All of the chest-thumping condemnations of Islam as a whole may feel "right" and grant the emotional security of false certainty to a large segment of the population, but this black-and-white simplification of the complex conflict does little to constructively, strategically address the problem.

I disagree. Our struggle is with a part of Islam, a part that the larger whole will not or cannot stop the murderous part within it's midst. A member of a group must be willing to carry some of the criticisms of that group when it is behaving badly, and act to rectify the situation.

I also think that in the scheme of things, derogatory statements about Arabs or Muslims from cartoon characters are really the least of their current worries.

Other than that, I think you are correct in your assessment of the situation. Nice read.

Defense Guy beat me to it.

Bill, your point holds up well, you explain it eloquently, and I certainly don't disagree with the ultimate goal and methods you describe.

But I still feel that chest-thumping has a practical purpose. It's a legitimate tool of war you dismiss out of hand. We can argue over the usefullness of that tool, of course, but it certainly fuels my desire to win. Especially for a former Marine like me who no longer enjoys the immense satisfaction of direct, battlefield confrontation with the enemy. That's one practical use.

And, like Defense Guy, the bulk of my frustration is directed at the moderate majority of Islam that curiously can't seem to police their own and I feel justified in calling them on it, loudly, even obnoxiously at times.

Call it triumphalism, call it playing to the cheap seats, but I'm going to continue venting occasionally.

Why do I believe in the superiority of western culture? For all the usual reasons, many of which you (again, eloquently) explain in your post, but also because the most frequent question asked of me in Baghdad 2003 was, "Does this mean I'm allowed to visit America now?"

Powerful, telling, chest-thumping stuff, that is. And so I choose to feel proud of my culture, and say so loudly, in an attempt to make my pride and enthusiasm contagious. Contagious among my fellow westerners and hopefully among moderate muslims. Why would moderate Islam do anything differently from the weak and unacceptable course they're currently traveling unless they hear the passionate demand for change?

It's not always pretty, couth, or pleasant, but such speech does have practical value.

But I still feel that chest-thumping has a practical purpose. It's a legitimate tool of war you dismiss out of hand. We can argue over the usefullness of that tool, of course, but it certainly fuels my desire to win.

Chest thumping has a purpose, but as highlighted by people like Col. H.R. McMaster conducting counter-insurgency in Iraq, it is unhelpful at the point it meets alienation of the people we want to ally with. And the chest-thumping that I'm specifically shooting at is the condemnation of an entire religion.

I have given some thought to this binary bad feeling towards Islam as a whole, and how it may useful/inevitable as a practical political hedge to motivate reform in the Muslim world (stick vs. carrot), but I still fall very strongly on the side of "lay the groundwork for reform, don't get sucked into declaring this a war between civilizations," no matter how far the nuts go to try and draw us into exactly that.

BTW -

Powerful, telling, chest-thumping stuff, that is. And so I choose to feel proud of my culture, and say so loudly, in an attempt to make my pride and enthusiasm contagious.

I do not promote cultural equivalence by any means; I do believe that our pluralistic culture represents the best on Earth. I do not believe in pandering to the unreasonable demands of any reps of another culture that compromise our principles (ie, cartoons).

But these are distinct from maligning the culture of another as an irredeemably negative force, as many have slipped into doing lately.

So we may simply agree.

Chest thumping has two main positive effects. One is show displeasure with the current PR efforts of the Muslim world as a way to encourage them to do more. The other is to affect domestic public perception to counter the mistaken assumption that the Islamists are just like us, their demands are even remotely reasonable, they don't "hate freedom", etc.

This is why the current round of chest thumping is counterproductive. Blanket condemnations of Islam aren't going to encourage Muslims to be agreeable to our point of view. And I'd say the Cartoon Protests should be doing plenty by themselves to disillusion leftists.

Nice post. Now, change every instance of "West" to "Free World", and every instance of "Islam" or Muslim" to "Christian", and post these articles together and you will begin to see the problems that the world is facing today.

Your assertion that I made a "condemnation" of all Muslims is utterly vacuous.

And since the trackback won't go through (more "html coding problems?) I'll leave it at that.

INDC Bill: Kraut lover.

