the terroists is met with high skepticism.

Den,
"Let's summarize it like this:
The American people want peace
Our current president, though, is a warmongering a-hole:)"

I'm glad you put a smiley at the end of that statement, since it's impossible to take it seriously.

Firs, every sane person wants peace. The reason our "warmongering" president was elected again in 2004 is because - as this blog clearly shows - those who oppose him have no viable alternative to what he is doing.

Varjak,
"We're not really represented in the government these days."
Who is 'we', white man? Given your "it's our fault the terrorists hate us" point of view, then you're right. People with your point of view are not represented in our government to any measurable degree. Thankfully, a majority of people do not share your idiotic, uneducated point of view.

Luigi Novi,
"Given how Sean Hannity is a pathological liar and hypocrite"

Would you care to give an example, Luigi? Seriously, seeing as how you have disapproved of statements made by people ranging from Ann Coulter to Michael Moore to Al Franken, I would be interested in the basis for your statement .

Craig J. Ries,

"I consider Christianity, in some quarters, just as toxic."

Right, because Christians have an international organization - and reputation - for destroying those who are infidels.

"The US is just as willing to become the master race"

You really don't have any sense of perspective, do you? Thankfully, your social impact is zero.
Keep typing away, and let me know if you need a new tin foil hat.

On working with Al Qeada. It would be akin to working with Al Capone on law-enforcement matters, or Scott Petersen on marriage counseling.

The Arab/Muslim world desparately needs a Martin Luther King, Ghandi or Nelson Mandela, who can work with their own people to show that there is a better, peaceful, and yes, democratic way. Those are the types of individuals we hopefully should be working with, and will work with, to bring human rights, dignity, tolerance, and peace to a very dysfunctional part of the world. Where is the Palestinian or Iraqi Martin Luther King, who can steer young people away from this hatred
and hopelessness?

"Right, because Christians have an international organization - and reputation - for destroying those who are infidels."

Uh, well, there was that whole Crusades thing that lasted for hundreds of years...

"The Arab/Muslim world desparately needs a Martin Luther King, Ghandi or Nelson Mandela, who can work with their own people to show that there is a better, peaceful, and yes, democratic way"

I'd say, for 90% of "the muslim world," probably more, they don't need this...because, as my understanding of traditional Islam goes, violence just isn't tolerated. Period. There just happens to be a militant minority that has perverted traditional Islam in such a spectacular fashion that it seems like it's a culture run amok.

But there are starting to surface those within the Islamic world that are speaking of doing the very thing you suggest: "correct" the thinking that Islam endorses the deaths of "infidels."

However, by suggesting that such a movement needs to be democratic I think goes too far. At the risk of re-hashing an older discussion, there's nothing magic about a democracy that supports peace. Some form of representative organization, sure, since you can't hold a dialogue with 3 billion people, but pushing democracy on people that may not want it is condescending and insulting.

I love it when you reply to my posts, Jerome, if only because it's amusing as to what bizarre tangent you'll spin out of it.

First of all, yeah, I was half-joking. But Bush came into office in 2001 with the full intent of invading Iraq, long before 9/11. He grasped at any excuse he could. Hell, Dick and Rummy wanted to use 9/11 as an excuse to attack Iraq because "there were no targets" in Afghanistan.

Second, what does my statement about him getting elected? Even though the majority of Americans are finally waking up to the reality of how badly he's bungled things in Iraq, we're still stuck with him until January, 2009. That's a fact.

Third, the opposition has ideas. Unfortunately, the Democrats can't organize a ham sandwich, so those ideas aren't getting aired in the public forum. Let's start with actually protecting our ports and cities with more than duct tape.

Luigi Novi,
"Given how Sean Hannity is a pathological liar and hypocrite"

Would you care to give an example, Luigi? Seriously, seeing as how you have disapproved of statements made by people ranging from Ann Coulter to Michael Moore to Al Franken, I would be interested in the basis for your statement .

I can give you a recent example. Sean was interviewing the author of The 100 Most Dangerous People in America. One person that was mentioned in the book (justifiably) is Judge Roy Moore of Alabama. The author criticized Moore for ignoring judicial orders to remove the Ten Commandments display. He likened it to the mayor of San Francisco ignoring the state law for issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals. Both are examples of government officials blatantly ignoring orders from higher officials, which can only be called activism. Hannity justified Moore by saying "he knew the consequences of his actions".

So what!??!

It is hypocritical to criticize a liberal mayor for activism and ignoring state law while promoting a judge who was likewise activist in ignoring a federal court order.

Firs, every sane person wants peace. The reason our "warmongering" president was elected again in 2004 is because - as this blog clearly shows - those who oppose him have no viable alternative to what he is doing.

A main reason people voted for bush is not because of the war issue, but because he opposed gays, which made him a "moral" president.

And this is without getting into the many issues of vote fraud that was committed in 2004.

Whether there was vote fraud or not, I know that a good many people also voted for Bush because they view him as a so-called Pro Life candidate. For a good many voters, nothing else mattered.

