Author Topic: Release the Hounds (Read 3206 times)

Seagoon · « **Reply #60 on:** August 12, 2005, 11:45:27 AM »

Hello Sky,

Well you begin to understand how I feel when I go back to the UK for visits, but I digress...

There are three major problems I see with your "total disengagement" or "creative capitulation" scheme:

1) It's unworkable: what is involved in leaving the nations of Islam would be to break off all trade and tourism connections, to pull out the workers who keep their only export industries going, to suspend all relief operations that feed and provide medical assistance for millions. Also, in short order the liberal Arab regimes the west props up, would collapse due to internal pressure. Imagine the Iranian revolution duplicated throughout the region. Every pro-Western government would be quickly replaced with what you would call a "hardline fundamentalist government." There is also the problem of our interdependence. The Middle East depends on the West for assistance in a host of different areas in addition to being almost totally dependent on them for manufactured goods, while we depend upon them for oil. Suddenly severing that connection would cause the collapse of economies on both sides. In the Middle East that would only strengthen the hand of the Islamic Revolutionaries.

2) It's immoral: Admittedly this depends on a belief in absolutes, but I happen to believe that it is wrong to simply leave a portion of the world in utter subjugation. I believe, for instance, that it is wrong for women to spend their entire lives uneducated, trapped indoors or behind a Burka, unable to venture forth into the world without a male relative being present, and to allow them to be stoned to death because they happened to be outside when a male came by. I believe it is wrong to allow the state to utterly subjugate a portion of their population to third class status merely because they are Christian, or to force them to go on trial for their life because a neighbor alleged they said or wrote something defamatory about the prophet. I believe that to allow the enforced darkness that hangs over so much of the Middle East to remain or to grow is in itself evil. I also believe it would be wrong for the West to turn their back on the "Never Again" promise made to the Jews at the end of the Second World War and by abandoning Israel to open them up to the tender mercies of nations and peoples bent on enforcing the "repent or perish" rule first handed to them by the Prophet and constantly recapitulated by groups like Hamas. We don't have to agree with every action taken by the Knesset, but to utterly abandon the state of Israel would in fact be to say "Ok, Again." Additionally to disengage would be to capitulate to the demands of the Islamists effectively surrendering to their demands, this would be to hand them a victory and GREATLY encourage the rest of their ambitions, which is in itself evil.

3) You may decide to stop going to them, but they are bent on coming to you: Islam is the fastest growing religion in Europe, and driven by Saudi money and Wahabbi resources is also making major inroads in the USA. Immigration is admittedly the major factor, but the Muslim populations of Western nations are growing by leaps and bounds. As has been stated before, by and large they don't assimilate they effectively take over the areas into which they move. So that, for instance, Dutch politicians are amazed to learn that their are portions of their districts they cannot be allowed to enter because they are infidels and the police "cannot assure their safety." In 2002 Holland was already 5.5% Muslim, and that percentage has already begun to climb towards 10% which in a nation of only 16.5 million is enormous. France has an even higher proportion (which census takers cannot correctly assess due to an inability to enter the sub-culture).

So, you may wish to pull back to your "safe zone" but it no longer exists. Either you confront that ideology or it will eventually prevail in Europe and cause misery and chaos in the meantime.

For instance, in the UK, many Britons are "discovering" that there are active anti-democratic Islamic movements in the midst of most of their major cities (can you imagine how long a public anti-Sharia Christian movement would survive in say, Yemen?) For instance in comparing two popular Islamic organizations in the UK (the government is only attempting to dismantle one of them), the Telegraph commented:

"Both groups are extreme, aiming to achieve worldwide domination by Islam. Both preach that Muslims should not take part in democratic politics. They are against Western governments and object to their foreign policies, particularly over Iraq.

But one crucial difference is that Hizb ut-Tahrir is against violence, while Al-Muhajiroun has supported "physical" means to fight jihad, or holy war.

In cities across the country, Al-Muhajiroun has set up weekly meetings such as this, which, it says, are needed to give Muslims the support and guidance which will help them continue to live in a western society according to Islamic rules.

Members also try to spread the word by handing out leaflets and have a regular stall in Normanton Road on Saturday afternoons.

We see the immediate threat from Al-Muhajiroun, but not the equally dire threat from Hizb ut-Tahir because they don't have direct links to the bomb makers. But in the end, both groups share the same ideology and objectives.

The left in Holland is gradually waking up to the threat, but only when it is probably already too late to reverse the trend, and when they have little or nothing to offer as an alternative. The left in the UK is becoming vaguely alarmed as well, but has no grasp of the proportions of the problem, and no desire to do anything to deal with the problem at the source only to try to treat some of the symptoms. A catch and relocate program is not going to win this war. I'm just glad that there are men and women throughout the world determined to bring light where darkness has reigned for so long and who care enough not to listen to calls of "Don't upset them, they'll do what they are already doing more aggressively."

- SEAGOON

Skydancer · « **Reply #61 on:** August 12, 2005, 12:53:23 PM »

Seagoon maybe you are right total disengagement wouldn't in reality work. But should we be imposing our world view at the point of a gun? I firmly believe you lead by example and the example we are setting is not exactly having the desired result is it!