BTW, I'm not sure if it was destroyed in the flood, but the DDay Museum in New Orleans in its War in the Pacific section had a great section on propaganda and racism in Japan and the US. Good for comparative context (which also included the Japanese propaganda photograph from China of a cheering, bespectacled Japanese soldier that a lot of the Warner Bros. cartoon characterization was drawn from).

And since the trackback won't go through (more "html coding problems?) I'll leave it at that.

Yeah, it's all a big conspiracy. I'm trying to SILENCE YOUR TRUTH. And pssst ... there's a Muslim under your bed too.

Your assertion that I made a "condemnation" of all Muslims is utterly vacuous.

Your entire site is merely a hyperbolic, pale rip-off of little green footballs, with a bunch of curse words thrown in for good measure. "Vacuous" indeed.

And trying to play off your attitude and statement as not a condemnation of all Muslims is pretty amusing, especially in the context of the spittle-flecked posts on the rest of your site.

Now scamper along, there's a cool underside of a rock with "Vinnie" written all over it.

RAHRules -

I do not understand your comment.

My, my, the true Bill shows himself right quick, doesn't he?

"Spittle flecked."

Heh, here, let me hand you a towel.

Cya later, chuckles, and thanks for the laughs.

The "true" me? As opposed to the "secret" me?

AIEEEEE, I've been unmasked! The light, the light, it burns!

But these are distinct from maligning the culture of another as an irredeemably negative force, as many have slipped into doing lately.

So we may simply agree.

Well, we do agree that there is a carrot/stick demension and that's cool.

Are you just worried about the aesthetics of the debate? Is it just a matter of degree? (That reads snarky, but it's not. Honest question. Pinky swear and spit shake;) Can I call all muslims pansies in an effort to get them to reform, but not call all of them ragheads to the same end? Perhaps you're advocating what used to be called a "gentleman's reserve?"

You see, I think it's ay okay to blanket label all of Islam right now, even using truly heinous explatives. I don't fault those who do so, not at this particular point in time. Perhaps when I see consistantly enlightened writing in arabic newspapers, I'll turn to my foul-mouthed fellow westerners and say, "Yo, chill. We've made our point. They get it."

We have not yet arrived at that day, IMO.

I really think we're still at the knock-down, drag-out, raging full-on war o' civilizations stage where niceties are pretty much out the window on some (but obviously not all) fronts.

Are you just worried about the aesthetics of the debate? Is it just a matter of degree?

Yes and no.

Can I call all muslims pansies in an effort to get them to reform, but not call all of them ragheads to the same end?

You can intelligently hold radical Muslims to account for their actions and reasonably and strongly criticize elements of the Muslim world for failing to reign in those that speak and act loudest for them. "No criticism" is hardly the point. Holding responsible parties responsible is essential.

But labeling Islam as a uniquely and irrevocably evil death cult is not only incorrect and historically non-contextual evaluation of religion as a concept, but also irrationally undermines relationships with the people we need to establish trust and respect with to enlist as allies to kill terrorists.

Iraqis won't copperate with soldiers that label them death cultists, etc. And last I checked, they were getting slaughtered by jihadis as well.

As an analogy - one might rationally point out some rather negative social and economic paradigms taking place within the black community domestically - does that give one license to issue causal statements that criticize a RACE? Of course not.

No offense intended, but it surprises me that I have to explain this rhetorical difference in such detail.

Kadnine, for my part I'd put it this way: terms like Islamist or Islamofascist are perfectly good words to describe the people we're at war with, and have the added bonus of not pushing away possible allies. Whereas broad terms like statements about "muslims" or "Islam" would. I think it goes a bit beyond aesthetics and has a real practical impact.

No offense intended, but it surprises me that I have to explain this rhetorical difference in such detail.

No offense taken. In fact, I take it as a complement.

Bill, we agree for the most part. I've just been atempting (poorly, maybe) to nail down where we differ.

I think I understand your point. It's completely consistant with your "Words Matter" post from last year. You believe maligning Islam as a whole over the actions of a few bad apples retards our progress in defeating those militant few. Yes?

I simply disagree. I believe that even gratuitous insults to the whole of Islam to be completely justified today, given their lack of effective self-correction. We need their cooperation, you're right. We just don't have it yet. And playing nicey-nice doesn't seem to be working.

It's the difference between thinking the situation is about to spin out of control and believing that the situation done spunneth.

