First Live 8, then the G8, then the Olympics announcement, and now a terrorist attack. Great Britain has been the center of the news universe the last few days. Unfortunately, this latest news is bad news. Islamic terrorists have claimed credit for four bombings in London that have killed more than 40 people. Despite no scarcity of Western military targets in their own backyard, the terrorists chose to kill civilians in London. Is not today's operation a tacit admission of both cowardice and weakness?

Cowardice and weakness are two of many good words to describe this despicable act. In their minds, the bombers are fighting a war. But unlike soldiers, they wear the uniform of civilians and target the unarmed, unknowing and defenseless.

There can be nothing worse than this.

Unfortunately we have no other choice than to consider the dead and wounded casualties of war and move on to continue to identify and stop these savages.

Sad that innocent people will continue to die or be maimed as a result of senseless acts random or otherwise.

I don't normally care too much for Commentary magazine, but I thought the following appropriate given today's events:

From Daniel Johnson's essay "How to think about the crusades":
"Ibn Khaldun, the greatest of all Islamic historians and a key witness from the period just after the Crusades, compares Islam with Chritianity and Judaism in this respect: In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or force . . . The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty to them, save only for purposes of defense."

Insert "western (secular)nations" for "Christianity and Judaism" and "other religious groups" and the remark still holds.

How long until this story replays in New York or D.C.? Scary stuff.

Is this "a tacit admission of cowardice and weakness"? No. I don't think so. The targets in the Islamicts' backyard are easier to hit and are attracting many young men of varying dedication or impulsiveness. (Only about 4% of the insurgents held in Iraq are non-Iraqis.) It's a mark that the real terrorists are still serious about taking the fight to the West, and able to do so.

Besides, one of the big problems is that for many would-be Islamic terrorists, London is their back yard. Right?

I’ve got to ask why it takes what happened in London today for our government to upgrade the alert status for U.S. cities. Based on what happened on 9/11 (and since), shouldn’t we always be on high alert? I seems to me that being reactionary isn’t a very good way to protect ourselves and makes us all easy targets.

A terrible thing, my prayers go out to the victims and their families.

After this event, it should be evident to everyone that the "we're fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them in [insert US city here]" shtik is up now.

I hope supporters of the foreign policy status quo in Iraq and elsewhere do not exploit this attack to further their agenda of Empire and interventionism abroad but I am not optimistic. Having listened to Fox news talking heads shill for a stronger Patriot so our government saviors can "protect" us, I fully expect this to be used to continue on with the same old policies abroad and more constriction on freedoms at home in the name of "security."

‘After this event, it should be evident to everyone that the "we're fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them in [insert US city here]"’

James,

Problem is, there is an endless supply of terrorists and there always will be. So, that would mean that our troops will be over there indefinitely as there will always be an ample supply of warped individuals that will be drawn to terrorism. Wouldn’t nations be more effective in protecting themselves if they were more conscientious about getting tough with regards to internal national security and insuring their borders were better projected?

"Wouldn’t nations be more effective in protecting themselves if they were more conscientious about getting tough with regards to internal national security and insuring their borders were better projected?"

asdf,

You ask an excellent question regarding the border situation. I definitely think a more effective protection strategy would involve a more secure border. Of course, as you know, our President, and many of his partisans, don't agree with that.

With regards to "internal security," the British, via their anti-terrorism legislation, have taken a scalpel to the "Rights of the Englishman" and despite all of that the terrorists still brought off an attack. Moreover, citizens in nations where governments can invade private homes without a warrant and imprison without legal process indefinitely are neither "secure" nor free.

I am certainly an advocate and supporter of our freedoms and would defend the laws that protect them. However, we can’t have it all ways. The World has changed and if it means that some of our rights and the protection of those freedoms have to be skirted in situations where our safety may be at risk, then so be it.

It hurts to say that because in a perfect world, the rules would not need to be bent and we would not need to walk the line to know how far and in what situations we should allow laws to be circumvented and when it’s enough. But, it is what it is and to make our country more secure, agencies need to have the power to do whatever it takes to insure we’re not going to be attacked from within.

Am I the only one that was disturbed by Tony Blair's press conference immediately following the bombings? Isn't the sight of grown man crying (or nearly crying) the last thing you want to see on TV during a national tradegy? It hardly seems like the time to show us his "sensitive side". At worst, it just proves the Islamists right in thinking that the West are a bunch of pussys.

That's probably the way Bill Clinton would have reacted had he been President during the 9/11 crisis.

Regarding asdf's willingness to trade liberty for security: I know this sounds terribly insensitive, but about 100 Englishmen have died in terrorist attacks on English soil in the last 30 years, as far as I know (most of those at the hands of the Irish). Is 100 murders worth giving up basic Rights of Englishmen, (as James pointed out) like the demand for a writ of habeus corpus and a search warrant? Many more than 100 Americans died in the revolution to preserve the rights of Englishmen for themselves.

The problem here is that our governments are more willing to spend our money, curb our liberties, and kill random Muslim men abroad, than do very simple things that would pay off much more security-wise -- e.g., curb the immigration of muslim men.

God love ya’ Short. That’s what being driven at here and what needs to be said.

But, you know the drill: you can’t ‘profile’ and you can’t skirt around the liberties of some without including all. Even if it’s for the common good and safety of the majority. At least that’s the way it seems to work in 05’.

Eventually, we will be forced to make the hard, common sense decisions and one of a number of those decisions will be that we will need to ‘profile’. And we will need to be tough on ‘suspects’ and if necessary, we will need to imprison or deport those suspects without due process of the law.

Bottom line is, if we don’t start getting tougher and drop the political correctness that infects this country, our lives will be at risk.

Short has an excellent point.