Bobb, there's always a certain percentage of people on both sides of the issue who consider their position to be the only issue that matters and would shoot themselves before voting for a candidate on the opposite side.

However, despite the one poll that showed "moral values" (read anti-gay and anti-abortion) as the top reason that many people voted for Bush. Other more comprehensive polls showed that the election really turned on national security. Here, Kerry failed to make a case as to how he would handle the terrorist threat differently, so the majority decided to stick with Bush since they knew what they were getting with him.

Now, of course, more recent polls are showing the American public, like a drunk waking up the next morning in a strange bed, are thinking, "Oh God, what have I done?"

"Uh, well, there was that whole Crusades thing that lasted for hundreds of years..."

If the Crusades, which happened in what, the 15th century, should not be used to tar modern Christianity, any more than the rough treatment given to the Philistines should be held against Jews. For that matter, much of the early success of Islam came at the end of the sword, but so what? It's what is happeneing in the here and now that should concern us and while Christians these days are seldom more aggressive than knocking on your door with stupid pamphlets or, at worst, trying to make their morality into law by democratic means, there is still a substantial streak of the conquest memtality in far too many Muslims. A minority, to be sure, but one that still has enough numbers to do damage.

I'd say, for 90% of "the muslim world," probably more, they don't need this...because, as my understanding of traditional Islam goes, violence just isn't tolerated.

Well, then they must have a hard time with their own history. Mohammed did not succeed through gentle persuasion and letters to the Style Section of the New York Times.

Some form of representative organization, sure, since you can't hold a dialogue with 3 billion people, but pushing democracy on people that may not want it is condescending and insulting.

You may be right...but how can you know without some kind of vote? I'm just asking--how do we determine whether or not a people want democracy?

Something about Martin Luther King in the context of the Islam and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I don't want to say that Islam is violent. But from a cultural perspective ideas of non-violence don't have much a cultural infrastructure to draw on in Islamic society. Whereas afro-americans had already a history of not reacting to violence against them, as a result of their unfortunate experience as slaves, people in the Muslim world are more used to the ideas of fighting back, defending honor and taking vengeance. Add to this their history as fighters, and the prestige that fighters and suicide bombers have because they fought back and avenged a loss of honor, and you get a very weak background for ideas of non-violence.

Nevertheless, in Israel-Palestine there are Israeli and Palestinian people trying to practice non violent resistence. However they had limited success for several reasons:

a. For the last hundred years the ideal and norm in Palestinian society was a violent one. These alien ideas of non violence don't have any prestige. For a Palestinian child seeing his elders not react with violence when confronting Israeli soldiers doesn't seem very heroic or very effective. The fact that violence has not been effective either doesn't matter. At least it is more satisfying. (This was my impression in the very few demos I attended).

b. The media is more likely to report about violent activities. The politicians in the world and in Israel are more likely to pay attention to the Palestinians as a result of the use of violence. And violence is emotionaly more satisfying, especially in a culture that has idealized it.

c. The use of non-violence is very local and isolated, so it is not a mass movement, and it is easy for the Israeli army to isolate it where nobody hears about it. Even when it does get some coverage in the Israeli press, it is swallowed by the greater issues.

d. When violence has been the norm in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with most leading groups, for a small local group to start using non-violence suddenly does not hold much credibility with the Israeli public (or the world). Especially when the struggle is against a fence built in order to stop suicide bombers.

e. Few Palestinians have adopted the method of non-violence. But it is instrumental. They have not adopted the ideal and the language of non-violence as Dr. King did. Plus they are not very good or disciplined at it. Their non-violence does not look or sound good to the camera, but more like a mob chanting nationalistic arabic slogans and pushing and being pushed by soldiers. Often somebody will loose his temper and start throwing stones. They claim that they can't do anything about it, which may be true. But what Israelis hear is the same old violence. Furthermore, wheras King's dream was known to white America as one of Peace, Many Israelis fear that the Palestinian dream is still to see Israel vanish. In any case, Palestinian use of non-violence does not have the effect that Gandhi's and King's did on Britons and Americans. It does not inspire them to question their beliefs or go beyond their fears of the Palestinians.

One other thing. The way the US defeated the Nazi ideal (or the Japanese nationalism) was by destroying the infrastructure that promoted it completely; discrediting it by bringing great harm to the majority of Germans and Japanese who supported it when it was successful; and then, after crushing them completely, offering a better option by helping them rebuilding their countries. Most Japanese and Germans were not committed enough to fashism to realize that the alternative was better. However, the circumstances and the public state of mind in Iraq are different.

Bill, not to be an ass, but you do realize that you argue against using Christian history against modern Christians, then use muslim history to criticize modern Islamics?

And to a degree, you are right when you say we need to conern ourselves with the here and now. And the here and now is that there's a militant Islamic minority that is only able to have a global impact because of modern weaponry...a single person can assemble an explosive device that can kill hundreds...if not thousands...and in some cases, not even risk his own life.

The point about the Crusades is because there's this modern view that Christianity is somehow free from the evils that plague men, and that's just patently false. Knowing that faith in Christ has been (and some would say continues to be) used to justify killing is critically important in making sure such perversions do not prevail again.

