Jim

Boy that guy is scary. Hitler reincarnate.

I didn't come away reassured at all.

@Jim: Please don't appologize for your viewpoints' date=' I would hope that people should feel free to speak their minds on this forum. Appologizing for something you believe to be true is exactly the kind of things that liberals want, but noone needs.[/quote']

 

Heh, well, it wasn't exactly the sincerest of apologies.

Of course people will put their morals on the back burner if they have to. The thing is, this only happens AFTER they submit to an authority. When they are poor and starving, they are not at the mercy of powerful Islamic extremist leaders. When they realize that they can gain security, stability and acceptance in an extremist group they compromise their morals, just as the subjects of Milgram's experiment, Zimbardo's Stanford Prison experiment and members of crack gangs in Chicago compromise(d) theirs.

Some Muslims are born into authoritarian strucutures.

I'm not saying that terrorism started because of our actions. What I am saying, however, is that terrorism is a very poorly defined word.

I completely agree and have offered alternative labels for the enemy in the past.

Again, it's the "if they did it to my uncle Mahmoud, I can do it to them" mentality that is now extremizing the Muslim world.

This is where we disagree. What is making the Muslim world extreme is their own history and how they are coming to grips with their relative economic, military and scientific failures in light of their prior dominant position. It all begs the question "what went wrong?'

It is their answer to this question which divides Muslim culture.

Again, Israel is going out of its way to kill civilians. And really, what do they have to gain from this war? In 1982 they were in Beirut in 2 days. This past month they've gained a few hundred yards. Furthermore, all they've done is ruined the infrastructure of Lebanon- Hezbollah has hardly been hurt. Lebanon is turning into another Iraq, except this time we're seeing a FAR weaker force than the US that is on the offensive. Really, the operation is pretty much doomed to fail, so I have to ask what the point is.

You didn't answer my question. What would you have done in Israel's place?

Budelwraagh:

 

.

 

Indeed. Terrorism does not come only from the bottom up' date=' but as exemplified by Stalin, (and others, find your own examples if you accept the wider meaning of terrorism) from the top down also. The State can be guilty of terrorism when it is oppressive, dictatorial and espouses exra-judicial execution and population relocation. That might also include the social terrorism of the one child per family dictat of the Chinese authorities.[/quote']

 

Indeed. The the label Islamic Terrorism is inadequate to describe the enemy.

No, the average Muslim doesn't join a group that says "Hi, we want you to fight for us, with high likelihood of you dying, in order to try to bother those terrible "free" people and in order to make sure that we can continue to oppress you and your family." Put yourself in the shoes of the average Muslim in, say, Syria. Your government is oppressing you and you hate it. You're poor and if you have a job you make barely enough to survive. What do you do? You join a radical group and get food, shelter and acceptance. Plus, you also kill those people who killed your new best friend's dad.

One of the things you are completely missing here is the very human ability to perform horrible acts when under the influence of an authority figure. You only have to look as far as the Milgram experiment or a cursory history of the 20th century to know that people will check their morals and even their own self interests at the door when they buy into an authoritarian structure.

The Islamic Fascists (sorry, I still don't think we've come up with a better term to describe this subset of the entire Islamic population) use a tried and true combination of authoritarian techniques - suppression of dissent, appeal to the notion of by-gone days of glory (Pol Pot used this one to good effect), acceptance by a group and oppression of opposing view points.

Islamic terrorism/facism/whateverism has all of these proven techniques coupled with the power of religion. If you have ever had a religious experience, or at least believed that you have, you'd understand the danger when religion is used to gain and maintain political power. This is not a theoretical concern. Human beings are most capable of manufacturing hell on earth when they think in their arrogance that we can bring heaven to this earth.

These young people are seduced and groomed to be heroes and martyrs who will live in heaven. It is a way to become instantly a significant person and go to heaven. You mention poverty as part of the problem, so I’m sure you understand how much it has helped to eliminate Saddam’s reward of first $10K and then $25k was to the families of terrorists:

Saddam Hussein has distributed $260,000 to 26 families of Palestinians killed in 29 months of fighting with Israel, including a $10,000 check to the family of a Hamas suicide bomber.

 

In a packed banquet hall on Wednesday, the families came one-by-one to receive their $10,000 checks. A large banner said: "The Arab Baath Party Welcomes the Families of the Martyrs for the Distribution of Blessings of Saddam Hussein."

