Ah moral equivalence. honora, by bringing up the inquisition, and your tremendous ignorance of what it truly was, you prove that it is not foolish to compare religions, and in fact is necessary. The fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity is that Christians believe human beings are created in the likeness of God, and Muslims don’t. It is from this concept of the human having intrinsic sacredness that all of the Western World’s ideas of human dignity, rights, and sanctity of life emerge. Compare that with the modern muslim world, where slavery is still legal, women have no rights and are treated as chattel, mutilation is common form of punishment and sexual coercion, and the non-muslim is a non-person. That doesn’t even cover the historical depredations of Muslims, their invasion of India puts the real and imagined depravity of the Crusades to shame. To say nothing of the genocide of the Armenians, the oppression in the baltics, the depopulation of the Jews etc.

Iblis on August 10, 2006 at 4:35 PM

I’m curious: under what sort of breeding is a comment like “your tremendous ignorance” considered appropriate? When did this sort of personal–not to mention unfounded–nastiness become ok? PS after 12 years of Catholic school and 6 years of college and grad school with Jesuits, I know a little about the inquistion and comparative religion. You are being very selective in your examples.

First to say one religion is better than another is foolish. Admittedly the Muslim world (the non-terrorist, moderate part) is not covering itself in glory, but I am betting Catholics would prefer not to judged by the Inquisition nor the Jacobins nor its complicity with the Nazis.

Ah moral equivalence. honora, by bringing up the inquisition, and your tremendous ignorance of what it truly was, you prove that it is not foolish to compare religions, and in fact is necessary. The fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity is that Christians believe human beings are created in the likeness of God, and Muslims don’t. It is from this concept of the human having intrinsic sacredness that all of the Western World’s ideas of human dignity, rights, and sanctity of life emerge. Compare that with the modern muslim world, where slavery is still legal, women have no rights and are treated as chattel, mutilation is common form of punishment and sexual coercion, and the non-muslim is a non-person. That doesn’t even cover the historical depredations of Muslims, their invasion of India puts the real and imagined depravity of the Crusades to shame. To say nothing of the genocide of the Armenians, the oppression in the baltics, the depopulation of the Jews etc.

My Navy Captain friend knew tactics much better than I ever will, but common sense tells me that these ideas are being studied.

I used to have a respect for people of Arabian descent. That respect is being sorely tested today, yet I will not blame Islam for being the problem. Religion doesn’t kill. It just gives people the excuse to kill that they were looking for all along, and I doubt if so many would be so easily misguided if given something to live for. Offer them heaven on Earth if they are willing to work for it, and watch what happens.

I have always been one to stand up to a bully.
So if you truly want a better life for your family don’t
cower in the corner, do something about it. If this was what
I had to deal with here, I would not go quietly. I for one
would gladly die to make sure my family had it better.
As many in this great country have done in the past, and as
I hope some will do in the future if the need arises.
“Give me liberty or give me death”

Time to go home!

Gooch on August 10, 2006 at 4:05 PM

Well I would like to think I would do the noble thing as well. As I am sure I don’t have to point out to you though, talk is cheap.

Let’s pray for ourselves, our families and our country. We surely need it.

Time to go home!

Gooch has the right idea. The enemy isn’t “terrorism”, its Islam. Islam is a destructive philosophy totally incompatible with western life, no matter what the apologists say. Until this fact is accepted, and understood, there will never be a halt to Islamic violence.
The problem is that our PC non-judgemental brahmins can’t grasp the fact that not all religions are created equal. Their moral equivalence is really crippling us in this fight.
The Muslims feel that our citizens should accept punishment for the “sins” of our leaders, why aren’t we making their citizens feel the pain for their leaders? Its not a pleasant thought, but when we’re talking survival, all bets should be off.

Iblis on August 10, 2006 at 2:49 PM

First to say one religion is better than another is foolish. Admittedly the Muslim world (the non-terrorist, moderate part) is not covering itself in glory, but I am betting Catholics would prefer not to judged by the Inquisition nor the Jacobins nor its complicity with the Nazis.

Second, the idea that we should pattern our behaviour on the behaviour of our enemies is clearly problematic. And not simply because it puts us on their moral level. If I can find it, I was reading an interesting article the other day and will post it. Basically it gave a short history of the idea of “limited warfare”–meaning the idea of trying to spare civilians.

It’s a relatively modern notion, initially Cromwell’s, later embraced by Frederick the Great. Now if you know any history, it will hit you that these are not two chaps noted for their compassion. They both, shrewdly, deduced that limited warfare was, in the end, the best means of obtaining the fastest and most lasting peace, as it kept civilians at arms length from the “passion of war”.

What a difference a few hours make! Much more to be revealed in the next few months. We’ll see who controls the news: the MSM or the Administration/s?

Entelechy on August 10, 2006 at 1:24 PM

I fervently hope it’s not the administration!! Mother of God!!!! Talk about fascist…

Thus far, no draft, no increase in taxes (first time in our history we’ve gone to war with tax decreases–how nuts is this?), no real pain to wean us off the oil jones that is part of the underlying problem.

We need a comprehensive plan articulated by our leadership, it’s way overdue. The first thing is to define the enemy–radical Islamists who want to convert or kill us. This includes several governments and several elected parties in several countries and an assortment of terror orgs e.g. Al Q. , as well as their allies (NK, Venezuela) The catch-all of “war on terror” is too limiting, let’s abandon it.

The second thing is to line up our allies. (I suggest canning the UN and coming up with an expanded NATO-like org.) Look up definition of ally, as opposed to satellite. Develop diplomatic skills.

The third thing is to wean ourselves from oil, period.

The fourth thing is to implement a 2 part offensive: the enemy is to be fought thru military, intelligence, propaganda. If this means profiling, we need to hold our nose and do it. But at the same time, we need to launch an effective campaign for the hearts and minds of the majority of Muslims whose main interest is a better life for their families. (I know, this is seen by many of the right wing as pussy. They are wrong.)

Rant over.

If it means one American life saved, I say level the
enemy’s entire country. I don’t want to see our guys get it
just because we try to fight a limited war.

These MOABs, could they take out a country’s government, powergrid, transportation hubs, drinking resevoirs for example?

I’m pretty sure they could.

It seems to me we need a one-two, to make it worth it.

We have it in place; we just lack the will to deploy it.

So if we did take the gloves off, what sort of things would we do?

Perhaps raining MOABs on Fallujah after the Blackwater 4 incident would have been a good start. At the very least, we should have taken out that bridge.

At the very least, a bluff is called for. IMHO, to do nothing of substance is to be a sitting target.

I’m replying to your comment made “on August 10, 2006 at 1:13 AM.” I think you’re mistaken if you suppose Mark Steyn considers himself obligated always to set everything he thinks down in writing, for publication, and to state all his points with equal frequency, clarity, and emphasis. He depends on the acceptance of his writings for publication for his living. He doesn’t have the luxury I have, and that I gather you must have, to write very nearly anything that comes into one’s head. If you want to know more about what Mark Steyn thinks, you can probably make much progress in understanding him by giving the most attention to some of the things he says least often, or with the greatest subtlety.