I’ll stop now.

Dictionary
shill |??l| informal noun an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others. verb [ intrans. ] act or work as such a person. ORIGIN early 20th cent.: probably from earlier shillaber, of unknown origin.

Leftism is in many ways courage, trogs are comfortable numb.
If courage is ’superior’ then only because you see it that way, you ahve framed it in those terms.
These are all your terms, which makes me wonder what the hell is it with your resentment? Pure resentment seeping from every word, and smugness too, that you allegedly hate. And dare I say it fear, yes fear.

It is certainly harder, far harder, and not simplistic to strive for a liberal agenda. No not ‘fashionable and lazy’ Isaiah, your labels are though.

And, no, you don’t prove your courage by claiming others are full of fear. Nor do you prove it by an adolescent struggle against “convention”. Unless you are an adolescent. And too many like you always talk about how others are full of fear when you disagree with them. As for my courage, what the hell would you know about it except in the fantasy of your narrow-minded stereotypes?

And, no, leftism isn’t courageous. Just self-inflated. It wasn’t courage to look the other way when Stalin slaughtered millions, when Ho slaughtered millions, or Pol Pot in the killing fields. Chomsky claimed the killing fields to be a lie as the evidence was mounting, just as the leftists denied the genocide against the Ukrainians no matter the evidence. I’ve read too much, been alive too long, to fall for that.

Classical liberalism built the framework for the freedoms we have today. Not the current liberalism.

Which explains, in part, your present lack of critical distance.

Excerpts from a paper on envy:

“The envious impulse is to attach, or to spoil the very source that one originally relied upon. This impulse can become diabolically destructive and undermining, since it mobilizes such powerful defences - devaluation of the good object, or rigid idealization.”

“In envy, there is an aim to possess the good object, but when this is felt to be impossible, the aim becomes a need to spoil the goodness of the object, in order to remove the source of envious feelings. Consequently, envy is the diabolical need to destroy the very source of goodness that maturation and growth requires.”

“Envy often serves to stir up envy and jealousy in others. A consequence of excessive envy is an early onset of guilt - a guilt felt as persecution, and the object arousing the guilt as the persecutor.”

Of course the liberals have virtues you’re not recognizing; of course the conservatives have flaws you’re not acknowledging. You know you’re overextended. It explains the apple: you’ve got some guilt associated with what you’re writing here; you’re acting out, it’s not quite professional; in fact, taking away the apple would be downright self-destructive.

But that apple enables you to indulge your envy.

“In Klein’s theory, love and gratification are not enough - gratitude is needed too. Gratitude is closely linked with the trust in good figures. This includes the ability to accept and assimilate the loved primal object without greed and envy interfering too much. The wish to preserve and spare the good object then predominates.”

Read Sun Tzu!

It seems to me that fear is a powerfull motivator in politics. The antidote to fear (in political discourse) is certainty. The ability to say: The government will protect you from xyz danger.

Fear as a political tool is used by both the left and right. However, that does not mean that either side is motivated by fear, it just means that they use fear to get votes - especially the undecided middle of non-aligned voters. Both left and right are motivated by ideology.

The right uses fear of uncertainty in areas of security. See the drug war, the war on terror, war on ‘moral decay’. All are sold as an antidote to the fear a person may feel from any of the above issues.

The left uses economic fear. If the Republicans win, you’ll lose your job, your house will be buried in toxic sludge, everyone will die of disease with no medical care, etc. Your example of FDR is instructive, since the depression was the pivotal winning moment for the Democratic party and progressive theory, and fear of events like that happening again kept the Democrats in power for a long time.

So to summarize. The right uses fear to win elections. They are hypocritical to do so, because they accuse the left of doing the same thing. The left points out the use of fear by the right - and is also completely hypocritical to do so.

Of course, both sides will say that their use of fear is justified because their fears are real. The terrorists really do want to kill us. Non-management employees really will lose their jobs. Both sides are somewhat correct, but exagerate plenty too.