 

That's a small fortune in poverty-stricken Gaza, reports CBS News Correspondent Robert Berger, and the donations have made him a hero on the Palestinian street. Israel accuses Saddam of financing Palestinian terror.

Good thing Saddam is gone, eh?

@Jim: Of course terrorists won't stop if we stop.

Yes, but you seem to be arguing that terrorism started because of our actions. I think that is wild speculation that ignores the last 1400 years or so of history. I also think that it treats the terrorists almost as subhuman, bereft of the moral responsibility to make their own decisions. You also ignore the comments I quoted from a recognized authority in the field and do not cite any contary authority.

This dynamic comes from a conflict within Islam as much as from external forces. The conservative elements of Islam use their religion to suppress the voices of reform and, of course, these elements require a foreign enemy. Bin Laden or someone like him would have found another justification for their rage even if we had never been in Saudi Arabia (in which event, Saddam would no sit happily astride the Kuwaiti and Iraqi oil fields probably already having developed nuclear weapons).

If the US were to become an isolationist state, maybe in 50 years terrorist groups seeking to destroy the US would stop getting support in the form of new members for the reason that the US has done bad things to Muslims. Eventually they would change their goals away from destroying the US and towards other things, but as I said, this would be a long time from now and no politician wants to just back off.

Heh, this discussion has become like the parable of the five blind men trying to describe an elephant after feeling different sections of the animal. Trying to get to the root causes of these issues just by perusing mass media reports of the last few years is a good way to go completely wrong.

Frankly, I'm not too interested in conclusions made on the basis of media reports. To form my opinions, I would want to read someone who has spent their entire life studying the history, language and attitudes of Islam. I've asked before if there is a counterpart to B. Lewis and have had no response nor could I find one with my own research to find an opposing point of view. I was hoping to find someone similarly qualified so that I could see where their POVs diverged. I really could not find a counterpart; therefore, I am inclined to trust his judgments. I've presented you his views on this issue and I've seen no rebuttal or contrary authority. Bottom line: Islam has problems it must sort out or we all will suffer. It is wrongheaded, however comforting, for them or us to think that their problems derive from an external source.

It should be understood, however, that every innocent killed in the US' and Israel's "meddlings" legitimizes terrorist attacks against the US and Israel. If I were some guy from Iran and my uncle Mahmoud, an innocent civilian, was killed in some Israeli attack in Lebanon I'd be far more likely to support the fight against Israel than I would otherwise. Had Israel not been self-destructive and actually cared about civilians, it wouldn't have effectively won me over for terrorist groups.

I assume you are talking perception, not reality, because I doubt you believe that Israel's recent actions "legitimize" terrorist attacks.

What do you think Israel should have done?

All I'm saying is that there has been plenty of public debate which emphasized the notion that "the terrorists hate us because they hate our freedom' date='" whether or not it is explicitly said that this is the only reason. I distinctly remember more than one Bush speach to that effect, and (believe it or not) I do listen to conservative talk radio sometimes, and that's the [i']only[/i] reason they ever mention at all.

 

However, I think it's quite fair to say that that is silly. mooeypoo, all those things you mention, about how they see our capitalism and our secularism as decadent and immoral - yes, yes they do. That's why they do all they can to establish oppressive, Taliban-like theocracies in the Islamic world. But there's a big difference between that and going outside the Islamic world to attack others. They attack us not because we're a free society, but because they see us as meddling in their society. They'd rather be insulated in their own little medieval world, not having to deal with infidels like us at all. Sweden has nothing to do with them, and hence, they couldn't care less how many Swedes doom themselves to eternal torment.

Well of course Bush can't speak like an academic but the point is much deeper than merely saying "they hate us for freedom."

Even without US "meddling," there would be a conflict inside of the Islamic world as to what has gone awry between conservative forces who believe that only a return to basic family values will return the Islamic world to its historic position and liberal reformers who believe that the cause, at least in part, of the Islamic world's decline is the tyrants who have failed in every measure except to perpetuate their own power. What I don't get is why liberals in this country assume that the radical militant conservatives of Islam are only acting because they were provoked in some way. Secular conservatives in this country who are far less radical certainly don't get that benefit of the doubt.