I don't think you need a vote...maybe a poll of some kind....wait, that's a vote. Honestly, governments are evolving, changing entities (just check our the US "democracy"). If you really, really asked the common man-on-the-street whether he wants a representative democracy, a democratic republic, a congressional monarchy, or whatever, chances are, your answer's going to be in the "whatever let's me keep my stuff, keep others from getting my stuff, and gives me a chance to earn a decent life for me and mine" category. And if any nation's government provides that, chances are, folks are going to be content to go about grousing about whatever government they've got. And if the government doesn't do all that, chances are, at some point, that government's going to be replaced. Sometimes rather messily, sometimes not.

Something that needs to be taken into account is that, while the Crusades may seem like ancient history to us, many other societies take a much longer view of history. We Americans tend to find the idea of holding people responsible for the actions of their ancestors to be silly, but to others, things like the Crusades are still something that Christians as a group were responsible for. In fact, whether it's Ireland, Bosnia, Darfur, or Rowanda, many of the disputes in these parts of the world have their roots in events that are hundreds of years old.

So, to dismiss the Crusades as ancient history isn't realistic. People still do care about these things.

But Americans have become experts at forgetting the past...if you take that away from us, what will we have left that we're better than everybody else at? Besides basketball, er, wait....

With regards to the comments about militant Islam versus true Islam, militant Islam is definitely the minority in the Islamic world, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the more common form of Islam is true Islam. Egypt's top religious official is considered by many to be one of the shining lights of true Islam, a real reformer who has studied the original Islamic texts and teachings and is really putting the screws to common Islamic thinking. Common Islamic customs, like the frequent oppression of women, grew out of a mixture of true Islam and the tribal customs of the earliest groups to adopt Islam as their religion. Naturally, the men in power at the time found it rather convenient to intermix the two and propogate the amalgamation as a theocratic way of life. True Islam, like the Christian and Judaistic teachings it's based on, is a peaceful religion that encourages love of your fellow man, tolerance of those who have not been brought to your way of seeing things, and respect for both sexes as intergral parts of the faith. But as long as people focus on the negative in all of these religions, continue to use centuries-old history that, while horrible, isn't reflective of the modern faiths that have developed, and confuse religous zealots and other atypical figures as representative of the entire faith, then we'll never be able to lay down our spears and shields and pick up some olive branches.

The reason our "warmongering" president was elected again in 2004 is because - as this blog clearly shows - those who oppose him have no viable alternative to what he is doing.

Maybe you should find some quotes from a couple of years ago, including ones from me that said this country would be in a war to make sure Bush was reelected.

And, bingo! We're in Iraq.

When's the last time we had a change of president during a war/conflict that was caused by the election of a new president?

Right, because Christians have an international organization - and reputation - for destroying those who are infidels.

A) I did say in "some" quarters. Apparently you missed that. Not a surprise, really, since you just love running around shooting people down like they've got targets on them or something.

Are you sure you aren't a card-carrying members of the NRA?

Anyways, nutjobs such as Pat Robertson would qualify, don't you think?

Or is just your general sense of loyalty to Christianity that nothing bad can be said about even the msot insane of Christians?

You really don't have any sense of perspective, do you?

Yes, I do.

Are you stupid enough to believe that we're going to let the Iraqis do what they want with this Constitution?

Hell no - it's going to be "the American way" or forget about it.

As I've said in the past, you can't force democracy on people; they have to want it. And if the Iraqis really wanted it, they would've overthrown Saddam.

Thankfully, your social impact is zero.

Nice way to reduce somebody's opinion to nothing, jackass.

Do you want a cookie now for your great social commentary and worth?

Keep typing away, and let me know if you need a new tin foil hat.

I'm just fine, thanks. But I think you need to see a doctor - you've got something lodged up your ass that's interfering with your common sense.

While freely admitting I'm not much of a historian, I'm willing to question our understanding of the Crusades. I have a muslim friend (taught Islamic Studies in Egypt) who happily scoffs at our slant on the Crusades. He claims that the Crusades headed off an impressive jihad that, had the Catholics not opposed them, we would now be in a muslim world. This came up in a discussion of how he believes we are our own worst enemy since we refuse to comprehend the true nature of our Islamic enemy.

Take it for what it's worth, which isn't much, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if this is true.

As someone with a degree in History, I will take a step back and say that acknowledging the mistakes of the past is important, but only in the context of learning from them in order to move on to a better future. Fixation on the Crusades and/or the spread of Islam as representative religious exercises leaves out the socioeconomic politics and other non-religious motivations of the times, and the significant idea that just because someone says they're following a religious calling doesn't make it so.

Robbnn, the Crusades from the European prespective was all about "liberating" the Holy Land from the infidel and they were largely unsuccessful in that goal, although they had a great time slaughtering people along the way. Basically, the Christian decided one day that they were tired of raping and pillaging their fellow Europeans and decided to rape and pillage in the Middle East.