You are quite right about Islamic fundamentalism in Europe. For too long our govt has allowed these people safe haven. Often I feel because we had a vested interest in letting them destabilise the regimes they came from. A political game that has backfired.

My basic premise though is that we cannot "defeat" Islam and impose our will on those parts of the world. We have to work with them. You have to give to recieve. Why should we expect states to comply with our directive not to develop Nuclear technology either peacefull of millitary if we are holding the nuclear sword ourselves. Its hypocracy plain and simple. There realy is no other word for it. If a man asks me to put down my club I'm not going to do it if he is holding one also with nails in it!

I don't belive in "do as I say not as I do"

I am not a christian as you are. I do not believe in the inevitable rightness of one system over another. There are many things to be admired in Islam as there are in Christianity or even the basic principles in communism. There are also many things to be reviled in all of them too. What I do believe in is human decency and I'm afraid asserting that only your faith view whatever is the correct one and then insisting others agree is not going to bring peace only conflict and war.

(By the way I do believe you are a gent and a scholar and one of the few who will debate without resorting to insult or attempting to belittle the other person. Quite rare ! )

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #62 on:** August 12, 2005, 01:04:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skydancer
Its hypocracy plain and simple. There realy is no other word for it. If a man asks me to put down my club I'm not going to do it if he is holding one also with nails in it!

If a man is holding a gun on you and yours is at your feet, do you bend down to pick it up?

Non-proliferation is more like the unarmed picking up a gun rather than the armed putting it down.

Hangtime · « **Reply #63 on:** August 12, 2005, 01:06:36 PM »

Either 'fundamentalist' Islamics develop tolerance or the 'west' will exterminate them.

We've already had it explained to us by their clerics in no uncertain terms that we are to be destroyed.

The moment they put that policy in action will be the moment those nations that embrace 'fundementalist islamic extremism' cease to exist.

If we let any nation/state that expounds radical islam as the 'law of man', to have or develop nuclear weapons, we've had our death warrants signed, to be served at their convienience.

They know it... and are happliy laughing up their sleeves while we hold on to hope for an 'agreement'. They need not worry, for the west will not act without provocation

The radical islamics know the true nature of diplomacy.. they're buzy saying 'nice doggie' while they contiue to look for (and devlop) the 'big stick'.

lazs2 · « **Reply #64 on:** August 12, 2005, 02:28:57 PM »

skyprancer... what views are we enforcing at the point of a gun? Seems we are only allowing the people to choose...

perhaps you feel that it is their right to opress their women as an example? How does us giving the women equal rights force our will? It is hard to understand what you want.

lazs

Eagler · « **Reply #65 on:** August 12, 2005, 03:50:52 PM »

when a group believes that the best way to eternal happiness, with a couple of virgins thrown in ( is there an endless supply of them in heaven? forever is a long time and they are only good for a single pop:)), all we can do is limit the amount of damage the cheekbones is able to accomplish on his way to visit allah

if one thinks it is ok for Iran to have nukes, they have been smoking some pretty good stuff...

Skydancer · « **Reply #66 on:** August 12, 2005, 04:21:25 PM »

Point of clarification.

I don't think its a good idea for anyone to have nukes! I'm not saying let em have nukes I'm saying lead by example. Get rid of ours. technology has given us far more effective ways to attack in the last resort anyhow!

Skydancer · « **Reply #67 on:** August 12, 2005, 04:22:51 PM »

But Lazs only if they choose American style democracy. If they choose fundamental Islam will the US allow that? I think not!

Islamic states wouldn't be my choice for govt either but I think we tried enforcing our model on people and all it got us was an expensive empire and a whole lot of problems that haunt us still. Seems the US doesn't realy learn from history either that or an enemy is created in order to hold you crazy buch of people together. Not all Moslems are the enemy. Not all Clerics are evil Islamists just like not all pastors are fundamentalist bible bashing loonys.

I don't know. First it was those evil communists! now its the evil Islamists. Can't you guys find a way to get along in the world without making enemies!

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #68 on:** August 12, 2005, 05:06:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skydancer
Point of clarification.

I don't think its a good idea for anyone to have nukes! I'm not saying let em have nukes I'm saying lead by example. Get rid of ours. technology has given us far more effective ways to attack in the last resort anyhow!

By number of warheads, the US stockpile is 1/3 of what it was at the peak.

Quote

bulletin of atomic scientistsThe total U.S. nuclear arsenal is now equal to the 1959 level; Russia (as best as can be determined) is at its 1977 level. U.S. megatonnage is lower today than at any time since 1955. Yet numbers tell only part of the story, for each strategic warhead can be delivered more accurately, swiftly, and reliably than in decades past.

we are alot closer to zero than we used to be...

Skydancer · « **Reply #69 on:** August 13, 2005, 04:54:01 AM »

True but closer to zero is meaningless when one Trident Sub can take out so many tgts.