The conservative, for want of a better word, "fascist" forces of Islam seek to gain and hold power as despots always do - repression, propaganda, the primitivistic appeal of a return to a day of by-gone glory, and by the generation of a galvanizing threat which requires drastic collective action. We worry about these kind of appeals in this country but in a country like Iran there is not a free press or a tradition of dissent to keep such appeals in check. The reassuring message from such despots is that it is not our fault but, instead, that of an external enemy who, through their meddling keep the natural value of our culture from rising to the top and, perhaps some day, dominating the world.

Bin Laden used our presence in Saudi Arabia as a hot button to justify violence but we were invited into that country and, as it turned out, our presence helped rebuff a secular government's invasion of Kuwait. For the life of me, I do not know why we believe that this was an entirely sincere motivation. If we had not been in Saudi Arabia, Bin Laden would have sought his required enemy elsewhere.

My point here is that in a despotic religious structure, you cannot assume that the terrorist attacks will cease if we only refrain from "meddling." That assumption gives the despots in these structures entirely too much benefit of the doubt.

In any event, we have no choice but to meddle to some degree unless we are willing to let Israel be wiped off of the map and to sacrifice our strategic interests in this region.

Well, mooeypoo basically said that, and George Bush said that lots of times right after 9/11. He's in the public discourse, isn't he?

Sorry, but it's a vast over simplification of Mooey's position to say this problem is all about an absence of freedom. In any event, I am certainly not aware of anyone, Bush included, who has said that they "really think that some group of people far away having a different lifestyle is enough" to make a "crazy radical militant." Bull's statement that such ridiculous people "may want to seek psychiatric evaluation" is pretty good evidence that he is making a gross oversimplification of an opposing POV. He makes other good points but the beginning and conclusion of his post over simplify.

I posted from the leading Western academic on the history of the Middle East explaining in detail why there is tension between the West and Islam. I remember asking in one thread if any one had an opposing academic source on these issues and got no response.

I think Bernard Lewis makes an incredibly persuasive case that the plate tectonics of this conflict were set grinding into motion long ago when Islamic culture began to believe that it was in decline on many fronts. This shift has everything to do with the history of a vast area of the globe and nothing to do with a mere “different lifestyle.”

FWIW, I do not think it is any indication of moral failure that Muslims have difficulty in dealing with their relative military, scientific and economic decline. Half of my waking days are spent dealing with conflicts which have erupted after a business deal goes sour. We are dealing with deep seated human behavior which can cause sincere good people to go postal rather than engage in much needed introspection. With sincere religious beliefs mixed into this sense of decline it is a very dangerous mix.

Sorry guys' date=' but it's completely ridiculous to say things like "uh, they hate us because they hate our freedom."

[/quote']

 

 

Sorry, Budullewraagh, but no one said any such thing.

 

If you really think that some group of people far away having a different lifestyle is enough, you may want to seek psychiatric evaluation.

 

I'm not even aware of anyone in the public discourse who said any such thing either.

 

You might try dealing with the arguments people actually make. It is more challenging, I'll admit, but you also will find it ultimately more satisfying.

Indeed' date=' but if I were hezbollah, the lesson learned is that a well trained, motivated force equipped with modern weapons using hit and run tactics over well prepared ground and using civilians as camouflage has fought a powerful conventional army to a standstill. Not just to a standstill, but by their own objective has actually won by not being defeated.

 

Put it another way.... Israel besieged a fortress with no visible fortifications or defensive lines. With no identifiable targets, modern weapons are largely impotent. As the exocet redefined naval warfare, the Mujahedeen and Vietcong have shown the way for Hezbullah. The old school blitzkrieg and nuke-em Westpoint brigade must learn new tricks, and fast.[/quote']

 

Before concluding that modern arms wielded by a western army are impotent, I'd want to know some facts. How many rockets were destroyed? How many Hezbollah terrorists were killed? Has pressure been put on the international community and Lebanon not to let Hezbollah lob rockets at Israel at their leisure? Will this event persuade the world that Iran must be defanged?

 

Western media and elites are very capable of creating an artificial reality which simply defines away victory won on the ground. The Tet offensive leaps to mind as an example.

 

Half of any battle is how you define victory and, sure, if you define victory as requiring the complete eradictation of Hezbollah, Israel lost (assuming, optimistically, that the war is now concluded). I doubt seriously Israel ever had any such objective. Isreal's objective was to degrade Hezbollah and give Lebanon and the international community an incentive to enforce resolution 1559. If Israel met those objectives, they won.

When it comes right down to it, the 9/11 attack was really the brainchild of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who did it because he hated America for backing Israel militarily, financially, and diplomatically. Bin Laden was really just the financier/manager.