Islamic civilization, however, at one time did cover Spain and managed to penetrate deep into Eastern Europe. They weren't defeated by the Crusaders as much as they were driven out by the native Europeans. However, I can see how how Islamic historials might lump it all together as one "crusade". Given the differing levels of education and technology, it is entirely possible that Islamic Civilization could have conquered Europe.

One of the things that frustrates me is how the Bushites try to dismiss the modern Islamic extremists with trite phrases like "they hate freedom". This isn't a case of them looking at our freedom press (what's left of it) and freedom of religion and thinking, "we need to destroy that." No, the goal of Al Qaeda and others like them is worldwide Islamic domination, starting with the destruction of Israel, but leading towards the restoration of the Ottoman Empire and the retaking of Spain as stepping stones to global conversation. They believe that as the true faith, this is their destiny as decreed by God. We are not fighting people who hate our freedoms. We are facing an ideology that desires a total eradication of western culture.

Of course, the balance of economic, military, and technological power today is far different than it was in the 15th century. Today, the west continues have the upper hand, so Al Qaeda resorts to terrorism as the weapon available to them and their efforts will continue to escalate. Islamic extremists are the minority among the Islamic people, but their belief in this ideology is unshakable.

We need to realize that we are not fighting communism anymore. This cannot be defeated by replacing a few regimes. This is a global nationalistic movement and the American government has a long history of underestimating the power of nationalism (see: Vietnam). We need to understand that this is a war of ideas that knows no international boundaries. To think that we can create a pro-Western democracy in Iraq and then watch it spread throughout the Middle East is foolish in the extreme. By invading Iraq, we've creating a stage for the extremists to take this country the moment we pull out.

I think the debate as to whether violence is part of "true" Islam is pointless. If someone is willing to kill and die for their beliefs, then those beliefs are "true" enough for them, regardless of whether this or that passage in their holy book supports it. The Crusades and the Inquisition (in many ways, the result of attempts to unify Spain post-Islamic rule) are examples that despite Jesus telling his followers to "turn the other cheek," Christianity can be used to justify atrocities. Likewise, so can Islam or Judaism or Hinduism or Buddhism. All you you are enough people with the "true believer" personality type and a leader charismatic enough to direct them towards violence.

every sane person wants peace.

Which does not in fact preclude Craig's commentary about this administration. :-) Sorry, dude -- you set it up that nicely, I'll take the shot.

while Christians these days are seldom more aggressive than knocking on your door with stupid pamphlets or, at worst, trying to make their morality into law by democratic means, there is still a substantial streak of the conquest memtality in far too many Muslims. A minority, to be sure, but one that still has enough numbers to do damage.

I think those people killed or maimed by Eric Robert Rudolph would take issue with your statement that the last sentence applies only to Muslims.

For that matter, isn't the IRA ("remember Alice ... this is a song about Alice...") made up pretty much entirely of white Christians? Lots of rather more aggressive people there, methinks.

And Jerome, while Craig can be a little extreme, the next time you try to dismiss him with "thankfully, your social impact is zero," I'm going to hire someone in PA with a very large pin to go and poke your head for a while until the ego deflates back to normal size. Just what the heck do YOU do that makes your social impact so grand?

TWL

Hmm... ok, Den, then replace the instances of "true" with "pure" - I'd not argue whether people who don't share a particular faith have true faith, just that what they truly believe isn't representative of the pure or core ideals of the faith they claim to follow. Heh, was that convuluted enough for you? And the debate is important in the context that showing someone that there's a way to follow their basic faith in a more positive way, that doesn't inspire hate or violence, that doesn't preach intolerance, is the first step in achieving true peace.

And please note I'm not specifying a religion here; too many people of all faiths look at the ways they can differentiate themselves from others with the big ideas and advantageous interpretations which foster intolerance, rather than focusing on the commonalities among almost all pure faiths on how to live day-to-day in peace and learn to work through the other differences as an "agree to disagree" arrangement.

I would like to know why you think that it Bin Ladden had the resources of America that he would nuke Israel?

Ah, good point. I was using "nuke" figuratively. I imagine he would have to use conventional forces, and avoid airstrikes on Old Jerusalem, but he would not hesitate to murder as many Jews as he could with no military purpose.

Jason, I understand what you're saying, but the problems pretty much stem from the subjective nature of what a "pure" form of a religion is. I think some of the ideological differences in the various Christian faiths are at least as wide as those in the Islamic faiths. The major difference, at least in terms of the US, is that regardless of which branch of the faith you ascribe to, you're pretty well off. You don't go into a job interview, impress some big wigs, get to within seconds of getting a great job offer, only to be faced with the question "which church do you go to?" And then fail to give the "correct" response, and don't get the job.

Which is my usual long-winded way of saying that there's no disaffected, repressed christian sect in the US that feels that it has to resort to extremist measures in order to advance themselves. In many Islamic countries, I think you have just the opposite: sect A comes into power, and starts repressing all other sects. Sect C has no where else to go, and with an increasing number of unemployed, disaffected young men/people, is prone to a charismatic leader that's capable of finding justifications in the religious base to engage in war against the heathan oppressors of God's True Children.