Honestly If I was being asked not to develop nukes by a power that had em in abundance I'd say OK give up yours then!

It ain't rocket science. Tell me if the situation was reversed the US and Britain wouldn't be scrambling as quick as possible to obtain nuclear technology.

For years the US has been making aggressive statements about Iran. Axis Of Evil anyone? No wonder they believe the US and its allies are the enemy. Your leaders told em they were! Is it realy suprising that faced with a nuclear superpower that calls them the enemy they thought hmmmm perhaps we better get some nuclear weapons too.

Again if the situation was reversed you'd be damn sure that the US would be going flat out to build nukes.

Why the heck are we so up in arms. LEAD BY EXAMPLE. Don't they teach that in the Millitary?

lazs2 · « **Reply #70 on:** August 13, 2005, 08:35:55 AM »

skyprancer... You are talking out your butt... you have no idea what we would "allow". If the people of iraq voted for islamic fundamentalism we would have no choice... so long as it met with their constitution.

lazs

soda72 · « **Reply #71 on:** August 13, 2005, 10:44:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skydancer
For years the US has been making aggressive statements about Iran. Axis Of Evil anyone? No wonder they believe the US and its allies are the enemy. Your leaders told em they were! Is it realy suprising that faced with a nuclear superpower that calls them the enemy they thought hmmmm perhaps we better get some nuclear weapons too.

Iran has been persuing Nuclear technology secretly for the last 18 years(they publicly have admited this), which puts it well ahead of Bush's statement made...You're also conviently ignoring statements made by Iran publicly over the last 25 years. I think Bush's statement was made to point out the pink elephant and he did it in a way to get peoples attention.

Skydancer · « **Reply #72 on:** August 13, 2005, 11:29:24 AM »

Ok I agree The US and Iran have been waging a war of words ever since the Shah was deposed but I ask again

If the situation was reversed the US and Britain wouldn't be scrambling as quick as possible to obtain nuclear technology?

Lazs I'm pretty sure the US govt intends to keep a permanent Military presence in Iraq. Its empire building under any other name.

Difficult to do If they vote for Islamic state.

hacksaw1 · « **Reply #73 on:** August 13, 2005, 12:34:13 PM »

Hello Skydancer,

While I am wary of jumping into this thread, your comment about Israel being a major source of the problems of the Middle East warrants a comment or two.

Quote

Its blind support for Israel over the interests of the arab world that has caused this mess anyhow!

The turmoil in the Middle East that has spilled out into the West has less to do with Israel, and more to do with the indigenous "civilization" here than anything.

The bloody eight year Iran-Iraq war of a million casualties had NO CONNECTION WITH ISRAEL.

In 1990 Saddam brutally invaded his brothers in Muslim Kuwait, for oil and national prestige. No connection with Israel.

1982 Syria crushed Muslim Brotherhood in Hama with up to 10,000 people dead. No connection with Israel.

Lebanon's mid-1970's civil war between Druze, Christians and Moslems in which deaths may have approached 44,000, with about 180,000 wounded. No connection with Israel.

Turkey's continued war against the Kurds. No connection with Israel.

Saddam's past war against the Kurds. No connection with Israel.

In Nov., 1979, Muslim fundamentalists occupied the Great Mosque in Mecca; after a 2-week siege, more than 100 rebels were killed. No connection with Israel.

Iranian pilgrims in Mecca rioted in July, 1987, during the hajj, clashing with Saudi troops and ending with the death of more than 400 people. No connection with Israel.

The hajj pilgrimage of Muslims to Mecca continues to be well-monitored by Saudi Arabia, yet remains a turbulent religious and increasingly political event. No connection with Israel.

For those who don't know, Sunni's and Shi-ite's are not buds. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States do not feel secure in the face of Iranian military might. They may not like infidels on their soil (like my brother-in-law a few years ago who is a USAF F-15 pilot) but they prefer the West to Iran. No connection with Israel.

Iran has missiles that will reach Europe - not sure about Portugal and Ireland. If it's only Israel that's the problem, then why do they need that kind of range?

If it's all Israel's fault, then why do Jordan and Egypt have peace treaties with Israel? They could have gotten aid without treaties. King Hussein of Jordan's Hashemite kings, put in place by you Brits, actually warned Golda Meir of Israel of an imminent invasion, without any US bribes.

The kings of Saudi Arabia, put in place by you Brits (cf. T.E. Lawrence of Arabia) fund who knows what terror organizations around the world to keep them out of the kingdom. But the kings of Egypt and Iraq, put in place by you Brits, are forgotten in the dustbins of Middle Eastern history.

Mate, you said the situation is complex over here. I agree. So don't point your finger only at Israel, please.

Cement

soda72 · « **Reply #74 on:** August 13, 2005, 12:44:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skydancer
If the situation was reversed the US and Britain wouldn't be scrambling as quick as possible to obtain nuclear technology?

Iran is doing this not because it is threatened by our military, but because we are threatening it's culture. They are willing to die to protect it which is noble, but they are also willing to die to spread it...

As long as the West exists, it will always be threatened. No reduction in our arms will change this.