I think it is a mistake to focus only on recent history. Muslims are faced with the relative failure of their once dominant culture when measured against the West in terms of scientific progress, military success, cultural influence and the generation of wealth. Many Muslims look internally for the cause of these failures but others can not grant that our relative success has to do with cultural advantages such as separation of church and state, traditions of dissent and the empowerment and education of the 50% of the population who happen to be women. These conservative elements simply cannot accept that their own values have diminished their culture. How much more satisfying to blame the west at every turn.

Although, no doubt, these tensions are heightened by having a successful western, non-Islamic, democracy in the Middle East, I seriously doubt the threat would evaporate even if we abandoned Israel. The seeds of these tensions predate the existence of Israel by a few hundred years.

Jim, I think that "Europe will be Islamic" logic is flawed. It depends on "present trends," but they are just that - present. What seems more relevant is that new immigrants tend to have more children, and old generation families have less. This is true all over the world. But the thing about time is that new becomes old. Looking only at 1840s America, for example, you could have said that "if current trends continue, America will be 80% Irish by the end of the century." Contrary to what one might think on St. Patrick's Day, that wasn't the case.

You make a fair point and certainly "always in motion is the future." However, we can't ignore that the Islamic population in Europe has gone from 1 million to 18 million and is still growing.

You are right that second and third generations have lower birth rates as they become integrated into society. This probably results from the increased education and affluence of the later, more integrated, generations. There is, however, a real question as to whether these groups are integrating into society.

In any event, if we start to get more and more second generation home grown European terrorism, it won't take a majority to cause huge problems.

Here's a good question: Why[/i'] do you think the US and Israel are hated by so many Muslims?

The complex answer requires an historical context of more than a few decades. As is illusrated in these excerpt from the NYT's review of B Lewis' "What Went Wrong?," there is a cultural divide within Islamic countries between conservatives and reformers contesting why, exactly, Islam was eclipsed by the forces of modernity.

But in the Middle East the difficulties present not just another case of traditional societies having to come to terms with the forces of modernization. The unvarnished truth is that the tensions there are of a different order of magnitude. The region extends over a vast, sprawling area, where a badly damaged though powerful and religiously driven order is locked in confrontation with global trends more penetrating and unsettling than could ever have been imagined when Muslim self-confidence was at its peak some centuries ago. What Lewis is writing about in ''What Went Wrong?'' concerns one of the greatest cultural and political divides in modern history.

 

Sometime around 1760, Britain, then France and America took off to another world, one that was increasingly secular, democratic, industrial and tolerant in ways that left many of the other regions gasping at the combined implications of such changes. Certain societies in parts of Latin America or India or Russia felt they had little choice but to follow suit, although hoping to brake the impacts of Western man. The Middle East, powerful a half-millennium earlier, when Europe was a bundle of inchoate, backward states and unworthy of attention, did not. Yet Europe rose while the Muslim world rested on its laurels -- until it was besieged by Western ships, armaments, iron goods and cheap textiles, to all of which it became harder and harder to respond.

 

The West's cultural messages, especially about democracy, made things even more difficult. Those with power in Muslim societies found it impossible to contemplate the separation of religion and state, or admit to a changed place in society for women or permit the free exchange of ideas, particularly unpleasant ideas, on the lines argued by John Stuart Mill and others. But there is even more to it than that. As Lewis shrewdly points out, the works of Mozart and Shakespeare and Voltaire have traveled around the globe, as for that matter have Stravinsky, jazz and George Orwell. But they all pretty much stop at the frontiers of the Arab world, which has shown little interest in how others think, write, compose; there are few translations of these writers and few performances of these musicians, nor are there great libraries and museums of Western art to match the impressive collections of Muslim culture in the West. (There is no presumption by Lewis here that Western or Slavic or Japanese culture is inherently superior, only that it is disturbing that this troubled part of our planet has never really cared.)

 

It is not that the Muslim world was totally without attempts at reform and renewal in the face of global trends, or that there was no appreciation that its own earlier superiority had vanished. In fact, Lewis is extremely good in detailing Ottoman and Arab and Iranian scholars who, from the 18th century onward, called with growing alarm for change. The sad fact is that for the most part their calls went unheeded.