I guess all I'm asking is that you acknowledge (without admitting to being in the wrong, you may well be proven correct) that informed, intelligent, and rational individuals can hold a different position than you do.

Moderate Islam has failed to convince me of its seriousness concerning reform.

I'm not some ignorant, backwoods hick. (Kentucky jokes aside.) I speak arabic, have been to Iraq, and am convinced that head-chopping maniacs and their enablers within the greater whole of Islam don't warrant the same social considerations as law abiding black Americans, whatever their "negative social and economic paradigms."

Bill, I love ya. You've been (and continue to be) an integral part of my ongoing political education. I'm fairly new to politics (nothing like fighting a war you didn't initially understand to stoke one's curiosity.)

We just don't see eye to eye on this one. I'm sorry if my previous comments were obtuse or poorly written. I'm new to this game. I take full responsability for any confusion.

Thanks for the kind words, but ...

and am convinced that head-chopping maniacs and their enablers within the greater whole of Islam don't warrant the same social considerations as law abiding black Americans, whatever their "negative social and economic paradigms."

You have misinterpretd my metaphor. That is not what I was saying at all; it was not a direct comparison. I was simply saying that a group of people with significant systemic problems does not give one license to malign the entire group and call them horrible names by default. We call this "racism." Actually comparing head-chopping to domestic problems is a distraction.

I guess all I'm asking is that you acknowledge (without admitting to being in the wrong, you may well be proven correct) that informed, intelligent, and rational individuals can hold a different position than you do.

And what position is that? That Islam is an immutable death cult and all Muslims are scumbags that need to be maligned as a group, possibly killed or converted? On that score, no, I do not acknowldge that rational individuals can hold a different position than I do. I think that that view is highly irrational.

As that's what I'm arguing against. Again, I'm not certain that you're following me. Individuals can hold the position that the engagement strategy in my post will not work, and there I can acknowledge rational disagreement - but that is something different than writing off a billion plus people as savages with a savage belief system immune to change or moderate interpretation.

Before you write anything else about how we disagree, summarize my position that we disagree on back to me in a sentence or so, followed by your contrasting position in another sentence or so. Again, no disrespect, just so we're clear if there's any further back-and-forth.

I would imagine that there are a number of instances in which 'punishing' the larger group because of one or more individuals within it's midst has the desired effect on the behavior of the real target. Do you just disagree that this can be an effective practice, or just that it can't/won't work with this group? If it's the latter, I'm curious why. I know it may be some 3rd thing, I haven’t thought of, so don’t think I am trying to trap you with a false dichotomy.

Once again, I think you are pretty much dead on in describing the current US policy.

Do you just disagree that this can be an effective practice, or just that it can't/won't work with this group?

Ah, this I understand. The military application of what you describe is exactly what nation states did to each other in World War II, carpet and fire bombing cities to wreak revenge and terrorize the civilian populace into submission for the sins of their governments.

Two things:

1. It's important to note that this practice - with the partial exceptions of the impact of the atomic bombs, perhaps, though that swayed the Emperor more than anyone - didn't work for awhile in WWII, actually galvanzing many civilian populations to the fight.

2. If it's difficult to categorize a group of civilians of a nation state and pummel them into submission, imagine how unrealistic it is to do this to a religion of 1.3 billion people, spread in countries throughout the globe. If you categorize this as a RELIGIOUS CONFLICT and carpet bomb Saudi Arabia to make a point, for example, a bunch of Indonesians with not a scratch on them will pop up to fight. A Jordanian government will move from being an ally to an adversary. Etc. So ...

I have no fundamental moral aversion to discussing practical means of submission as an academic exercise - but as an academic exercise and practical application, we aren't nearly powerful enough to fight or subjugate an entire religious affilition spread across the world; to categorize this as "us" vs. "them," in both political terms and in terms of actual ability to wage total war.

This is why the "nuke Mecca" crowd makes me laugh or cluck my tongue - because nuking Mecca would simply amount to throwing a baseball at a hornet's nest, with no real practical positive impact on subjugating or cowing the diverse population of 1.3 muslims. And after the hornets were stirred up, you'd have to go all the way. Which would be mass slaughter and essentially screw up the world to a point probably beyond repair. Not to mention, teh political capital required for a nation state to take such action would only accumulate after some serious catastrophes on OUR turf, which changes the ballgame from what it is now.