James

“The conservative mindset is based on fear”
“The liberal mindset is based on delusional self-exaltation”
“The conservative mindset is based on envy!”
“The liberal mindset is based on selfishness!”

The fringe will always unravel the whole fabric if they are not clipped at the edges.

Neo - there is no spoon.

But I mean in my experience, working with Christian and Islamic communities where I found the biggest enemy was fear and fear derived misrecognition/hysteria generalizations.

‘Against convention’I was using oterhs terms and comments, I wouldn’t go around otherwise saying ‘hey its cool to be against convention’ though I may think that in other ways I guess.

< As for my courage, what the hell would you know about it except in the fantasy of your narrow-minded stereotypes?> - I am going on and responding to the grand stereotypes as evidenced in your posts, and others here. I am suprized that you are a ‘classic liberal’, can you explain what exactly you mean by that?

As for murder in the 20th century no one is innocent, left or right, looking or doing, but I agree with the hysteria of the left in regards to Comm, but the right is not much better with its record.

- If you have the inclination can you elaborate on this for me?

Can you elaborate on this please?

“The conservative mindset is based on envy!”

I wasn’t describing the conservative mindset, I was describing the psychopathology of an individual.

• an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,
• the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system,
• the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals’ rights from others and from its own expansion, and
• the universal (global and a historical) applicability of these above convictions

The emphasis is on property rights, individual rights (thus supporting minority rights), and the universal application of same. Limited government is also another key tenet, as you can see. Liberalism that speaks of group rights, brands black conservatives as “race traitors” (uncle tom, sambo, etc.), pushes class warfare, supports totalitarians (both right and left have this problem, but geopolitics always get in the way), develops speech codes (beyond profanity or obscenity) and overly limits property rights is not classical liberalism. Its more a 20th century creation, from Marxist thought, into a “collectivist” liberalism, rather than derived from the Enlightenment. No one or group is 100% either form, but I see things as a matter of degree.

Personally, I don’t care for the terms “left or right” either as they describe very little to me. It is far too subjective a description, leading to absurdities. I prefer a political spectrum of anarchist to totalitarian. The classical liberal leans more to anarchy, the collectivist liberal to totalitarianism.

As for stereotypes, the human mind requires them so as to not have to reassess the same information constantly. Obviously some stereotypes are correct, some wrong, and some of limited usefulness. This belief that “all” stereotypes are bad is simply a stupid 20th Century platitude. “Fear”, as I have seen it used, would fall into the category of an often bad stereotype. The grand stereotypes I may have used are to speed the read, I know that a group characteristic is not shared by all members of a group.

Regarding Islam, or religions in general, I do not consider numbers proof of worth. I judge worth by other measures. What I do not like about it is: 1) its founder was a militarist, and that means a great deal; 2) it is a supremacist, universalist religion (it maintains that its kingdom is the earth, with all other religions submissive and subservient); 3) it does not separate the political and the spiritual; and 4) Sharia. There is more but that list is sufficient. There is not enough room on this blog or any other to go over the differences between Islam and Christianity (I am not a Christian), both have bloody histories, but one gave us liberalism and the other cannot. Sharia is the telling danger of Islam, and I am afraid (the thinking version) far too many in Islam, Arab or not, wish to see th

As for courage and “convention”, I lived through the 1960’s in the US with the preening leftists screaming “power to the people”. The problem is they meant power only to the people that agreed with them, “rights” only to those who agreed with them, and “reeducation” for the rest. That is not courage, but cowardice.

Finally, if you haven’t read any of Sidney Hook’s books, do so. Not a classical liberal, per se, but a leftist who became a “conservative” because the left changed around him.

Not all conservatives are bastards, but most bastards are conservative, as the past few comments illustrate. The conservative movement has many factions but you certainly share an ugly authoritarianism, and the worst of you are keen to foist your objectivism on the world. You’d think your real enemy is the fractious, loose coalition of liberals who struggle to coordinate their message (in the face of a relatively homogenous, “on message,” well-financed opponent). Liberals are not to blame for what’s going on. The media is not to blame for what’s going on. The Bush administration has enjoyed control of the Congress and Senate, the White House, and a TV network. The administration has simply imploded, in part because they’ve tried to reform a culture they don’t understand with a military campaign the American embassador recently characterized as arrogant and stupid. If they’d dumped the billions they’ve spent so far in Iraq instead into renewing Afghanistan — the actual home of Al-Qaeda and the third-poorest country in the world — they could have turned it into a garden and a model state. You’d still have the global community on side and Islamic extremists would have a much harder time recruiting.