This situation is maybe the best argument I've seen supporting a democratic solution to terrorism, because a democracy is more likely than other forms of government to provide a means to succeed for everyone. Granted, it has to be a religiously tolerant democracy, or there's no relief to the disaffection suffered by the repressed. At that point, with everyone owning a home, holding a job, supporting a family, i.e.: having something greater than your own life to lose--it's at this point that militant/terrorist ideals don't have a supply of bodies and minds to recruit from. Whichever "strain" of a particular religion you subscribe to no longer matters.

The Crusades were in part possible because European nobility had a growing number of sons, and a lack of land and titles for them. Sending them on the Crusades was a tidy way of pushing the problem of who gets the family castle into the future, and letting natural selection play a role as well. But if there wasn't a group of disaffected, unattached, nothing to lose bodies sitting around, they'd never have happened to the extent that they did.

Right, because Christians have an international organization - and reputation - for destroying those who are infidels.

I'll just mention that the Inquisition still exists, now called the "Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith". It's former prefect was recently elected Pope.

Christians haven't made a habit of killing "heathens" in the last century. But prior to that, they were largely less tolerant than their Muslim contemporaries.

The Arab/Muslim world desparately needs a Martin Luther King, Ghandi or Nelson Mandela, who can work with their own people to show that there is a better, peaceful, and yes, democratic way.

The Muslim world DID have a Gandhi: Gandhi. He wasn't a Muslim, prior to partition, India had one of the largest Muslim populations in the world. (It still does, but at a lower percentage.) Gandhi had plenty of Muslim followers, and was considered a traitor by many Hindus for attempting to mediate between Hindus and Muslims. It was a HINDU nationalist, after all, who assassinated him.

Also, read a bit on Abdul Ghaffer Khan.

Jerome Maida said:

Right, because Christians have an international organization - and reputation - for destroying those who are infidels.

uhm, it's called: the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith -- it's what was once the Inquistion.

Ah, but Bobb, simply having a democratic form of government doesn't put a chicken in every pot, as it were. Even the best democratic ideals can be usurped with a strong majority that blocks out a minority. The new Iraqi government, with all its successes, is still desperately trying to figure out how to get the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiitites to place nice-nice. I think the key isn't a religiously tolerant democracy as much as a move away from the various forms of theocratic governments currently in power throughout the Middle East and the notion that religious belief equals political allegiance. The ongoing ability of small groups of hardline critics to continually oppress entire nations of people is the major problem, and they're the ones that always find a way to reinterpret the texts to suit their needs, whether those needs are to repress the general citizenry or just a certain sect of it. I guess I would take the facts you lay out and then build my argument from there that the key would be to get the sects to focus on working out their differences in a peaceful way. The extreme lack of real natural and socioeconomic resources among the general populations throughout the Middle East will always pit people against each other, unless perhaps something like true religious tolerance focused people's attention and resources on how to resolve practical problems like hunger and education, instead of small numbers of religiously-empowered leaders using their supporters to wage holy wars as a distraction from those same leaders complete inability to provide their people with the basics of civilization.

Pardon me - "critics" should have been "clerics" in the above.

Hmm... in rereading your post, Bobb, I think we're on the same path, except you think it'll have to be a democracy, whereas I think it'll just take something non-theocratic.

OK, here's a talking point. As I mentioned, in the past 100 years, there hasn't been much of a movement within Christian RELIGIOUS institutions to do violence against non-Christians. Most of the mass-violence in the West in the 20th century was the result instead of totalitarian governments.

Now Soviet Communism can't really be called Christian, but Fascism COULD be. Nazism was marginal, perhaps, but Italian and Spanish Fascism absolutely considered themselves to be CHRISTIAN movements, and often enjoyed support of the church. And if nothing else, the Nazis recycled aspects of Christian antisemitism to mix with their own racial theories.

My point is that, to an outsider, it would be very easy to perceive some of the great crimes committed in recent Western history as religiously-motivated, Christian movements. I suspect many Jews had trouble distinguishing Gentiles who hated them as "Christ-killers" from those who hated them as "racially impure".

Iowa Jim: Until some of you finally understand that Al Qeada truly is worse and more evil President Bush ever was or will be, the cause of peace will be delayed or even prevented.

Tim Lynch: Straw man, Jim. Nobody here has said (or, IMO, even implied) otherwise.

Except, as I pointed out earlier, someone had already said that. Yes, I got the name wrong - I never claimed to be even middling perfect - but the point is not who said Bush was more evil than Al-Qaeda, the point is that it was said.

Apparently, though, pointing out that I got the source of the quote wrong is considered in some circles to be equivalent to proving it doesn't exist...

Heh, Jason, I'm usually the guy opposing the forcful expansion of democracy, or at least trying to get people to see that it's not the end-all and be-all of government that some think it is. I just meant that those that advocate the spread of democracy at least have the general wetern model of a successful nation of plenty to go with that spread, and in the scenario I lay out, the key to ending organized violence is to provide in a meaningful way for as many as you can. Or at least provide opportunities to as many as you can.

