Hobby, Worms and Hypocrisy

[Zinger]

My ideas and statements above have been misinterpreted to such extreme, that I see little point in going further. Except so say that your historical analysis is not in line with mine, as one example.

[Zinger]

"If certain masses were deprived by class or leadership, shouldn't the former take it up one way or another with the latter?" Of course.  But right now they're taking it up with us.
a. Those with such motive pay fortunes to illegally travel and find refuge and brighter future here from their oppressive past, not destroy us.

"It is a cultural wave fueled by religious motives, designed to end western culture dominance and go back wherever possible to the 7th century AD."  I completely agree with you that this is more about a cultural wave than about a religion, nationality, or ethnicity.   Therefore, defining the 'enemy' in religious, national, or ethnic terms is needlessly over-inclusive, and will backfire by creating righteous indignation and more victimhood.
b. Your underlined concern above makes analysis of the threat ambiguous and an effective  defense against that threat impossible. Remember they are coming to uproot your existence, not paint on your walls. We have seen it before, Emperor Hiro Hito, like God to his people, had instructed them to uproot all foreign societies. He wasn't the only one then. I understand your difficulty,  Chamberlain had it too. But now shouldn't we have learned and be smarter? Should we live in terror and  fear and suffer its whip, exalted of righteousness?

"It is motivated by the failure of Muslim states to make good on the fortunes they have been sitting on."  Again, I agree completely; the primary failure is not with Islam, but with the political institutions in some Muslim states, as you say.  The states in question tend to be totalitarian, with no tolerance of political, cultural, or religious dissent.  Hardly an environment for a people to feel empowered or to enjoy the optimism that comes with a sense of secure self-determination.  The West is a convenient surrogate enemy, and everybody profits: the disenfranchised populace gets to vent its rage, while the political class isn't threatened by revolution.  (Well, the West doesn't profit, of course.)
c. See b.

The good news in all of this is that cultures change over time, in response to internal and external incentives and pressures.  The West should act in its own best interest by using the security apparatus where appropriate, but minimally so (so as not to create any more victims), while simultaneously carrying out a more important and longer term mission: to help create and nurture incentives for healthy cultural change.

So our strategy against them should be to build around us fences, not go and get them? Any idea how much the US is paying annually in money and blood against just one single location from which the threat had already left 7 years ago? Is this the right way?

[Hardy Heinlin]

My ideas and statements above have been misinterpreted to such extreme, that I see little point in going further. Except so say that your historical analysis is not in line with mine, as one example.

I have read your comments several times because they sound ambiguous to me, that's why I asked two questions.

I still don't understand what your conclusion or goal is regarding your comments b) and c)

Well, if you intentionally keep your language vague, I see no point in participating in this "discussion".


|-|

b. Who do they fight for? they fight for civilian Muslims, the terrorist are the army and the civilians are the nation/ culture which sent them. That which gives them refuge, finance, security,cover and a first class place in heaven with young virgins.

c. Ancestors and duty: Why did  the allies bomb to total destruction city centers of Germany, were those military targets? Why did US choose to destroy two civilian Japanese cities? Irrersponsible? or anavoidable! The fact is that Europe and the Pacific are quiet since with a different order.

[Zinger]

I have laid out principles, having analyzed the threat pretty clearly. Those who want protection and continued existence could formulate their specifics around theses principles. Cannot see anything vague in my statements.

Taking Japan as example, when the US president was to decide about atom bombing, the alternative before hom was one more year of conventional war on Japanese mainland with one million US troops dead. That is hardly a defeated enemy.

Back to the innocent: Just for a moment, try to imagine what happens to those really innocent moderates when the wave hits their area. Analysis shows that they either join the wave willingly, be forced to, or be uprooted as mandated by Quran.

Let me go one step further: having taken control of the desired areas, war will continue. Because Shiite cannot peacefully coexist with Sunni, each offends Quran in the other's eyes and are therefore worst enemies.

[Hardy Heinlin]

I have laid out principles, having analyzed the threat pretty clearly. Those who want protection and continued existence could formulate their specifics around theses principles. Cannot see anything vague in my statements.

Thanks for your reply. So, with regard to islamistic terrorism, how do you formulate your specifics around your Hiroshima principles and imprison-all-Japanese-principles? (The premise for my original question obviously wasn't that misinterpreted.)

Taking Japan as example, when the US president was to decide about atom bombing, the alternative before hom was one more year of conventional war on Japanese mainland with one million US troops dead. That is hardly a defeated enemy.

That's a "what if" hypothesis. Even if it had been empirically proven correct at that time (as if it were a chemical law proven by repeated tests), it would've been later falsified in Vietnam and many other places. Despite of this, it's also unreasonable to apply a simple "multi-purpose" mass destruction formula to completely different cultures (Germany, Japan, then Afghanistan, Iraq etc.).


In case my above question is too specific: Neglecting the specific details for a second, are you saying that the Hiroshima principle should be applied to Muslims (innocents) and that the Muslim world will then change to a peaceful culture similar to that of modern Japan?


|-|

[OKD]

Zinger

I didn't know that you are very familiar or well versed with the Quran, or into Islamic Studies in which you can also quote it "accurately".

I am coming to a conclusion almost same as Hardy's that you suggest is better off to wipe out the Muslim population in total irrespective if there are innocent men, women, and children...or you just stopped short of saying that...?

By the way, HSBC in the UK as you pointed out, is offering Islamic Banking under the Shariah Law where the interest rates are lot lower than the "free world" is offering, and being enjoyed by most of the NON-MULIM customers as well...so are these customers supporting a "terror religion" or just part of it where it suits them most..ie...low interest rates...!!