Freedom and security are often played off each other as if they are trade-offs where you have to have less of one if you have more of another but I don't see them having to work that way at all. Often the more hardcore libertarian types will take a "skit happens" attitude of dismissing security concerns in their defense of freedoms, while the other side will regard concerns for civil rights as petty grievances compared to the actual risk of deaths occurring.

But, a more prudent approach would be an honest targeted response towards those who are clearly dangerous, as well as resolution of the causes of terrorism which we can actually control. I am sure we can come up with any number of correct courses of action which in no way imperil the freedom and civil rights of our citizens but still effectively secure the country to the extent that it is ever possible to do so.

These men are sub-vermin.

I am sick and tired of kissing Muslims' asses, which seems to occur after every act of savagery. Blair said, "We know that these people act in the name of Islam but we also know that the vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims here and abroad are decent and law-abiding people who abhor those who do this every bit as much as we do." Okay, I know. I hope it's true. And I'm glad that many Muslim groups in the UK came out and called the attacks "barbaric". But they're the ones who need to be on the defensive, not us.

So I agree, to an extent, with short and Brian. My suggestion is to take the Patriot Act off the books -- except for Muslims. People will say, "It's not right to profile people by their ethnicity! Also, you'll end up losing white guys like John Walker Linde." But that's the point -- it's not ethnicity, it's religion. Christian Arabs aren't strapping bombs around their waists.

But, unlike short, I definitely believe we need to continue to kill these terrorist animals all over the world. (Also, short, if you're suggesting that the majority of insurgents are Iraqis, you're factually wrong.)

Ben, the article you cite actually contradicts your assertion that the majority of insurgents aren't Iraqis.

From the CBS News piece: "'I still think 80 percent of the insurgency, the day to day activity, is Iraqi — the roadside bombings, mortars, direct weapons fire, rifle fire, automatic weapons fire,' said Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East expert with the Congressional Research Service, which advises U.S. lawmakers."

Actually, I took the number %4 from something I read yesterday about the people who have been detained in Iraq; now that was sloppy of me to assume that identified insurgents, but it's a good indicator. OF COURSE most of the insurgent in Iraq are Iraqis.

Short, "insurgents" by definition have to be in their own country. So it's a misleading term, and I was mistaken to use it. My point was that the majority of people who are killing Americans and even Iraqis are non-Iraqi ("less than 10 percent of more than 500 suicide attacks have been carried out by Iraqis") including the man who seems to be the ringleader, Zarqawi.

(I meant to say: It's a misleading term in the context of this war.)

Ben, the article you cite actually contradicts your assertion that the majority of insurgents aren't Iraqis.

From the CBS News piece: "'I still think 80 percent of the insurgency, the day to day activity, is Iraqi — the roadside bombings, mortars, direct weapons fire, rifle fire, automatic weapons fire,' said Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East expert with the Congressional Research Service, which advises U.S. lawmakers."

Actually, I took the number %4 from something I read yesterday about the people who have been detained in Iraq; now that was sloppy of me to assume that identified insurgents, but it's a good indicator. OF COURSE most of the insurgent in Iraq are Iraqis.
Posted by short at July 7, 2005 07:23 PM

It is worth it to note that the majority of the Insurgents cannon fodder is Iraqi born.

More important is the equally obvious fact that the leadership of the Insurgency mainly comes from Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, a Jordanian born Al Qaeda agent whom Osama Bin Laden Named the Emir of Iraq, and the funding, training, and security for the Insurgency is coming from Syrian intelligence.

Bankrolled by Syria, lead by Al Qaeda. About the only thing Iraqi about the Iraqi Insurgency is the citizenry that needlessly suffers.

I (fortunately, for a very short time) am currently living in DC, the most likely target for a terrorist attack. I'm still much more worried about being a victim of mugging gone wrong than I am about a terrorist attack. I was just in New York City a few weeks ago, and I felt the exact same way. There are over 15,000 murders every year in this country, that's 5 9-11s.

Most of the Muslims in this country that I have come across seem to be non-radical, well behaved, and own the ethnic restaraunts, cabs, etc.etc. that most immigration enthusiasts seem to be wild about. If you look at this backgrounder from the CIS on Muslim immigrants, you will see that they tend to be more educated, better behaved, and more prosperous than most other immigrants; certainly hispanics, and even some Asian groups. Furthermore, many countries such as Egypt outperform white Americans just like your exalted West Indians do.

Not a single Islamic terrorist in the US (this is not just 9-11, but the first WTC attacks, African Embassy Bombings, the attack on the CIA, the Millenium attempt and the earlier NY attempt) was a second generation American citizen. Only one 9-11 terrorist was even a naturalized citizen, so it seems to me that the problem could be solved much more easily by simply restricting muslim immigration, which should be done for a variety of other reasons, without trampling on the constitution.

The quality of Muslim immigrants is much lower in Europe, the quantity is much higher, and I'd wager a large sum of money that many of the recent terrorists were 2nd or even 3rd generation British, so I'm not saying these apply to them in anyway, but the situation is very different here.

It is common sense to racially profile arabs in certain situations, and to restrict their immigration to this country. Still, I find it ridiculous that people like Mr. Lichtman will scream about blacks being "2nd class citizens" and derride anyone who says anything nice about the pre-MLK South, while having no problem treating muslims like second class citizens.

Ben T will be beleieve whatever flatters his ideology.

US Gov't numbers reported 3 days ago: "Suspected foreign fighters account for less than 2% of the 5,700 captives being held as security threats in Iraq, a strong indication that Iraqis are largely responsible for the stubborn insurgency."
(http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-05-detainees-usat_x.htm)

Bens, it's a fantasy to think that Iraq is a brilliant strategy to stop terrorist attacks in the West. Not only have we killed far more Iraqi civilians accidentally than al Qaeda killed at 9-11 and Bali and Madrid combined, but the fighters in Iraq are mostly Iraqis, and borderline would-be terrorists elsewhere can more easily believe that their holy war is defensive.