Instead, the American military is now surrounded by jihadists, occupying a tiny node in the middle of a hostile civilization. I’ve posted earlier about the Internet-based coordination of the Islamic extremists: a whole new class of intellectual strategists has emerged thanks to the new medium. They’ve succeeded in leveraging connected intelligence for the purpose of formulating strategy. That’s why the war is going poorly: the enemy has the real technological advantage.

Your tribe is so entranced by images of warplanes silhouetted against sunsets that you can’t fathom that America has less power than her opponents.

In short, your way doesn’t work. But if the Democrats can’t turn things around with a more diplomatic strategy, I’m sure the Republicans will get another kick at the can, killing tens of thousands of innocent people, creating a million plus refugees, and bombing countries into the stone age.

if so . . . then what did the Baathish and Saddam share?? — any perspective here??

American leftists today are in no danger whatsoever. I would venture to say that a sleeker, fatter, wealthier, more self-satisfied Left has never existed in the history of leftistm. The “power” you “speak truth” to exists, in part, to make your lives more comfortable, and to insulate you from any negative consequences your speech and actions might entail in a less liberal and prosperous society.

There’s no bravery in bashing Bush or speaking out against the Iraq war, or leaving insulting comments on blogs. You’re not doing anything special - you’re simply exercising your rights as an American citizen, same as the rest of us. There’s no need to puff yourselves up and pretend you’re doing something transgressive and dangerous. Just say your peace and be satisfied.

By doing so, you will assure people that your statements proceed from your intellects, not from your egos. You might be taken more seriously that way.

The actual home of al Qaeda is Saudi Arabia. 95% of Saudis support bin laden, and the nation still sends millions to al Qaeda through ‘charities’ like Al Haramain.

We can’t win any war against terrorism, sharia, Islamofascism or al Qaeda while we’re allied with Saudis and their ilk, which is a fact that the right and the left refuse to face.

However, the fact that both the left and the right believe we should ally with our enemies proves that they don’t disagree about everything. That’s something.

The Right doesn’t use fear to gin up support amongst the Right, because the Right only support people who offer us the slab of meat we require. The right, including American Jacksonians and classical liberals, are bloodthirsty, they are not afraid of death.

So this prevents the Right from getting political support through the use of fear.They must offer some sacrificial lambs for that fear, and most often times it is the bodies of our enemies.

Seems to me like the left view is (to simplify): A is true, B is true, C isn’t working, therefore the logical thing to do is give up.

The right view tends to be: A is true, B is true, C isn’t working, therefore the logical thing to do is to keep trying C until it does work.

Left’s choice will defer the problem, fiddle with it, analyze it, discuss it with everyone, kiss some asses, during which time the problem will get worse until something extremely bad happens again.

Right’s choice will continue to not work, sink more lives and treasure into a black hole, use up what little political capital we have in the world, but possibly keep the fighting over there rather than over here.

Anybody got a Plan D?

Israeli Troops Fire on Women Shielding Militants, Killing One

But our relationship with SA does not negate the fact that Afghanistan was a center of terrorist activity and we should have decidedly finished what we started there before (if ever) going into Iraq.

(I have to say I love this new “Sun Tzu” anonymous, s/he is really telling it like it is.)

As for the “fear” factor, the reason for the accusation is so clear I don’t see how you cannot be being purposely obtuse not to get it.

It’s the fear of a man allergic to bees, lashing out wildly at flies.

It’s the fear that if we don’t get out there and show the world that we can kick some Arab ass, we’ll be perceived as “weak.”