 

Among the many reasons for such a failure discussed in this remarkably succinct account, one especially stands out. It is that the reformers split into two diametrically opposed camps: the Western-oriented movements, which sought adaptation, imitation and accommodation with modernity, though within a moderately Muslim order of things; and the conservatives, who angrily claimed that the reason for the decline was traitorous forces within their own societies, those who had strayed from the true path of the prophet. These forces, the conservatives argued, were even more sinful and deserved more punishment than the infidels themselves. It is not difficult, in reading these earlier denunciations of Arab liberals, to recall bin Laden's recent ferocious speeches against the Saudi leadership and others in the Middle East for defiling the true faith.

 

. . .

 

What, then, is to be done? At the end of the day, Lewis argues, the answer lies within the Muslim world itself. Either its societies, especially those in the Middle East, will continue in ''a downward spiral of hate and spite, rage and self-pity, poverty and oppression,'' with all that implies for a horrible and troubled future; or ''they can abandon grievance and victimhood, settle their differences and join their talents, energies and resources in a common creative endeavor'' to the benefit of themselves and the rest of our planet. Perhaps the outside world can help a bit, though probably not much. ''For the time being, the choice is their own.'' With this final sentence, and all that precedes it, Lewis has done us all -- Muslim and non-Muslim alike -- a remarkable service.

B. Lewis is often quoted for having stated "Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century." Here is a translation of an excerpt from the oft quoted interview with the German magazine Die Welt:

The World: Will the struggle against al-Qaeda last for decades?

 

Lewis: I think that it is a long process without a guaranteed outcome. One must consider the possibility that al-Qaeda might win. They have many allies in the West, not all of them known to us. Among the ones we know about I count the growing Islamic minorities and converts in Europe. The situation is similar to the one we once faced with Communism. It appealed to unsatisfied people in the West since it appeared to provide them with an unambiguous answer. Radical Islam has a similar attractive force. It communicates to people convictions and certainties; indeed. it gives them the sense of a mission. Its followers appear united whereas the democracies appear deeply split.

 

The World: Will the EU form a global counterweight to America?

 

Lewis: No. Next to the United States, the future global players will be China, India, and possibly a healthy Russia. Surely no one knows what the dominant regime in Moscow will be, but it will certainly not be communist. Europe will be a part of the Arabian West. Migration and demographics point in that direction. Europeans marry late and have few children if they have any. But they allow heavy immigration: Turks into Germany, Arabs into France, and Pakistanis into England. These people marry young and have a lot of children. According to present trends, the population of Europe will contain Muslim majorities by the end of the 21st century at the very latest.

While we may be able to stop attacks by Islamic terrorists by the skin of our teeth today, I wonder what kind of success we will have as these trends continue to unfold over the next 10-20 years.

I’d hate to work for a major newspaper today. Editors of major newspapers around the world are probably frantically preparing a special insert to include all of the letters from Muslims outraged by this misuse of Islam. Hell, they may have to devote a special section just to all of the jihads that are going to be issued against the plotters.

What worries me even more is how many deaths will occur tomorrow morning as Islamic countries erupt in protest tomorrow over this distortion of the teachings of Islam?

Time to start villifying Joe now that he's bolted the party.

Here is the NYT saying that Lieberman is "seizing" on the plot to make a political point. As if these occurrences aren't relevant to the national debate.

Lieberman:

“If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England,” Mr. Lieberman said at a campaign event at lunchtime in Waterbury, Conn. “It will strengthen them and they will strike again.”

Here's Lamont hopefully being merely obtuse, not overtly dishonest:

In a telephone interview from his vacation home in Maine, Mr. Lamont said he was disappointed with the personal tone Mr. Lieberman’s remarks, and questioned the connection between the Iraq war and the new terrorist plot. He also continued his strategy of trying to link Mr. Lieberman’s views with those of the Bush administration, whose approach the senator has tended to support in the fight against terrorism.

 

“Wow,” Mr. Lamont said, after asking a reporter to read Mr. Lieberman’s remark about him. “That comment sounds an awful lot like Vice President Cheney’s comment on Wednesday. Both of them believe our invasion of Iraq has a lot to do with 9/11. That’s a false premise.”

I'm thinking of moving to Connecticut so I can vote for Lieberman:

I’m worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don’t appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us — more evil, or as evil, as Nazism and probably more dangerous than the Soviet Communists we fought during the long Cold War,” Mr. Lieberman said.

 

“We cannot deceive ourselves that we live in safety today and the war is over, and it’s why we have to stay strong and vigilant,” he added.