Besides, the London Bombers are now believed to be "home-grown", right? Immigration control and monitoring and acculturation of Muslims here is the best, most cost-effective, least deadly way to reduce terrorism in the West.

I find it ridiculous that people like Mr. Lichtman will scream about blacks being "2nd class citizens" and derride anyone who says anything nice about the pre-MLK South, while having no problem treating muslims like second class citizens.

Blacks never flew planes into the twin towers. (Also, Marcus: Blacks in the south didn't have major terrorist groups, whites did.) This wouldn't be treating Muslims like 2nd-class citizens, it would be using common sense to thwart an enemy and lessen the impact (in terms of loss of civil liberties) suffered by those of us virtually guaranteed not to be involved in any way in terrorist networks.

I am fine with restricting Muslim immigration until the threat of terrorism abates.

Short -- Nation-building aside, do you think we should we do any attacking/searching/bombing/etc. abroad?

You are clearly missing my point. I never said I was worried about Blacks crashing planes into buildings, and that's why I'm not saying that you should racially profile blacks going onto airplanes, where they are not the likely terrorists. However there are many other crimes, where blacks, especially young black men, disproportionately commit. Among them are murder, rape, and muggings particuarly in cities. I myself am much more worried about those crimes than I am about terrorism, even though I'm in DC.

Finally, saying that we should apply a law that restricts civil liberties to one group and not the rest of the population, I think would qualifiy as making them second class citizens. I'm curious how you define the term.

Are you denying the leadership for the Insurgency is provided by Abu Musab Al Zarqawi? Your denying a basic reality.

Are you denying that there are many Insurgent staging areas inside Syria, and that it is Syrian money buying these people their equipment? Again your denying a basic reality.

Nobody debated you that the foot level cannon fodder of the Insurgency was Iraqi by nature. Nobody debated you that the majority of the Insurgency is Iraqi. Well, Sunni actually.

And we don't think it's a "BRILLIANT STRATEGY TO STOP ALL TERROR ATTACKS" you are simply incapable of arguing against anything but strawmen.

I've had this debate with you numerous times, it always ends with you basically running from the thread.

We must know our enemy to defeat him, that's a very reasonable conclusion, correct? Reagan knew his enemy, the Soviet Union, would try to outrun him if he stepped up the arms race. He also knew the Soviet Union could not keep up, and he predicted it would lead to their fall. He was of course right, and it did.

So who is our enemy today? One might be tempted to say "Osama Bin Laden" and they would be right, at one level. But capturing Bin Laden and bringing him to justice would not accomplish a whole lot in the end. Even if we somehow managed to dismantle the massive, sprawling and loose confederation that is Al Qaeda (and there is very little chance that that task is even possible.) all it would mean is next time we would get bombed by Egyptian Islamic Jihad, The AZF, Or the Armed Islamic Group instead. Not exactly what I would term real progress.

Of course we could introduce 'immigration control' (By which you mean never letting Muslims into the US, as that is the only effective way of stopping terror attacks.) Introduce American Muslims to forced acculturation and survellaince, and hope the problem never reaches our shores, but seeing as the "Let's wall ourselves off!" Solution has failed every single time it has ever been implemented in American history, I am not too enthusiastic about it.

So how can we win? Who IS our enemy? I mean if it isn't Bin Laden, then who?

Young Arab men are our enemy. Some of us will notice that the same basic paradigm leads to terrorists. There is in effect basically a Jihad factory in the Middle East. Young men in the region are, like everyone else, economically desperate and societally disconnected. They are well aware that this is because of their repressive government, whichever one it is this time, which has walled of their society and ruined their economy with statist policies. Thanks to the information age of Globalization, they are quite capable of looking beyond their borders to the west, and seeing that the rest of the world lives much better than they do.

Unable to protest against their repressive government for obvious reasons, they turn to the one place where they ARE safe to express themselves. The Mosque. This is because the vast majority of Arab governments have made a dark pact with Muslim extremists. "I'll let you control our education systems and preach your dangerous ideology in our Mosques, so long as you don't target me."

This fits in quite perfectly with the long time tactic used by most Arab dictatorships of deflecting the faults of themselves, their governmetns, and more or less all the world onto Israel, the west, and the United States, as a way of avoiding that criticism themselves.

So you have a perfect recipe for a Jihad factory. Young Arab man, angry at the system, turned to the Mosque to talk about how angry he is, is quickly informed by his Mullahs that it's all Israel and America's fault, this message is pretty much re-asserted through all of his environment, he eventually ends up under a big Osama I WANT YOU FOR THE JIHAD poster and eventually 3,000 Americans or forty something Londoners or however many Israelis it is today get killed.

So eventually it all comes back to the Dictatorships. Economic desperation is the breeding ground for radicalism of all kinds. That economic desperation cannot be fought while repressive Dictatorships hellbent on resisting Globalization, the best tool for fighting economic desperation in the history of the human race, sit in the halls of power.

The only way to combat this self replicating Jihad factory is to introduce democracy, spread globalization, and help heal the region. It's not going to be easy. It's not going to be short. It's going to be long and hard. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, I have nothing to offer you but blood, sweat and tears.

But it's a HELL of a lot better than walling ourselves off, putting Muslim-Americans under 24/7 survellaince, and hoping, just HOPING that one of them doesn't get through, and more Americans don't die. Because there are a lot of people in the Arab world, and there are a lot of young men. And the vast majority of them are beng trained day in and day out to join the Jihad and help fight the infidels. Aid in the struggle against the Jews and the Crusaders.

With a lot of hard work we could turn that region into a place where economic trade is fruitful, Globalization is integrated, democracy is the norm, and young Arab males grow up with other solutions for their life problems than strapping C4 to their chest or hijacking a plane.