It’s the fear that if we don’t look like we are doing something BIG against TERRORISTS, we will lose the power to further our extreme-right political agenda.

Yes Saddam was an evil man, and yes he violated the UN agreements, and yes he took potshots at our planes, and yes he had a nuclear centrifuge buried in his backyard, but that is all still a very low bar for justifying a US invasion.

Whether or not anyone actually used the term or not, the Bush Admin actually thought taking and rebuilding Iraq was going to be a cakewalk, (”weeks not months” = “gonna be a cakewalk”) an easy way to flex our muscle and show the “islamofascists” we are tough guys, so “bring it on” and we’ll “stay the course”. It hasn’t turned out that way and no matter how much you want to blame it on a “lack of unity” or “leftists” commenting on blogs or press bias, Bush has done this 100% his way, so suck it up. He’s swiped a fly off of a hornet’s nest with a $300 billion fly-swatter and the bees are still out there.

Is this rational? Does this make sense? Wouldn’t you say that following this idea has created more problems for us than we had before? The decision to attack Iraq, and your wholehearted support of it, seems more like blindly striking out at anyone who vaguely resembles the 9/11 criminals than a reasoned analysis of the situation.

*Their* actions, I believe, have been strongly motivated by fear. 9/11 revealed that the world’s a scary place, getting scarier, and that some tough choices would have to be made for liberal democracy to survive in it. Nearly all of which would challenge cherished tenets of the Left’s mythology.

Their response, essentially, has been to construct a fantasy world to live in, with a comprehensible enemy and plan of action: Evil Republicans are the root of everything bad in the world - destroy them, and everything will go back to the “normal” of 9/10 America.

It was simply time to go to war with Saddam and whn you go to war you go with what you have — the resolution was before the UN Security Council and it was either then or . . . when? Iraq had forfeited it’s sovereignty and was emploding as a state — and was on the verge of being envaded by Iran, saudi Arabia, and Turkey — which to the benefit of the Iraqi people is only happening in a small way thanks the US lead coalition holding them back, otherwise it would have been a Rowanda-like bloodbath, Saddam was also attacking a seeking to annex his neighbors, genocide against the Kurds and another who stepped out of line, harboring international terrorist, and running around weapons inspector over WMDs. If the world had listened to the Left then Saddam would still be in power, adding more bodies to mass graves, Kuwait would have been annexed, and furthermore going back few years, if the world had listened to the Left Bosnia would have been part of a greater Serbia and Kosovo would have been ethnically cleansed.

The members of the Bush administration, like Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and every other administration, Republican and Democrat have a close friend$hip with our Saudi allies.

Most members of the state department and most major universities have also received friendship/donations/bribes.

Anyway, speaking of the ‘fear factor’, research proves that Democrats are more easily frightened than Republicans:

The researchers had already zeroed in on those images and their effect among Democrats on the part of the brain that responds to threats and danger, the amygdala. Mr. Graham, like other Democrats tested so far, reacted to the Sept. 11 images with noticeably more activity in the amygdala than did the Republicans, said the lead researcher, Marco Iacoboni, an associate professor at the U.C.L.A. Neuropsychiatric Institute who directs a laboratory at the Ahmanson Lovelace Brain Mapping Center there.

…the researchers noted that same spike in amygdala activity when the Democrats watched the nuclear explosion in the “Daisy” spot, which promoted a Democrat.

Mr. Freedman suggested another interpretation based on his political experience: the theory that Democrats are generally more alarmed by any use of force than Republicans are. For now, Professor Iacoboni leans toward this second interpretation, though he is withholding judgment until the experiment is over.

Democrats interpret this as proof that they “care” more, but as far as I know, the amygdala is only responsible for the basic fear response. According to research, when Dems see something violent, they’re more likely to be scared

bugs, I agree wholeheartedly. I would only add that the ones who were Communist, a good number were, would have only imposed their form of totalitarian tyranny for that of the facist. The Comintern was ruled effectively by Stalin, so I could not call those I identified as freedom fighters. The others fighting the facists were, but not the Communists. I am not implying in anyway that you said they were freedom fighters.