The belief that we could engage a full-scale war between civilizations without seriously destroying/injuring ourselves (the West) as well is somewhat of a fantasy. We might "win," but we'd lose to.

3. Now, I relaize that you may not be talking about a solution of a literal armed clash of civilizations: but in a merely rhetorical sense, criticizing "the Muslim world" - as in, holding them to account for the actions of the nutters and radicals in their midst, is just fine, to the extent that it's rationally used as a stick to get them to speak up.

And I do agree that a rhetorical/cultural (and probably economic) lever has to be found that pokes the moderates, secular or passively religious Muslims to get off their ass and diminish the radicalism, though it's probably not that easy to shout down a guy taht's threatening to behead your kids.

But when folks talk about and advocate punishing the whole, it strikes me as meaningless. Why? Because it's only ever put forth as this vague, general concept, followed by no concrete practical means and ends. In short, it's just complaining.

I agree that if enough catastrophic events happen in the West at the hands of Muslim extremists, that all my calls for moderation won't mean a damn thing, and the west could be pushed into going "weapons free." But in the meantime, before the requisite political capital exists that might be generated in the event of such a catastrophe, all this talk of "punishing the whole," etc., without any practical application ends up:

A. merely pushing us towards that catastrophic event more quickly, as it alienates moderate Muslims, or at least those more inclined to cooperate. And make no mistake, there are many predominantly Muslim nation-states cooperating.

B. Offers no constructive course of action, except feel good certainty of simply defining and enemy for those pissed off at terrorism and extremism.

I understand the impulse and fight it myself, but we can't be trapped into viewing this or publicly defining this as a simple religious conflict. If a "Sherman's March to the Sea" in teh Muslim world were practical, maybe I'd consider it given more terrorist provocation. But from where I'm sitting, it's not.

This article typifies the problem I see with "reaching out" to the moderates:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=511474

It seems that by trying to appeal to moderates we enable the radicals to keep them cowed, if that is what is happening. We allow the radicals to define the religion, which is why I think putting pressure on the moderates to step away from the radicals and define themselves is the first step in solving the problem. If they don't want to be allied with the darkness, then step into the light and let us see you clearly.

I admire your patience here, Bill. I long ago ran out of it and realized I couldn't keep this up without getting much ruder and more nasty to people who continue to prattle on about how their vicious hatemongering toward innocent people is somehow justified. It isn't.

Al Qaeda has a few thousand members at best. Muslims are well over a billion.

Christians have Christian terrorist groups, like abortion clinic bombers and assassins, the KKK, the Christian Identity Movement, Fred Phelps, the IRA, and the primary perpetrators of the Rwanda massacre. Yet almost all of these rabid Islam-haters go ABSOLUTELY NUTS if you try to tag and smear them with those things, OR, even better, go through wild contortions and rationalizations to try to claim that those groups are "not really Christian" and therefore they don't have to do anything or say anything to repudiate them.

Hypocrites.

Muslims are found in dozens and dozens of nations all over the world. The vast majority of those nations NEVER export terorrism or provide a base for terrorism.

Muslim troops from numerous nations are fighting alongside our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Muslim nations like the UAE and Kuwait provide invaluable bases of operations for our forces in the region.

Therefore, I call out people like Vinnie, Rusty Shackleford, Kadnine, and others not just as people who are being stupid. They are giving aid and comfort to the enemy by spitting on America's friends and allies, and hurting the war effort thereby.

I got no respect for it. None.

Bill,

I share your hope that Islam can internally reform and that a struggle within Islam is both possible and that, perhaps, the side we favor will win.

Nonetheless, It seems to me that this hope is just that, an act of faith more than reason. Islam being a system of theocratic government as well as a religion, and the Koran being the direct word of God and theoretically at least not subject to interpretation of falsehood may indeed mean that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Liberal Democracy.

There is some evidence for either side of this belief of course, but the weaker evidence seems to be on the side of the proposition that Islam can reform. I hope that this is due to external factors such as Arab Dictatorships, mistakes of Colonialism, and the success of Islamic radicals in suppressing dissent.

The primary reason for holding to the belief that Islam can embrace democracy is that if it cannot then the resulting course we must take would be horrible. I would rather be wrong than believeing that it can and move to a 'clash of civilizations' footing later than be wrong that it cannot and move to a total war footing to early.