Or we could put a bullet in Bin Laden's head and leave. The first part I am entirely in support of. The second part would prove to be our doom, simply walking away from the problem and not dealing with it when we had the chance. Just like we walked away from Europe after World War I. The paradigm would be the same. The boil on the world's existance that is the Middle East today would continue to fester, and grow, until eventually it burst. I don't want to be around for the burst. Instead I would rather introduce democracy to the region, introduce Globalization to the region, and do what we can to help it grow and spread.

George Walker Bush never convinced me that Iraq had WMDs and that we had to act fast to get them out of there.

What I was convinced of, was that if we wanted to have any hope of winning the War on Terror we had to reform the Middle East. I was equally convinced that Saddam Hussein was a direct and dangerous block to any reform that might take place there, having been the Middle East's most perennial problem causer and most ambitious dictator for decades. I was convinced that Saddam Hussein had to be removed SOMETIME, and if the Bush administration wanted to do it in the Spring of 2003 that was as good a time as any.

Something tells me you won't be getting raped any time soon, Marcus.

Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of victims of black murderers are black themselves (the same is true of white murderers).

Do you go around your daily life shivering in fear of the big, black boogeyman?

Finally, saying that we should apply a law that restricts civil liberties to one group and not the rest of the population, I think would qualifiy as making them second class citizens. I'm curious how you define the term.

I think paleoconservatives are actually retarded. Are you guys mentally incapable of thinking with a continuum in mind? Previously, you've made the patently absurd claim that whites and blacks have simply switched positions -- the implication being that whites today suffer needlessly under harsh government restrictions just like blacks used to!

Now, you suggest that my proposals would make Muslims second-class citizens. Nothing I said approaches denying their right to vote, their right to go to school wherever they wish, their right to date or marry non-Muslims, etc. Those are hallmarks of "2nd class citizen" treatment. I am not advocating WWII-style internment, just common sense measures.

Nobody debated you that the majority of the Insurgency is Iraqi.

I did make that mistake initially, but corrected myself afterward.

Your huge plan is for the US government to "shut down the jihad factory" and "reform the middle east." Rational people deliberate about the possible under their control--not about the impossible, or about what's not under their control.

Yes, Ben T, I'm "running from the thread" because you have humiliated me so badly. I repeat: Ben T will be beleive whatever flatters his ideology.

Your huge plan is for the US government to "shut down the jihad factory" and "reform the middle east." Rational people deliberate about the possible under their control--not about the impossible, or about what's not under their control.

Yes, Ben T, I'm "running from the thread" because you have humiliated me so badly. I repeat: Ben T will be beleive whatever flatters his ideology.
Posted by short at July 8, 2005 12:59 PM

Please give me a reason why it is not in the realm of control for the United States to remove key Middle Eastern governmetns it deems a strategic threat, and through the encouraging of foreign direct investment promote economic growth in the Middle East that will inevitably lead to democratic rule and the de-radicalization of their societies?

But that can't be done right? Economic influence could NEVER de-radicalize a society or cause it to be less of a threat! I have some Asian Tigers I would like you to meet.

Something tells me you won't be getting raped any time soon, Marcus.

I have not been the victim of much crime, as I was fortunate to grow up in an affluent suburb. Nonetheless, I went to high school in the district of columbia, and had a great deal of friends who lived in Capital Hill and being there at night I had the misfortune of having someone attempt to steal my car at knifepoint. I'm not that worried about crime, but I'm much less worried about terrorism.

I'm guessign you won't be killed by a terrorist, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't be concerned about it.

Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of victims of black murderers are black themselves (the same is true of white murderers).

First of all, contrary to what you may think I believe, I happen to care about all victims of crime, black and white.

Secondly, you are simply wrong. Although blacks are proportionately more likely to commit crimes against fellow blacks, there is more black on white crime than black on black crime, and for that matter white on white violent crime. Finally, 90% of all interracial crime is black against white, accounting for the fact that whites make up 74% of the population and blacks make up 12, that means that blacks are 250 times more likely to commit interracial crime than whites.

Do you go around your daily life shivering in fear of the big, black boogeyman?

No, I'm simply pointing to the obvious fact that I'm much more likely to be killed, much less the victim of a violent crime, from interracial street crime than a terrrorist attack. This is a simple statistical fact, rather than my irrational fears. The real question is "Do you go around your daily life shivering in fear of the big, muslim boogeyman?"

I think paleoconservatives are actually retarded. Are you guys mentally incapable of thinking with a continuum in mind?

And you accuse paleoconservatives of making ad hominem attacks?

Previously, you've made the patently absurd claim that whites and blacks have simply switched positions -- the implication being that whites today suffer needlessly under harsh government restrictions just like blacks used to!

Now, you suggest that my proposals would make Muslims second-class citizens. Nothing I said approaches denying their right to vote, their right to go to school wherever they wish, their right to date or marry non-Muslims, etc. Those are hallmarks of "2nd class citizen" treatment. I am not advocating WWII-style internment, just common sense measures.

Here's the real question. If what you wished for America to do to muslims were applied to blacks, or hell, you would strongly object as your earlier statements accusing me of being afraid of "The big black boogeyman" show.

Ben T: I am suggesting that "reforming the middle east" and "shutting down the jihad factory" are not in the realm of things under the control of the US Government. Why? Because there are broad cultural, religious, political and economic causes of their current situation. Moreover, all of these issues are intertwined. US force and money won't fix it. Moreover, it could make things worse--given that the political situation is largely one of resenting the West for being better in some ways while so much worse morally and religiously, in their eyes. We can easily create resentment without doing any long term good politically, culturally and religiously.

I'm not saying your goal of "reforming the Middle East" and improving their economics, and "shutting down the jihad factory" is impossible, I'm saying it's not something OUR GOVERNMENT can do. Our government can't solve the racial divisions here, why the heck do you think it could solve such massive religious, ethnic, cultural problems there?