Now, here is the vapid Lamont:

Mr. Lamont hesitated when he was asked if Mr. Lieberman’s criticisms were beyond the bounds of acceptable political combat.

 

“To try to score political points on every international issues...” Mr. Lamont said, before pausing and stopping himself. Then he added, “Why do I have to say anything?”

Why, indeed.

Another successful defensive play by the good guys.

To enjoy your freedom, you should in the first place stay alive, shouldn't you?

For me to enjoy freedom, men and women had to sacrifice their own lives and kill. The same remains true today.

In my opinion, the problem is, the human life presently has different value depending on where the human live. Israel has a history of killing dozens of civilians in Gaza while hunting for single terrorists.

Kind of like Hezbollah demanding the release of 1,000 prisoners held by Israel in exchange for 2 Israeli captives held by Hezbollah.

Now, Israelis were well aware that their actions will inevitably lead to the death of hundreds civilians in Lebanon.

I'm with you so far...

This has no difference at all with deliberate murder.

*thunks forehead with Black's Law Dictionary and then hands it to you, with the page open to the definition for "murder"*

The lifes of two captured Israeli solgers is regarded more valuable then lifes of thousand innocent Lebanese civilians.

I'm sure Israel would have been delighted to face Hezbollah on an open field of battle and saved those civilians.

Likewise, US invasion in Iraq has led to death of more than 100 000 Iraquis, all to the purpose of defending Americans from the illusory threat of Iraq WMD.

*grits teeth and says for the 1,000th time on these boards:* No, we invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein invaded a strategically important US ally, lost, agreed to disclose the destruction of his WMD programs as a condition for the ceasefire, violated his agreement, funded terrorist's families for about $25MM as I recall, attempted to assassinate a former US president, had used WMDs in the past, played games with his WMD programs even as the UN & EU dithered and as the US gathered its forces to strike. At any moment, he could have trotted out his videotapes showing the destruction of the WMDs and Bush would have been left without the ability to react.

I don't mind coming up against opponents who are smart and aggressive. Aggressive and dumb, however, kills everyone. Saddam was dumb to invade Kuwait, attempt to assassinate Bush Sr and then not provide iron clad proof that he had destroyed his WMDs. He had to go.

I would consider it a kind of modern racism: discriminating people by the place they were born is no better than discriminatating by the skin color.

Not all forms of discrimination are racist or even wrong. You discriminate every day of your life but that doesn't make you a racist.

smart spam? I say why the hell not? Kind of like the smarter google ads. I sometime find things that I like, but never on 'non-google' banner ads. And, isn't spam inevitable anyway?

They need to let spammers rot in jail. It might not be so inevitable.

Thank god. I thought I was the only sane one.

Here's a company that literally gives me the creeps: http://www.Acxiom.com.

http://businessweek.com/2000/00_12/b3673011.htm:

Founded by some former IBM cronies in 1969, Acxiom initially made its name in direct marketing. The Little Rock (Ark.) company's first big client: the Democratic National Party. Today, it has one of the most extensive consumer information databases in the U.S., and its biggest clients are AllState Insurance, Trans Union, and Citibank. Of the top 25 credit-card companies, 24 are Acxiom clients.

Look at its capabilities even back in 1998:

Twenty-four hours a day, Acxiom electronically gathers and sorts information about 196 million Americans. Credit card transactions and magazine subscriptions. Telephone numbers and real estate records. Car registrations and fishing licenses. Consumer surveys and demographic details.

 

What Acxiom does is perfectly legal – bringing together an array of facts from scattered sources. But the phenomenon known as "data warehousing" or "datamining" represents yet another example of how traditional notions of personal privacy have become obsolete, outstripped by technology's ability to peer into personal lives.

 

In a flash, data warehouses can assemble electronic dossiers that give marketers, insurers and in some cases law enforcement a stunningly clear look into your needs, lifestyle and spending habits. And without aggressive action to preempt the companies, individuals have no control over facts that are gathered and disseminated about them.

Why is lack of privacy inevitable, and why is it a good thing? I'm afraid I don't really follow you two.

It would not be a good thing if we completely lost the right to be left alone within certain geographic or decisional spheres of our personal lives.

As Bush says he would not distinguish between the harbourers of terrorists and terrorists; adopting his logic, wouldn't Lebanese civilians become legitimate targets? On top of that, Hamas a terrorist organisation, enjoys widespread support among the Palestinian populace and was elected with a large majority. Does this make them harbourers of terrorists too?