Regardless of the form of government, I don't think you'll be in a stable, peaceful situation unless you get everyone to accept that they have a stake to lose in the game. It would make an interesting social experiment (say, something for Q to ponder) to take a society of peaceful, religious groups that advocate non-violence and tolerance, and then elevate one sect to unchallenged power. Then start limiting resources, and see how long/if a disinfranchisement of the other sects would occur, and how long/whether their core religious belief would decay to the point where they derived exemptions to the non-violent call of their religions.

Because the thing is, even militant Islamics hold a mostly peaceful view of themselves...they've just created a loophole where it's OK to be violent to heathan infidels. It's discrimination in fatal terms...you distinguish yourself from the infidels to the point of dehumanization, so that you're able to overcome any religious prohibition against killing. Throw in a little martydom in, and you get willing suicide bombers. The scary thing about this combination is that it could potentially override even the Stake to Lose idea. Which would bring us back to the example of the Nazis, where we had to do a huge amount of damage to the infrastructure, and kill a lot of the idealists, before we could really call our victory over the Nazi ideal substantial.

Jack, Ghandi was an Indian nationalist and therefore wanted to preserve India as a singular nation instead of breaking it up into what is now India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh (East Pakistan at the time of partition). Even so, he was still a devout Hindu and as such could not speak with authority on Islamic doctrine. Moreover, he had little influence over Moslems outside of the Indian subcontinent. For Ghandi to become a leader of a peaceful Islamic movement would be akin to a Jewish person taking over Martin Luther King's movement. He could be an ally of peaceful Islamic leaders, but he not be considered one of them.

What Islam needs is someone from within their faithful who is capable of speaking with clear moral authority and repudiate the violent doctrine of extermism. Such Imams do exist, but they have yet ganered enough political strength to put a dent in the recruitment efforts of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

Luigi Novi: To assert that somehow we’re the ones who don’t “want peace” is absurd.

Craig J. Ries: Is it so absurd? I don't think so. Bush is the one that wanted to bomb Iraq *before* 9/11 happened. Not exactly a hallmark of a 'peace president', is it?
Luigi Novi: Varjak didn’t say anything about Bush, or presidents. Granted, the President of the U.S. does have the most” influence” in pursuing peace, but Varjak’s blanket statement does seem a bit like hyperbole.

Luigi Novi: Given how Sean Hannity is a pathological liar and hypocrite…

Jerome Maida: Would you care to give an example, Luigi? Seriously, seeing as how you have disapproved of statements made by people ranging from Ann Coulter to Michael Moore to Al Franken, I would be interested in the basis for your statement .
Luigi Novi: As far as hypocrisy is concerned, one example that comes to mind is the manner in which he criticizes people who criticize Bush because he feels doing this during a time of war gives aid and comfort to the enemy, despite the fact that he had no problem criticizing Clinton when Clinton took military action in Kosovo.

As for dishonesty, geez, where do I start? The ad hominem I remember him using when attacking a caller to his radio program in mid-2000 comes to mind. The caller asked him, quite politely, and without any invective or slanted tone of voice, about the legitimacy of the U.S.’s covert intervention into the politics of other countries, such as its engineering of elections, its installations of dictators favorable to its interests, etc. Hannity, rather than answering the question directly, hammered the caller as to whether he read this liberal publication or that liberal publication, a clear ad hominem response, and insulted the caller by saying he shouldn’t be listening to the things coming in through the fillings in his teeth. Hannity ultimately did respond that he felt the U.S. had the right to do these things that were in its best interests, but in addition to the initial ad hominem response, with which he spent far more time and verbiage, he ended the call by asking the caller how he felt about the saying, “To each the best of his own abilities.” Perhaps not knowing the derivation or principle behind the quote, or what Hannity was getting at, the caller, who may have figured that the saying seemed fairly reasonable, indicated that it sounded okay. Hannity, having trapped the caller with this response, responded it was made by Karl Marx, presumably as a linchpin of marxism. Never mind that the motto, on its face, does not necessarily appear to the uninitiated to be a core principle of communism or Marxism, and could be construed by someone ignorant of its origin to be simply a general axiom of encouragement, and that such an answer as the caller’s does not indicate communist tendencies, let alone provide any relevance to his questioning the U.S. covert foreign policies. To Hannity, this response by the caller somehow in and of itself served as an obvious refutation of the caller’s position, even though no one had explicitly stated anything about communism, Marxism, or made any accusations regarding the atrocities committed in its name.

Or how about his claim that when Rush Limbaugh showed a photograph of Chelsea Clinton when referencing the “White House dog,” it was a mistake, and that it was supposed to be a different photo, despite giving any explanation of what this other photo was, or what the joke would’ve been with it?

You can find more examples at http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020826.html, and I’m sure many others elsewhere, such as the one Mark L pointed out. Given the contempt propagandists like Hannity, Coulter, and Moore have for things like facts, objectivity and internal consistency, it shouldn’t be too hard.

Hi there. Im a little short on time and I wanted to comment but cant get through the 99 others in time. So apologies if I reiterate anything.

The IRA were in a cease fire for sometime. As were their counterparts on the other side of the border.