Although blacks are proportionately more likely to commit crimes against fellow blacks, there is more black on white crime than black on black crime

I don't know what the statistics are for robbery and other crimes, but my point was specifically about murder rates. I'm almost certain I've read (I think it was in D'Souza's "The End of Racism") that 95% of victims of black murderers are black. (As you said, this isn't a good thing, obviously, but I was responding to what I perceived to be your personal fear. Perhaps I was mistaken about that.) Show me some proof for your claim that I'm wrong.

The real question is "Do you go around your daily life shivering in fear of the big, muslim boogeyman?"

No. I'm going to New York City next month for college, and I intend to stay there for a healthy chunk of my life.

Here's the real question. If what you wished for America to do to muslims were applied to blacks, or hell, you would strongly object as your earlier statements accusing me of being afraid of "The big black boogeyman" show.

That's not a question, but to address your point: Blacks did not take down the World Trade Center and destroy a wing of the Pentagon. Muslims did. Because of these acts of war, we are entitled to take minor measures on the home front to reduce the risk of such atrocious acts re-occurring. These minor measures are pretty much summed up with: intelligence gathering and religious/racial-profiling at airports. (Actually, though, the profiling might not even be necessary if we would just permit people to bring guns onto airplanes. Penn Jillette suggested this idea. I originally thought it was funny/crazy, but the more I considered it, the more I find it less and less absurd.)

> I'm not saying your goal of "reforming the Middle East" and improving their
> economics, and "shutting down the jihad factory" is impossible, I'm saying it's
> not something OUR GOVERNMENT can do. Our government can't solve the racial
> divisions here, why the heck do you think it could solve such massive
> religious, ethnic, cultural problems there?

Yes Short, but the question becomes, "Who else is there?" The EU have the same mentality that a Syrian quoted in his blog about the current chaos being caused by the divisions between incompetent reformers and radicals, both of which the general populace is avoiding like the plague, since they don't want to get bitten by either side. He described the view of most of Syria as, "Don't rock the boat, even if it is already sinking." The EU is the same way. They don't have the resources, the manpower or the will to do it. China would just as soon as see everyone else fail. Africa is almost as bad as the ME and radical Islam is being imported into there, since its ripe for the picking. Places like New Zeland are screaming about the poor muslims, while peeing on the US and its allies. Australia 'and' New Zeland have had Shiria clerics asking for special Shiria courts and New Zeland 'may' even grant it, along with the right to stone women to death, all the while insisting its the US that is full of corrupt muderers. We may be the last people in the world, given out past involvement in puting some of these nuts into power, to do anything, ***but*** there is no one else militarially able, willing to rock the boat or sufficiently able to abandon morally questionable financial connections to these contries that *can*.

Oh yes, then there is Russia, which is still falling apart, or the UN, which has to rely on the US for troops and is primarilly controlled by the very countries that don't want the boat to be rocked...

Yep, I would love to see a solution some place or a country other than the US under 'God Wants Bush' to work on reforming things over there. But all I see is a lot of countries that think 'reform' means selling broken nuclear reactors to Saddam or stealing money from relief funds. Countries that if told, "we need to encourage these people to change", would immediately cry, "But its not our business!", "No, we just need to 'understand' them better. They wouldn't attack us if we understood them!", or worse, "But if we do that I would lose money!!"

Ben T: I am suggesting that "reforming the middle east" and "shutting down the jihad factory" are not in the realm of things under the control of the US Government. Why? Because there are broad cultural, religious, political and economic causes of their current situation. Moreover, all of these issues are intertwined. US force and money won't fix it. Moreover, it could make things worse--given that the political situation is largely one of resenting the West for being better in some ways while so much worse morally and religiously, in their eyes. We can easily create resentment without doing any long term good politically, culturally and religiously.

I'm not saying your goal of "reforming the Middle East" and improving their economics, and "shutting down the jihad factory" is impossible, I'm saying it's not something OUR GOVERNMENT can do. Our government can't solve the racial divisions here, why the heck do you think it could solve such massive religious, ethnic, cultural problems there?
Posted by short at July 8, 2005 02:17 PM

Nobody is debating that the problems are "deep rooted"

Deep rooted doesn't mean unfixable. The one and only reason Radicalism finds root in the Middle East is because of the economic desperation that society exists in. Radicalism, like crime, DOES NOT FIND A BREEDING GROUND in Economically succesfull areas. As such the best way to deal with the problem is to integrate Globalization and economig growth into the region and help Democracy gain a foothold there.

That doesn't mean an Iraq war for every repressive nation in the Middle East and to suggest it does is an alarmist strawman.

That doesn't mean they will all fall in love with the west. Nor should it. What it means is that they won't hate us enough to kill three thousand of us for no real reason, to blow up our ships in their ports, to attack our embassies, et cetera.

Ben T and Kahegi are making the same, quite frankly, idiotic mistake: thinking the US gov't has a moral responsibility to do the impossible.

I said that X was not within the realm of possible things our government could accomplish. Kagehi agrees, and then says not there's not one else to do it, so we have to. Hmmm. Logical.

I point out that economics aren't the cause and won't solve the problems of the middle east. Ben T goes on a rant saying economic desparation is a necessary condition for crime and radicalism. Whatever. That's a liberal materialist garbage of a premise. Of the 19 hijackers, how many were from poor families? How many were poor in the years leading up to their crimes?

Yes why listen to logic? Throw it all out the window! Then point to some ecomomically affluent societies where crime flourishes. Then point to some economically affluent, globalized societies in the world where political radicalism flourishes.

Oh wait you can't. Of course economics are the cause, educate yourself. Economics were the reason the Nazis rose to power, Economics were the reason the Communists rose to power, and Economics are the reason Islamists are rising to power in the Middle East.