“There’s no need to puff yourselves up and pretend you’re doing something transgressive and dangerous.”

Something the American left, and perhaps the European left, does too often. Remember Alec Baldwin saying how dangerous it was to speak out (to millions of people using the mass media)? Compare that to those who spoke out using samizdat for example, there was true danger and they knew it well.

Yeah, like common law is to the west. You couldn’t make this stuff up.

And Ariel, the US was actually “looking the other way” when Pol Pot killed 30% of the Cambodian population. You actually continued to recognise the Khmer Rouge throughout.

It was those nasty leftists that beat you out of Viet Nam that had to put a stop to it. Probably the only genuine just war in history.

There is no comparison between english common law and sharia. Pure simplistic, ignorant nonsense

You should read more closely, I pointed out that geopolitics get in the way, and the French, British, Russians, Germans, etc. all play the game. The Khmer Rouge and the Vietnamese were at odds by the time the killing fields blossomed with death. And yeah the US looked the other way, and that has absolutely nothing to do with Chomsky so good try at obfuscation and misdirection.

“Those nasty leftists…etc.”. Do you mean the ones that wear Mao t-shirts or Che?

On the contrary, there is an obvious parallel. Most islamic countries use the principles of sharia as the basis of their legal systems, as commonwealth countries do common law (which it can be argued came from christian tenets).

The strongly antIslamic (as I suspect you are) concentrate on the obscure and brutal aspects as written 16 centuries ago, and they love to point out interpretations of obscure fanatics to promote fear and loathing. The fact is that modern interpretations have evolved and few follow the fundamentalists. Sharia and democracy can live side by side.

Your position is arrogant and chauvanist.

Here’s some kinder, gentler shari’a:

“A Saudi court has sentenced a gang rape victim to 90 lashes of the whip because she was alone in a car with a man to whom she was not married.

The sentence was passed at the end of a trial in which the al- Qateef high criminal court convicted four Saudis convicted of the rape, sentencing them to prison terms and a total of 2,230 lashes.

The four, all married, were sentenced respectively to five years and 1,000 lashes, four years and 800 lashes, four years and 350 lashes, and one year and 80 lashes.

A fifth, married, man who was stated to have filmed the rape on his mobile phone still faces investigation. Two others alleged to have taken part in the rape evaded capture.

Saudi courts take marital status into account in sexual crimes. A male friend of the rape victim was also sentenced to 90 lashes for being alone with her in the car.

The court heard that the victim and her friend were followed by the assailants to their car, kidnapped and taken to a remote farm, where the raping occurred.

The victim was quoted by Okaz newspaper as saying she had expected harsher penalties for the assailants, especially as they had pleaded not guilty.

Her husband and family said that they would appeal to the court Saturday for harsher penalties for a crime which has shocked public opinion in Saudi Arabia and been the subject of months of debate.”

Now please shut up.

Good summation, it seems you’re finally starting to understand. But I have an even better summary of neocon attitudes: “Don’t tread on me.”

the Saudis are Salafist fundamentalists and very much a minority in the muslim world. Your example (if true) proves nothing about the value or otherwise of sharia in general, but is an indication of the brutality in Saudi Arabia (who are your dear leader’s closest friends).

As with all things, there are many interpretations and views and variations. Sharia, as a basis for the legal systems of islamic countries is nothing to be feared and frankly, none of America’s business.

It still enshrines Islamic supremecy, whether the jizya tax is applied or not. It is entirely religious law, no argument needed. And I do recognize that Islam is not monolithic. It is the rejection or serious reduction of Sharia that allows the democracies. Does Turkey have Sharia as the law of the land? Just curious.

The english common law evolved. It is not a religious law drawn from a religious work. Did Christian thought affect it?, certainly, but it is not a Christian religious document with God backing it.

My position is not multi-cultural, absolutely. Your’s reeks of it. As for “arrogant and chauvinist”, why would you think that charge would bother me? Your arguments are so poor as to waste my time, so such a charge has no standing with me. I do enough introspection to know my faults.