It has nothing to do with 9/11 or Irish Americans money. The work was in progress for a peaceful end before that. Its just taken some time as the various political parties dont like each other or the various terrorist groups.

That said, speaking as someone from Dublin, its nice to finally have an end to it on both sides. Irish people and those in the North were sick of it all. Good riddance to the IRA, RIRA, Continuity IRA, UDF, UVF and a bunch of other acronyms for violent bullies.

As for the original question, do you accept Al Qeada if they want peace? Yes. Just be ready incase its a ruse.

The rise of militant Islamis is usually not about different sects fighting with each other over resources. With the exception of Lebanon and to a certain degree Israel and Europe, it did not emerge in minority sects, but in the large sunni muslim (or Shia in Iran) majority. Radical Islamism is about muslims looking for a solution in their old time religion for the failings of the Muslim world in the present. It is a response to a sense of failure and disappointment with two facts: (a) the weakness of the muslim world in relation to the non-muslim; (b) the failure of western ideas to improve the situation of people in the Muslim world, which is then also perceived as having a corrupting influence on Muslim society. (They use a term which refers to the immoral situation of the Arabs before the conversion to Islam, which I think is Jahalia). Both problems are seen as interconnected. They are violent instead of being non-violent because violence has prestige. The preceive themselves as non violent in the sense that they were peaceful until they felt it necessary to respond to the attack against them by the non-muslims or by the heretic muslims.

One last word in defence of the Inquisition. The Inquisition was created to deal with christians who deviated from the Catholic doctrine (heretics), not people who were non Christians. It did not persecute Jews and Muslims in Spain, but Jews and Muslims who converted to Christianity but kept practicing their old religions in secret.

Bill, not to be an ass, but you do realize that you argue against using Christian history against modern Christians, then use muslim history to criticize modern Islamics?

I did a bad job of conveying my thoughts--for one thing, erase the word "if" at the beginning of my post and it makes slightly more sense. But the point I was making was that it was wrong to judge modern Christianity by what happend in 1503 and if one DID use such a standard, Islam would come off poorly as well.

My other comment on Islam's violent past was because of a comment that violence was not tolerated. Untrue--Mohammed used it to his advantage. I'm not saying he was wrong, but history is what it is.

The point about the Crusades is because there's this modern view that Christianity is somehow free from the evils that plague men, and that's just patently false.

What modern view is that? Every college history course I ever took was actively hostile to religion. I could rattle off a list of recent movies that have evil Christian characters. Meanwhile, they change Tom Clancy movies so that the villians go from Islamic terrorists to neo-nazi types.

We Americans tend to find the idea of holding people responsible for the actions of their ancestors to be silly, but to others, things like the Crusades are still something that Christians as a group were responsible for. In fact, whether it's Ireland, Bosnia, Darfur, or Rowanda, many of the disputes in these parts of the world have their roots in events that are hundreds of years old

You're absolutely right about that but you know, the problem with blaming children for the sins of their great great grandfathers isn't that it is unamerican--it's just stupid, superstitious and evil. I know we need to be sensitive to the ways of others but there are some things that one should be willing to take a stand on. If we allow people to be judged by the actions of the long dead we will never get anywhere (and, in point of fact, those countries that are obsessed with the slights of the past seldom DO get anywhere).

Anyways, nutjobs such as Pat Robertson would qualify, don't you think?

Not as someone who "destroys infidels". He IS a nutjob though. If, however, he is the worst that Christianity has to offer then the religion is in GREAT shape.

Basically, the Christian decided one day that they were tired of raping and pillaging their fellow Europeans and decided to rape and pillage in the Middle East.

Yeah, that's the "modern view of Christianity" that I was thinking of.

I said :while Christians these days are seldom more aggressive than knocking on your door with stupid pamphlets or, at worst, trying to make their morality into law by democratic means, there is still a substantial streak of the conquest memtality in far too many Muslims. A minority, to be sure, but one that still has enough numbers to do damage.

Tim replied I think those people killed or maimed by Eric Robert Rudolph would take issue with your statement that the last sentence applies only to Muslims.

Whoa,whoa whoa, how do you get that from what I said? In no way shape or form did I suggest that ONLY muslims are capable of violence. Obviously, if I am ever mugged, beaten or murdered, the odds are great that it will be a "christian" who does it.

You will note the use of the word "seldom". Yes, there are crazed Christians and extremist Jews and Mormons who give coffee enemes to schoolkids but there are entire GOVERNMENTS of Islamic extremists who are cutting a bloody swath through the "unbelievers" in Africa. My take--and anyone can feel free to tell me where I'm going wrong--is that today, in this world, as we speak, most of the worst atrocities are in part due to Muslim extremism, not Christian, Judaic, Buddhist or Atheist. That doesn't mean that there is something inherently bad about Islam. That doesn't mean that other religions haven't held the mantle in years past. But trying to equate, as some have, idiot TV preachers with people who have the blood of thousands on their hands...well, it just doesn't work for me.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith -- it's what was once the Inquistion.