The Germans didn't support the Nazis because of "many complex societal and cultural causes." They supported the Nazis because of the massive inflation of the Weimar Republic. Hitler gave them an enemy to identify with (The Jews) and a promise for deliverance. Lenin gave the Russians an enemy to identify with (Capitalism as represented by the Tsars) and a promise for deliverance. It was the same promise Mao made, Nasser made, Khomenini made, Castro made, and Bin Laden has made. Bin Laden has given the enemy (The West) and made the Promise for Deliverance ( A utopian Islamic Empire where Wahabbism is the rule of the day.)

He has put his "Future Worth Creating" out on the Market of ideas. We have to compete if we want to win this war.

Wow Short you're loving the strawmen today. I don't believe the United States government has any moral responsibility to do anything in it's foreign policy other than ensure the National Security of the United States and ensure the protection of the United States' foreign interests. I am simply capable of long term strategic forethought.

Short must stand for short sighted.

"Of course economics are the cause, educate yourself." -Ben T

BT: You are an economic determinist, it seems. You're in good company; other major figures who agree with you are Marx, Lenin, Charles Beard, and every sobby liberal woman who favors going easy on murderers. For my part, I disagree; in fact that's the stupidest history of the 20th century I've heard since high school.

Also, educate YOURself! In English one does not join two independent clauses with a mere comma.

I'm out.

"Hey look, radicalism flourishes in Economically desperate societies." Is an observation. It is not comparable to Communism.

You're a joke. But why debate when you can build a strawman. Sure, the history of the world is on my sad, but you can still fling sloppy ad hominems!

side*

Short,

Why does one have to be grouped with Karl Marx, Charles Beard (he urged FDR to stay out of WWII -- why isn't he a hero to paleocons?), and those leftists who support eviscerating the justice system to make the statement that people with opportunity and hope for a better life tend not to strap bombs around their waists? You would be absolutely right if we were simply giving Middle-Eastern Muslims welfare checks. We're not giving them money; we're giving them opportunity.

Historically, why is T's interpretation so "stupid"? Take the example of Germany. It is not so controversial to suggest that the economic situation in Germany, because of war debts and the Depression, helped paved the way for Hitler. I've seen variations on this theme from brilliant people like Hayek and Sowell.

But, anyways, I support giving the death penalty to proven murderers and rapists. I'm a free-market zealot. What, again, is my link to Marx and Lenin? (Even if they would've agreed with my italicized statement above, why does that make it inherently wrong? Because it doesn't have proper Conservative credentials?) Why is it that I'm scoffed at and called Machiavellian by loony old Confederates when illustrating the obvious link between the Old Right and the far Left, yet your (and others') suggestions that we're similar to Marx, progressives, etc. are passed off so nonchalantly, if not particular sensibly?

T and L: you two are clearly the ad hominem-ers.
"Economic deteminist" is an attempt to accurately label your views; am I wrong that T espoused economic determinism, and now L seems to be embracing these views as well? In response to my label, you have both claimed that economics caused the major events of the 20th century. So far you two have only confirmed my hunch. (Aside: BL, Of course the economic determinist views of these are events are "uncontroversial"--mainline history is written by mainstream American liberals. Also, I didn't deny the influence of economics, I denied its _total_ influence.)

I grouped Ben T with other people who blatantly fit the same descriptor, "economic determinist." I did not say he was a Marxist or a sobby liberal. I was attempting to point out that "economic determinism" is a major feature of these douchebag leftist views, and I was hoping that would shame BT into thinking twice about where he got this inclination to see economics as the cause of human political and historical problems.

This is not a political disagreement--it is a disagreement in what's called "philosophical anthropology." Is man (as Marx boldy proclaimed) completely material and determined in his beliefs and actions and relationships completely by his material side? (BTW Ben T, if you chose to be an economic determinist, as your view of history and politics seems to lean in this argument, you cannot be Catholic. That's not an excommunication or anything, because I obviously don't have any authority; it's just a warning: "Iceberg Ahead!") I would say, that to respond to communism with another form of materialism is insufficient, because man is more than matter: I think Solzenheizyn might really hit the spot here.
http://www.americanpolitics.com/vulgarshrub2.jpg

Peace!

"T and L: you two are clearly the ad hominem-ers.
"Economic deteminist" is an attempt to accurately label your views; am I wrong that T espoused economic determinism, and now L seems to be embracing these views as well? In response to my label, you have both claimed that economics caused the major events of the 20th century. So far you two have only confirmed my hunch. (Aside: BL, Of course the economic determinist views of these are events are "uncontroversial"--mainline history is written by mainstream American liberals. Also, I didn't deny the influence of economics, I denied its _total_ influence.)"

-Short

Yes, you are as usual wrong. I made an observation. You didn't like it, you compared me to Marx. Standard knee jerk reaction from you.

Of course economics does not have total influence over our society. Now point out some economically affluent societies where radicalism and extremism are the norm. The best example in the world is China, and that's a sad state of affairs for your side of the argument.

"This is not a political disagreement--it is a disagreement in what's called "philosophical anthropology." Is man (as Marx boldy proclaimed) completely material and determined in his beliefs and actions and relationships completely by his material side? (BTW Ben T, if you chose to be an economic determinist, as your view of history and politics seems to lean in this argument, you cannot be Catholic. That's not an excommunication or anything, because I obviously don't have any authority; it's just a warning: "Iceberg Ahead!") I would say, that to respond to communism with another form of materialism is insufficient, because man is more than matter: I think Solzenheizyn might really hit the spot here.
http://www.americanpolitics.com/vulgarshrub2.jpg

Peace!"

-Short

The looming specter of excommunication dare I dissent! Oh noes! Report me to Pope Benedict and we'll see.

No man is not entirely determined by his economic standards, nor did I say that. Alarmism, blowing an argument out of proportion, sloppy strawman. I know you can do better than this.