And I would apply the same charges and assessment to Christianity or any other religion if such was the case. I spent a good portion of my life against Christianity, why would I fear such a silly term as “antiislamic”, since I can judge any religion by what it does.

Your obvious parallel is for kindergarteners.

Update: I believe every case would be dismissed by you. Very telling. Not to be feared by you I am sure, but there are a lot of women, homosexuals, and apostates that do.
And, no, the Islamic world is welcome to Sharia, but then it will never be free either. And it is not welcome here as a legal system.

“. I do enough introspection to know my faults. ”

I find that hard to believe.

You come across as a shill for the extreme right. You know as well as I that sharia isn’t coming to america, so what is your problem?

Don’t pretend that you give a damn about muslim women or gays, please. You’re killing muslims by the hundreds of thousands, breaking their countries and stealing their resources, so please, don’t feign concern for them.

Not a christian but a classic liberal. Hmmm, let me see, a zionist fear monger.

Sharia is still religious law. I know very well the injustices that religious law is so very prone to, and it always has the backing of God. The Stalinist legal system was also very workable, for those on top.

Notice you left out apostates, very telling again. No arguments offered so far that are worth anything.

The rest is simply leftist boiler plate.

Again, the usual attempts at epithets are simply snorers. “Shill for the extreme right” is very funny given what I wrote to Gourney. You need to actually read without filters.

Last I saw, it was Shi’as killing Sunnis, not Americans. You know, muslims killing muslims. So don’t YOU “feign concern for them.”

And whose resources are we “stealing”? Don’t recall stealing anything from Iraq, Iran, or anywhere else. Seems to me we PAY for all of the oil I think you’re referring to.

It isn’t obvious to those who think in leftist boilerplate.

Oh, and spotter (I hope that isn’t a reference to that silly belief in being unclean ), Islam is also an overarching patriarchal, misogynist religion. But, hey, I didn’t write the Qu’ran, so its not my fault.

Only al Qaeda Saudis are Salafists. Salafism is influenced by Saudi Wahhabism, but it isn’t the same thing. Salafism is more influenced by Sayyid Qutb, and his version of Mein Kampf, “Milestones”, which claimed that good muslims must wage violent jihad in order to establish a worldwide Caliphate.

…and very much a minority in the muslim world.

According to non-Wahhabi Muslims, Saudi extremism influences more than 80% of the mosques in the United States. That figure is the same or higher in most mosques around the world.

I haven’t actually made an argument yet other than the clear statement of fact that sharia is open to interpretation that can and does serve as a basis of a workable legal system.

That’s not a statement of fact. If you knew anything about Sharia, you’d know that it hasn’t been open to interpretation (Ijtihad) for many centuries.

Sharia, as a basis for the legal systems of islamic countries is nothing to be feared and frankly, none of America’s business.

Sharia criminal laws, when enforced by an Islamic state, require misogyny, apartheid and in some cases genocide. They’re brutal when compared to every other legal system on the planet. States that are ruled by these laws are always dismal and/or failed states. The goal of Saudi and Iran-sponsored terrorist groups is to rule through Sharia, following Qutb’s direction.

The creation of more failed, brutal totalitarian states is everyone’s business.

since you are a humorless zealot, I assume you don’t get the irony of that statement..

Sorry you have to make things out of whole cloth to win your arguments with yourself. As for zionist provocateur and “stirring up religious hate and bigotry” those are keywords for Islamic shills and non-thinking multi-culturalists. And, yes, you are predictable. Sorry, but I know your kind (hey, I didn’t even need to come up with a nice little label for you, why bother).

No, you silly person you, I am an atheist and all religions are open to examination and criticism (thought I gave it away with “against Christianity”). That is free thought, free speech, that is freedom. To look at all beliefs and practices with a critical eye. But you aren’t for that are you, because that’s bigotry to you. How telling. Bet you stir up a little of the anti-Christian and anti-Judaism, come on you can be honest, you can do it.

As for the Sauds, I despise them, but hey baby that’s geopolitics for you. Be careful, though, and look to the skies, because geopolitics are fluid.