And they don't torture or kill people. So obviously Christianity has evolved. Compare and contrast to the treatment of heretics in Islam--you can contact Salaman Rushdie at 1313 Ontherun Blvd, Somewhere USA.

"Meanwhile, they change Tom Clancy movies so that the villians go from Islamic terrorists to neo-nazi types."

Which is strange in itself since the villians were changed (and the movie filmed) before 9-11 happened. Don't get me started on Clancy books-to-film. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Jonathan (the other one) --

I haven't denied your point when you referenced the quote -- I simply pointed out that it couldn't possibly be what Jim was referring to, since it was posted AFTER he did. Unless you're claiming he's prescient, that can't be evidence in favor of his statement at the time of his statement.

You're more than welcome to keep belaboring this point if you like, but boy, I wish someone would actually address the substance of what I'd said in that post.

Bill:
while Christians these days are seldom more aggressive than knocking on your door with stupid pamphlets or, at worst, trying to make their morality into law by democratic means, there is still a substantial streak of the conquest memtality in far too many Muslims. A minority, to be sure, but one that still has enough numbers to do damage.

Me:
I think those people killed or maimed by Eric Robert Rudolph would take issue with your statement that the last sentence applies only to Muslims.

Bill:
Whoa,whoa whoa, how do you get that from what I said? In no way shape or form did I suggest that ONLY muslims are capable of violence. Obviously, if I am ever mugged, beaten or murdered, the odds are great that it will be a "christian" who does it.

Poor phrasing on my part; apologies.

However, my point is that "seldom" is really too general a word to use when your argument is tarring the Islamic world with a very broad brush. (I know, that's not your intent -- but it's how it's reading and very difficult to interpret any other way.) It's awfully hard to say that "their extremists are worse than 'our' extremists" when a Christian extremist can be just as much the indiscriminate killer without the slightest bit of remorse.

Speaking as one comfortably outside of both faiths (read: any), I think both of them have done a fair bit of good over the centuries, and have also been used for truly massive amounts of evil. On balance, personally, I think humanity would be a lot better off without any sort of organized religion -- but I also recognize that it's unlikely to head in that direction in ... well, maybe ever. So I carry on.

My take--and anyone can feel free to tell me where I'm going wrong--is that today, in this world, as we speak, most of the worst atrocities are in part due to Muslim extremism, not Christian, Judaic, Buddhist or Atheist. That doesn't mean that there is something inherently bad about Islam. That doesn't mean that other religions haven't held the mantle in years past. But trying to equate, as some have, idiot TV preachers with people who have the blood of thousands on their hands...well, it just doesn't work for me.

I think you're too close to the subject, then.

Pat Robertson, let's not forget, waxes nigh-orgasmic about how much he wished someone would plant a small nuke at Foggy Bottom. That's not only evil, it's bordering on incitement to treason. Maybe he doesn't have the blood of thousands on his hands -- but he has openly wished for something that would cause that, and at least to my knowledge has never recanted the statement.

(Has Pat Robertson killed infidels? No -- but he's also never had the means, and I for one am not confident enough of him to say that he'd refrain from using them if he had them.)

You're probably right that at this very moment, more of the worst atrocities are being committed by Islamic extremists and not those of some other faith. So far as I can tell, though, that's mostly because they happen to be at the front of the line at the moment. I don't think it's especially constructive to single them out, at least not if (as I think it might) it leads us to turn a blind eye away from other atrocities at the same time. I, for one, still think it's worryingly possible that twenty years from now, other countries will be discussing American atrocities exactly the same way we are now, and have at least as much of a moral reason to do so.

TWL

First, to Jerome Maida:

Who is 'we', white man?

"We" is "the people in this country [who] DO overwhelmingly want peace for us and for others." I thought that was quite clear.

Given your "it's our fault the terrorists hate us" point of view, then you're right.

Apparently you didn't notice nine posts earlier when Peter David said "what bothers me are people who fabricate positions for me and then put it in quotes to imply that I actually said it, when all it is is nonsense." (Yes, ElCoyote, I put his words in quotes, because he actually said them!) I never said it's our fault that the terrorists hate us. You beamed that out of thin air and then used this point of view you made up for me to attack my position as idiotic and uneducated. There are words for that. Eric Cartman calls shenanigans. Tim Lynch calls straw man. I call bullshit.

The war against terrorists is not one we chose. It was forced on us. And after September 11 we looked around and saw Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan taking credit for the attacks, we saw Pakistan continuing to shelter terrorists such as those who were behind the first attack on the World Trade Center, we saw North Korea continuing work on its nuclear program and threatening its neighbors, we saw Syria openly sponsoring terrorist organizations, we saw that most of the funding for terrorist cells comes from Arab royal families such as those in Saudi Arabia, so we declared that we were going to fight the terrorists and do everything in our power to stop them...

And then we buddied up with Pakistan, threw an underwhelming force at Afghanistan and turned our full attention to Iraq, far from the center of the world of terrorism, later more or less begging Saudi Arabia to step up oil production to help us out, allies that they are against terrorists). I don't feel a strong need to recite chapter and verse the lies of the current administration. I do feel a strong need to explain that I want our government, and the other governme