But again, we can look at world history and see that radicalism find it's spawning pool in economically desperate societies, not economically affluent ones. Believe or not, people who have opportunities and a real chance to make a better life for themselves generally don't strap C4 to their chest and blow up Cafes. Desperate measures are not used by those who aren't desperate.

No then, go ahead and tell me all about how I'm just SO Marxian some more, and I'll go ahead and keep advocating policies that will result in the spread of free societies, free markets, and the fufillment of US interests.

Ben T: I've gotten what I was after and what you had denied me for days-- an admission that it isn't all economics.

I pointed out that the problem in the middle east wasn't all economics, and then you went on several tirades that it was. When I tried to get you to admit that not all historical and political problems were economic, you told me "educate myself" and gave me a breif history of the 20th century in which everything was caused by economics. Then I pointed out that you were espousing economic deterministic positions, you continued to make fun of me for disagreeing with you rather than simply saying, 'OK, economics are the only problem, and aren't the total solution.' Now you have finally said what I was after: Humans, humans' problem, and solutions to humans' problems aren't all economic. Good. We agree.

Now, will you further admit that you overstated the case when you said of Muslim terrorism that "economics are the cause"? Will you admit that economics isn't "the" solution to the Middle East political/cultural/religious mess?

Short,

Why do you think in extremes? Only a complete moron would suggest that the problems in any place in the world are caused by any single factor, and although you may think so, neither T nor I are complete morons. The question is: what factor has the greatest deal of influence?

Ben Lichtman: the question is not, Why do I think in extremes? I just think ahead a few steps. The question is, Why does Ben T speak in extremes? If he can't follow through what he says to their logical conclusions, he shouldn't say it. He wants to believe that economics is "the cause" of terrorism, because then the problem is easy to solve. Unfortunately for Ben T, one needn't look further than Bin Laden himself too see that "economic desperation" is not the cause of terrorism.

one needn't look further than Bin Laden himself too see that "economic desperation" is not the cause of terrorism.

Short, I think you're missing the point. It is my belief (and I think it is shared by Benny T) that desperation -- of the economic and political sort -- is the reason why Bin Laden appeals to such a wide audience in the Muslim world. It isn't the reason why he exists. He exists because evil exists.

Actually, T and L, it's not just bin Laden. Terrorist-recruits in general, and support for terrorism more generally, doesn't seem to positively correlate with poverty.

I suspect that there is some truth to the idea that a sucky economy would encourage terrorism, but obviously the connection -- if it exists at all -- is not strong enough to show up in studies. (From what I can find, the Alan B. Krueger and Jitka Maleckova 2002 study "Education, Poverty, Political Violence and Terrorism: Is There a Causal Connection?" is the most serious study, though I've only read a summary.)

Terrorist-recruits in general, and support for terrorism more generally, doesn't seem to positively correlate with poverty.

I just want to re-state my view: terrorism, and fanaticism in general, thrives in a hopeless setting. It's more than merely being broke. I believe democratizing and opening up the Muslim world will counter-act that. If Iraq falls apart, I'm wrong and we should never attempt anything comparable.

On to the abstract of that study...

The paper investigates whether there is a causal link between poverty or low education and participation in politically motivated violence and terrorist activities. After presenting a discussion of theoretical issues, we review evidence on the determinants of hate crimes. This literature finds that the occurrence of hate crimes is largely independent of economic conditions. Next we ana1yze data on support for attacks against Israeli targets from public opinion polls conducted in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. These polls indicate that support for violent attacks does not decrease among those with higher education and higher living standards. The core contribution of the paper is a statistical ana1ysis of the determinants of participation in Hezbollah militant activities in Lebanon. The evidence we have assembled suggests that having a living standard above the poverty line or a secondary school or higher education is positively associated with participation in Hezbollah. We also find that Israeli Jewish settlers who attacked Palestinians in the West Bank in the early 1980s were overwhelmingly from high-paying occupations. The conclusion speculates on why economic conditions and education are largely unrelated to participation in, and support for, terrorism.

I'd have to read the entirety of the study to comment on it in an informed manner, but I have a couple observations.

1) The point about the Palestinians fails to convince me, because it is my belief that the totalitarian nature of the territory (under Arafat -- I'm not sure how things have changed under Abbas) propels the worst, most fanatical groups to the top. The dearth of democracy and basic freedoms (notably speech and assembly) tends to silence the sensible and moderate groups.

2) I looked over their discussion of hate crime data, because I could not believe that hate crimes were committed by people across the economic spectrum (they strike me as attacks that would involve, overwhelmingly, very poor people, which would support my thesis). Unfortunately, their ana1ysis doesn't really address the individuals who commit the crimes (unless I missed it), instead focusing on communities that contain hate groups. No one would deny the obvious fact that there are plenty of hateful rich people.

Otherwise, it seems like an interesting study.

Actually, your wrong Ben-T. Economy has nothing to do with this, unless your mean 'economy of ideas'. Dirt poor people, no matter how desperate, do not blow themselves up either, unless their options are, "join the group of nuts that claim by doing it I will achieve paradise." For those that have high economic standards, which is usually the 'leaders' of radical groups, its about power and an attempt to reshape the world to their own mold, even if they break it in the process. For those that do have economic problems, it is a means to some glorious existance that their leaders 'claim' someone else stole from them, since it distracts from the reality that the leaders are the ones stealing the money. In either case, the ultimate goal in an ideological one. We would be seeing the 100% identical situation among Christians, if the church hadn't fragmented like a window with a brick thrown through it.