Honestly, I do not know who Roger Simon is and could care less. Must mean something in your world, but not mine.

I’ve spent more time on you than your worth, but hey it’s been fun.

Mary, you clearly have little knowledge of the reality based world. The muslim world just isn’t like you imagine it. You are living in a bigotted bubble world of unreality.

You should get out more.

After his “obvious parallel” which was nothing but nominal, they are both legal systems, duh, I couldn’t take him seriously, He proved me correct with the usual tiresome charges. When all else fails, scream “bigot, imperialist, zionist, etc.”, shame it doesn’t work any more. Sidney Hook cured me of the fear of “epithets of abuse”.

Glad you did take him seriously though.

One has only to look at his/her referenced “homepage” to see where his sympathies lie. I for one would much rather be a “bigoted Zionist imperialist” than an apologist for fanatical suicide bombers.

The reasoning on that site is like his “obvious parallel”, nominal with no insight but a lot of sophistry. Worthless.

The funniest thing was no mention of the Roman driven diaspora, wouldn’t sit well with his arguments, or lack thereof.

As for sharia and Europe, do you know what the word “demographics” means? At the current rate of replacement, most western European ethnic groups will be effectively gone in two centuries.

Finally, if you want to talk about lala land, or is it halal land, the “muslims, Christians, and jews lived in perfect harmony in Muslim lands” is a Muslim fantasy past. I know Assyrian and Armenian Christians, and have read some Coptic sites, that would call that pure BS. They knew the sword that constantly hung over their necks.

In the meantime somehting else to consider…

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/12/neocons200612

Oh, please…. I had to read that nonsense as a staff officer in the Army….

Sun Tzu is the Nostradamus of military thinking–his ‘principles’ can be used equally to justify of deny any course of action at all.

Pure swill for pseudo-intellectuals.

SLA Marshall’s writing is more scientific and holds up to history.

Thanks, Ariel - spotter is running out of whatever few arguments he had. it’s hard to stay serious..

Interestingly, I haven’t said anything about which you rant. And again you put out the nominal with no depth “mankind is a story of war and bloodshed”. Kindergarten stuff again.

And as for Muslim threat, the Christian west, the last part of Christendom not conquered by the sword of Islam, was a third world region that fought off Islam for nearly a thousand years until the Muslim world had fallen too far behind and too far into decay. If that region had then returned to the Muslim world the same courtesy, there would be no Muslim world.

“Steal their oil and still their land” is delusional. You’re so 1920s guy. Hey, just to let you know, movies have sound now. They even come on shiny discs, not those big reels of film.

I think I have more interest in freedom and liberty than you, and would probably want it for a lot more people than you. Because I am not full of hate like you are.

Islamic Imperialism: A History, by Efraim Karsh (Yale University Press, 288 pp., $30)

http://www.city-journal.org/html/rev2006-06-04td.html

Border’s Books won’t sell a magazine with a funny picture of Mohammed. Bacon is next…. The camel’s nose is already in the tent.

Don’t pretend that you give a damn about muslim women or gays, please.

I really, really don’t.

you’re killing muslims by the hundreds of thousands, breaking their countries and stealing their resources, so please, don’t feign concern for them.

And I wholly approve of it.

Just as the stone-age cultures in The Americas were rolled over by the European empires, the medieval Middle Eastern cultures will be rolled over by the Anglosphere.

It’s the way of the world….

Yeah, yeah–I’m a war monger…. Blah, blah genocide…

by Sandro Magister

http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=6985&eng=y

http://www.amilimani.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=2

http://historyofjihad.org/

http://www.homa.org/Details.asp?ContentID=2137352725&TOCID=2083225414

Islamic Evil
Bearing Witness to the Evil Done in the Name of Islam

http://kenlydell.typepad.com/islamic_evil/2006/09/todays_update_3.html

You are the hateful one.

Yes. More honest than you:

I know which side I fight on and I know why.

You won’t even admit you are on the side of the Musselmen and you certainly don’t know why.