So if the "free world" is going to wipe out the Muslim population or "terrorists" going to bomb certain "free world" citizens, don't forget to tell them to leave HSBC alone as its products "Islamic Banking" are being enjoyed by civilized non-muslim customers, ok?

[Zinger]

I have laid out principles, having analyzed the threat pretty clearly. Those who want protection and continued existence could formulate their specifics around theses principles. Cannot see anything vague in my statements.

Thanks for your reply. So, with regard to islamistic terrorism, how do you formulate your specifics around your Hiroshima principles and imprison-all-Japanese-principles? (The premise for my original question obviously wasn't that misinterpreted.)
I don't remember advocating Hiroshima as example for future actions against terrorism. I did point out that the US based camps for Japanese origins after Pearl Harbor 7/12/1941 could be considered a viable approach, in similar circumstances. As a side note, the world is getting closer by the day to a potential nuclear conflict, since irresponsible people are close to having and some already have access to nuclear or what is commonly referred to as dirty weapons. Their deployment has already been averted, meaning someone tried to use it. You won't read much about its magnitude of seriousness, to contain public panic.
Steps which could be considered upon attack or when such serious threat exists (I am adding another category because of certain similarities- crimes against humanity):
Geographic isolation of threat at its origin. Not by re-educating Pashtuns to western management standards, but rather by banning travel and all exchanges to and from the threat territory.
Same by use of technology to monitor, isolate, disconnect and destroy such elements at their home base. Without unnecessary physical presence on foreign soil.
Ban material and financial support to sovereign territories harboring terror elements.  Including those who assist them. I'm sure the Pakistani president heard it this week at 10 Downing St.- contain it or we contain you.
Removal of terror supporters from UN committies on defense, human rights etc... including permanent members and including complete removal from UN where necessary. Examples- Sudan, harboring the president wanted for crimes against humanity, Bosnia, harboring general Ratko Mladic. Such decisive action could have helped  prevent mass murders such as in Cambodia and Rwanda.
What about states which execute 1000 prisoners annually, use torture as standard, and have no respect to human rights?

Taking Japan as example, when the US president was to decide about atom bombing, the alternative before hom was one more year of conventional war on Japanese mainland with one million US troops dead. That is hardly a defeated enemy.

That's a "what if" hypothesis. Even if it had been empirically proven correct at that time (as if it were a chemical law proven by repeated tests), it would've been later falsified in Vietnam and many other places. Despite of this, it's also unreasonable to apply a simple "multi-purpose" mass destruction formula to completely different cultures (Germany, Japan, then Afghanistan, Iraq etc.).

It isn't, this is the background assessment of US national security which lead to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Which lead to unconditional submission, disarmament and calm eversince.
In case my above question is too specific: Neglecting the specific details for a second, are you saying that the Hiroshima principle should be applied to Muslims (innocents) and that the Muslim world will then change to a peaceful culture similar to that of modern Japan?


|-|

[Hardy Heinlin]

I don't remember advocating Hiroshima as example for future actions against terrorism.

Why did US choose to destroy two civilian Japanese cities? Irrersponsible? or anavoidable! The fact is that Europe and the Pacific are quiet since with a different order.

[frumpy]

i'll go slightly offtopic here, if it dont fit, ignore.

first of all, christianity covers about 1/3 of all population,
not 2/3.

second, why does this discussion has to be about religion?
to me it seems like dogmatism, or ignorance.
i dont like the way the quoran is taken as explaination
for violent acts either; but at the same time, i think
christian values are something else than about
bombing people. so far about hippocrisy.

i dont really like the new mosque in new york... i think
americans are not ready yet for this. especially
9/11 is a very sensitive topic, ruled rather by
feelings than facts.

i dont see any real threat to the western world by
muslims. remember the us had internal terrorism
too (mcveigh), or carlos, who was rather driven by
money than books.
still i think its important not to lock up on that topic.
keep your mind open. think about "classic" muslim extremist
countries, e.g. pakistan. its a poor country, also due
to western influence. some people dont have to lose a lot,
so they dig into religion.
also, the war on "international terrorism" has become
famous after 9/11. osama tried to do evil before that too,
but now with all the 4000 heroes we have to be
sentimental and make quick judgements.

the thing that "terrorists" are "civilians" in normal life
is a fact in asymmetric warfare. still this is no reason to
reduce the value of civilians. we saw that apache video
where the civilians where shot. "its not my fault, if they
bring their kids to combat", one pilot said. well, great.
now this is the other side of the medal.
to me, a human is a human, no matter where they were
born or what they believe. but i believe, that human life
should be protected and not given away by some
ideologic thoughts some people innoculated us with.

i heard that saying a few days ago... dont remember where..
"do whatever you think is right. and dont kill anyone"

[Richard McDonald Woods]

Well said, Frumpy!

[OKD]

Exactly Fumpy...

and if you read on the other topic, "About Aviation Security Paranoia", I've commented that it has NOTHING to do with religion, but rather "individuals or groups" who crazed for power for the benefits of themselves or little secret groups.

To understand how this situation in this topic resulted in this, as I said, you really need to look back on the comments being stated, and that's if you have time..haha...

[Hardy Heinlin]

Now, since everybody has voiced his opinion twice or several times, I'll close this thread before it ends in infinite repitions.

For our Muslim forum members:
Everyone is invited to this forum, regardless of the religion. This forum is international, intercultural and it's purpose is not to split, but to share common interests, in this case aviation.


Salam, Shalom, Peace, Friede,

|-|ardy