From the 9/11 Commission report:

In the late afternoon, the President overruled his aides' continuing reluctance to have him return to Washington and ordered Air Force One back to Andrews Air Force Base. He was flown by helicopter back to the White House, passing over the still-smoldering Pentagon. At 8:30 that evening, President Bush addressed the nation from the White House. After emphasizing that the first priority was to help the injured and protect against any further attacks, he said: "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."

This doctrine was contained in the classified National Security Presidential Directve 9 which called on the Secretary of Defense to plan for military options "against Taliban targets in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control, air and air defense, ground forces, and logistics." The NSPD also called for plans "against al Qaeda and associated terrorist facilities in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control-communications, training, and logistics facilities."

Here's Rumsfeld's testimony before the 9/11 commission:

By the first week of September, this process had arrived at a strategy that was presented to Principals and later became National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD)-9. The objectives of the new strategy were:

 

• To eliminate the al-Qaeda network;

 

• To use all elements of national power to do so -- diplomatic, military, economic, intelligence, information and law enforcement;

 

• To eliminate sanctuaries for al-Qaeda and related terrorist networks – and if diplomatic efforts to do so failed, to consider additional measures.

These directives were focussed on 9/11 and "al-Qaeda and related terrorist networks." Although the policy makes complete sense and I've not heard you articulate a viable alternative, I don't think Bush is hemmed in on Hezbollah. He may take a more aggressive appraoch against terror networks that have already succeeded in attacking the US at home.

Hezbollah is viewed in Lebanon and other Arab countries' date=' unfortunately perhaps; as the only body in the region truly standing up and taking the fight to Israel for attacking Lebanon. Also they generally have taken the credit in Lebanon for causing the withdrawal of Israel in 2000. Israel so far has only helped bolster support for Hezbollah and boost it's political standing.

[/quote']

 

Throw in the attack on US marines sleeping in their beds and you will have persuasively explained why Hezbollah can not be allowed to come out of this conflict looking like a winner.

The paralels to the build up of WWII are ill advised in my opinion. After all, the people invading other countries this time are the US, UK and Israel.

True, boiled down, Gulf War II was about enforcing the armistice agreed to by an aggressor defeated in battle. That is a hopeful distinction from the 1930s.

Mainly, though, I think your post helps prove VDH's point.

I'd missed this story:

The gunman who forced his way into the offices of the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle on Friday afternoon put a gun at the back of a 13-year-old girl to gain entry to the building, police said this afternoon.

 

The man who described himself as a Muslim American angry with Israel then opened fire with two handguns, killing one woman and wounding five others before surrendering to police.

 

The dead woman was identified this morning as Pamela Waechter, 58

 

The man then presumably drove to the federation building, where he hid behind a plant in the lobby for a short time. Kerlikowske said he waited for someone to come in to gain access into the office. When the 13-year-old girl walked up, he put a gun to her head and forced her to take him inside.

He rattled off anti-Israel slurs and commanded people not to dial 911. But shooting victim Dayna Klein, who is 17 weeks pregnant, ignored him. Her actions convinced Seattle police chief Gil Kerlikowske to call her a heroThe Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, founded in 1926, is an umbrella organization for the local Jewish community. It raises money for Jewish social-welfare organizations, runs youth and adult Jewish educational programs, and engages in efforts in support of Israel. The federation's mission is to ensure Jewish survival and enhance the quality of Jewish life locally, in Israel and worldwide.

 

Witnesses say the gunman shot one receptionist, then ordered her to dial 911. He then took the phone from her.

Here's the VDH article I pulled this from with its beginning and conclusion:

When I used to read about the 1930s — the Italian invasion of Abyssinia, the rise of fascism in Italy, Spain, and Germany, the appeasement in France and Britain, the murderous duplicity of the Soviet Union, and the racist Japanese murdering in China — I never could quite figure out why, during those bleak years, Western Europeans and those in the United States did not speak out and condemn the growing madness, if only to defend the millennia-long promise of Western liberalism.

Of course, the trauma of the Great War was all too fresh, and the utopian hopes for the League of Nations were not yet dashed. The Great Depression made the thought of rearmament seem absurd. The connivances of Stalin with Hitler — both satanic, yet sometimes in alliance, sometimes not — could confuse political judgments.