However, if Islam cannot reform, then the apocalyptic confrontation is inevitable and putting it off will make it worse, not better. That fact makes me hesitant to condemn those who have already decided that Islam itself, and not radical elements within it are the problem. I will certainly argue with them, but condemnation such as you seem to be displaying seems unwarrented to me.

Bad examples Dean, because those groups you mention are loudly and sometimes violently repudiated by Christians. Modern christianity has something that modern islam does not, and it makes every last bit of difference in the world. The Reformation.

Defense Guy: My examples are perfect and spot on, because Christians in general are every bit as "silent" about them as Muslims are about terrorism--and furthermore, Muslims are every bit as vocal in condemning terrorism as you want them to be, and more. If you haven't noticed, it's your own failure to pay attention and look.

And by the way, the Reformation lasted about two centuries and was the bloodiest and most horrible era in Christian history, with millions dead in horrible wars and inquisitions--inquisitions in which the Protestants murdered more Catholics than vice-versa, by the way.

By comparison, what's going on in Islam is penny-ante stuff that's obviously resolving against the Islamo-fascists.

Face it, you aren't much of a "Defense Guy" if you keep spitting on America's muslim friends and allies around the world. You are giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Face it, you aren't much of a "Defense Guy" if you keep spitting on America's muslim friends and allies around the world. You are giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Ouch. I am doing no such thing, and I am thinking that I am reading this with more vitriole than what you intend. I hope.

The thing that I think you are missing, is that those groups you mention all had the smack down put upon them by fellow Christians.

I'm hardly prepared to condemn an entire group based on the activities of its fringe members, but it seems to me that the root cause of Islamofascism is Islam.

I took another look at your list Dean, and think that I overstated the 'smack down' that was put upon all the groups.

but it seems to me that the root cause of Islamofascism is Islam.

Well sure. And the root cause of the Spanish Inquisition was ... Jesus.

I could hear AS's voice in my head as I read that.

You have absolutely NO RIGHT to do that to people.

ionolsen21 Best site I see. Thanks.

ionolsen23 So interesting site, thanks!

airline flight schedule latin cheap tickets aalesund avo gabriela mistral latin school edmonton

indian phat ass indians buy bear butte

indian phat ass indians buy bear butte

aoamsqob

ebdcbcuozy

ebdcbcuozy

dkluwevbeaz

ionolsen40 So interesting site, thanks!

Veteran actor William Franklyn, known for voicing the 1960s Schweppes TV adverts, dies aged 81...

Veteran actor William Franklyn, known for voicing the 1960s Schweppes TV adverts, dies aged 81...

Pioneering screenwriter Nigel Kneale, best known for the Quatermass TV serials and films, dies aged 84...

Pioneering screenwriter Nigel Kneale, best known for the Quatermass TV serials and films, dies aged 84...

The judge who put coded messages in his Da Vinci Code plagiarism trial ruling has written another...

The judge who put coded messages in his Da Vinci Code plagiarism trial ruling has written another...

viagra .

Classical singer Russell Watson postpones his forthcoming UK tour after undergoing brain surgery...

Classical singer Russell Watson postpones his forthcoming UK tour after undergoing brain surgery...

William Styron, whose Holocaust novel Sophie's Choice became a film and an opera, has died, aged 81...

viagra .

Microsoft and Peter Jackson postpone the making of a film based on the Halo video game after backers pull out...

Microsoft and Peter Jackson postpone the making of a film based on the Halo video game after backers pull out...

cheap viagra .

good site
http://www.childplanet.us/

good site
http://www.dating-online.co.in/
manoj kumar

fvqa zvjhg ikwjgymo xwrikbdqj fqmysug nlpuyfbr wgyeplb

fvqa zvjhg ikwjgymo xwrikbdqj fqmysug nlpuyfbr wgyeplb

hjop ltypjfvgi yqchxup saudl qaybo vudljrniy ckpbwiyv

Colombia's vice president is "baffled" by Kate Moss's success following cocaine allegations...

Colombia's vice president is "baffled" by Kate Moss's success following cocaine allegations...

The Rolling Stones postpone a show in the US to allow singer Sir Mick Jagger time to rest his voice...

The Rolling Stones postpone a show in the US to allow singer Sir Mick Jagger time to rest his voice...