 

But nevertheless it is still surreal to reread the fantasies of Chamberlain, Daladier, and Pope Pius, or the stump speeches by Charles Lindbergh (“Their [the Jews’] greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government”) or Father Coughlin (“Many people are beginning to wonder whom they should fear most — the Roosevelt-Churchill combination or the Hitler-Mussolini combination.”) — and it is even more baffling to consider that such men ever had any influence.

 

Not any longer.

 

Our present generation too is on the brink of moral insanity. That has never been more evident than in the last three weeks, as the West has proven utterly unable to distinguish between an attacked democracy that seeks to strike back at terrorist combatants, and terrorist aggressors who seek to kill civilians.

 

....

 

It is now a cliché to rant about the spread of postmodernism, cultural relativism, utopian pacifism, and moral equivalence among the affluent and leisured societies of the West. But we are seeing the insidious wages of such pernicious theories as they filter down from our media, universities, and government — and never more so than in the general public’s nonchalance since Hezbollah attacked Israel .

 

These past few days the inability of millions of Westerners, both here and in Europe, to condemn fascist terrorists who start wars, spread racial hatred, and despise Western democracies is the real story, not the “quarter-ton” Israeli bombs that inadvertently hit civilians in Lebanon who live among rocket launchers that send missiles into Israeli cities and suburbs.

 

Yes, perhaps Israel should have hit more quickly, harder, and on the ground; yes, it has run an inept public relations campaign; yes, to these criticisms and more. But what is lost sight of is the central moral issue of our times: a humane democracy mired in an asymmetrical war is trying to protect itself against terrorists from the 7th century, while under the scrutiny of a corrupt world that needs oil, is largely anti-Semitic and deathly afraid of Islamic terrorists, and finds psychic enjoyment in seeing successful Western societies under duress.

 

In short, if we wish to learn what was going on in Europe in 1938, just look around.

Finally, here's Father Coughlin speaking in 1937:

Perhaps, despite the advice of Washington of no foreign entanglements, despite the passage of the Jansen Act, which forbids us to lend money to those who already have borrowed it and who have not returned their loans, perhaps despite those things, some way, some miraculous way shall be found to project America into the next maelstrom. And democracy once more, thinking that it has power within its soul, shall rise up to clap and applaud, because the youth of the land is going abroad to make the world safe for what? Safe for dictatorship? Safe against communism abroad when we have communism at home? Safe from socialism in France when we have socialism in America? Or safe, safe for the international bankers?

Father Coughlin's listening audience was once estimated to be as much as one-third of the nation. His message might well find fertile soil in our day.

I also have to add that equating Hezbollah's rocket attacks with "throwing rocks at a car" is very bad form. Those aren't backyard model rockets' date=' folks, they are SERIOUS WEAPONS, and they ARE killing people. If a western nation intentionally used that kind of [b']high-powered artillery[/b] on a civilian population they would be absolutely roasted by the international community. Why this is perceived as a minor offense in some circles is utterly inexplicable to me.

 

A wrong action does not become more wrong because of the number of people who die. If it was wrong when 5,000 are dead then it was also wrong when 5 were dead, or NONE. This business of rationalizing levels of justice is every bit as stupid as ignoring these problems altogether. We cannot say on Tuesday that Israel is in the right, and then decide on Wednesday that Israel is in the wrong. If you find yourself wavering in that direction, my advice is to GROW A PAIR.

 

Human Rights Watch (historically no friend of Israel!) issued a statement yesterday condemning Hezbollah's attacks and declaring them to be WAR CRIMES.

Well put. These war crimes against civilians started on 7/12 before any action by Israel. Fortunately, there were no civillians residents in the initial rocket attacks on Israeli border towns but it is often forgotten that the initial attacks against Israel were directed both against their soldiers and against their civilians. A proportionate, i.e. predictable response, makes this a winnable game for the terrorists. Launch rockets, invade Israel, kill and kidnap soldiers and let civilians pay the price from a raid or two and then do a deal whereby you get the release of 1,000 or so prisoners in return for the 2 captured soldiers. Declare victory.

If Israel plays by those rules then the terrorists win and Lebanon has no incentive to get control of its borders. Who knows, if Hezbollah had not miscalculated by firing rockets at civilians initially, this may have been how it played out.

Is anyone watching David Gregory interviewing Condi? They guys is a frackin (yes, BG is my favorite TV show) idiot.

He actually just asked her whether she REALLY knew what would happen in the future. For once, I wish she would drop her reserve and body slam the twerp.

Yes, I've had a scotch this Friday night.