Reform is about opertunity of ideas. The ability of people to protest, suggest, complain, and even $@%$% come up with a different opinion, without being arrested,, tortured, shot, murdered in their sleep, etc. Its the ability to discredit radicals by showing people that there is an alternative, instead of allowing the radicals to dictate who, what, when and how ideas are expressed. It hardly matter if the lunitic in charge is a so called secularist like Saddam that supressed all opinion and belief but his own, or some radical islamic cleric. People who can sit down at a table and argue their way to some sort of concession, without fear of being simply shot for even having a difference of opinion, are less likely to turn into raving lunatic, bent on killing everyone who doesn't share that opinion. There are obvious acceptions, but you still need a free society with laws based on protecting that freedom, before you can single out the dangerous groups. If you don't have that first, you are far more likely to end up **with** one of those groups killing off both the guilty and innocent, for not being in the *in* group. So, no, this has almost nothing to do with monetary economies, other than the fact that anyone not 'in' the group running things *tend* to be the ones who lose all the money to the ones that are. Such financial freedom cannot exist so long as one group lords over all the others, but the economy is ***not*** to cause of the problem, nor is it the solution.

The inevitable, and imposslbe to stop, influx of ideas and concepts that run contrary to the radical and narrow minded points of view are. If anything, the increase of freedom from economic reform is a happy accident and would have no more impact on the ME than calling its rulers bad names would, without the source of those economic opertunities having a different philosophy. Put simply, the ME could 'reform' its economy by opening free trade with all other ME nations and while they might improve overall, it wouldn't change the nature of their rulers or the level of corruption. There is no source in such a situation for ideas like equality or freedom of ideas to be introduced. If such things are not valued by ones trading partners, its hardly the sort of idea that economic reform or free trade is going to introduce, let alone encourage.

Point is, Ben-T is right and wrong. Improving economy and ifrastructure can do 'some' things, but it can't do everything, unless it also introduces both sufficient need and desire to people to also want and demand the ability to think outside of the box their government wants to keep them in. In the ME, there is a) the goverment telling them, "Don't think!", but also the religious leaders, other neighboring countries, the Arab news media (for the most part) and even their own relatives (who know thinking is a good way to get your throat cut). Its a happy accident that free markets tend to encourage free thought, but hardly a certainty that they automatically will, unless you also allow for and encourage free thought 'outside' the market place to at least 'some' degree.

Your second paragraph sums up my view perfectly. That's what I meant by "political desperation," but you expressed the idea much more clearly.

"We would be seeing the 100% identical situation among Christians, if the church hadn't fragmented like a window with a brick thrown through it." -Kagehi

Odd, there wasn't terrorist activity in European culture prior to the fragmentation, and the apostolic churches from which the fragmenting happened don't and never have condoned, let alone advocated, terrorism. (Neither have any of the fragmented chruched, for that matter.) In fact, the Latin church's just war theory is criticized by most other Christians as basically pacifict, and Catholic are much more likely to oppose modern warfare entirely.

In any case, Kagehi, you are pretending like it's religion and not some particular religion that is causing Islamist terrorism. I think there can be a peaceful Islam. But the fact of the matter is that there is a difference from the very beginning between Islam and Christianity.

Mohammed killed. He was a warrior. He led other warriors.
Christ was killed. He called others to share in his death.

Mohammed's religion starts in a series of BATTLES, and the major events for ther first several centuries are mostly battles.
The early Christians wondered whether they had to resign from the Roman army when they converted. The first few centuries were marked by widespread martyrdom.

There is a stark difference from the very beginnings of Islam and Christianity in the attitudes toward fighting. Your statement attacking Christianity, particularly pre-fragmented Christianity, is absolutely groundless.

Ben T: I've gotten what I was after and what you had denied me for days-- an admission that it isn't all economics.

I pointed out that the problem in the middle east wasn't all economics, and then you went on several tirades that it was. When I tried to get you to admit that not all historical and political problems were economic, you told me "educate myself" and gave me a breif history of the 20th century in which everything was caused by economics. Then I pointed out that you were espousing economic deterministic positions, you continued to make fun of me for disagreeing with you rather than simply saying, 'OK, economics are the only problem, and aren't the total solution.' Now you have finally said what I was after: Humans, humans' problem, and solutions to humans' problems aren't all economic. Good. We agree.

Now, will you further admit that you overstated the case when you said of Muslim terrorism that "economics are the cause"? Will you admit that economics isn't "the" solution to the Middle East political/cultural/religious mess?
Posted by short at July 9, 2005 02:58 PM

You haven't "pointed out anything" you have just blindly said the same thing over and over (WE CAN'T FIX THE MIDDLE EAST CUZ UM THEIR MUSLIMS AND STUFF!) while blatantly ignoring the fact that radicalism, like crime, THRIVES IN ECONOMICALLY DESPERATE societies, and not in ECONOMICALLY AFFLUENT ONES.

A developed, inegrated, Democratic Middle East would not be devoid of problems, nobody is saying that. The differnece is that young people growing up in a developed, democratic, integrated Middle East would be infinitly less willing to strap bombs to their chests and blow up cafes.

Ben, I don't think short's argument is that "we can't fix the Middle East because they're Muslims." I am pretty much on your side, of course, but that's a misrepresentation (obviously it was half-joking, but I encourage you to go back and re-read the posts).

It was sarcasm, it was clear I was blowing her argument out of proportion in order to make a point. However when you get down to it "Complex social issues" basically comes down to "They aren't western, thefore democracy won't work for them." This is the basic argument that they have taken many times.

It ignores the fact that across the world, in economically affluent, integrated societies, democracy either is the norm or is becoming the norm, and in disconnected, economically desperate societes, radicalism and totalitarianism is still the norm, as it always has been in such societies.

It's possible to make an observation about the effects of economics on societies without being a big bad Marxist, whether Short would like to believe it or not.

Short.. Did you miss the Inquisition? Just because they didn't have cars, airplanes, bombs, etc. to be as 'effective' as modern terrorists doesn't mean there where not people using terror in the name of religeon. Some used swords, some armies, some torture chambers, but the primary goal was the same as the radical Islamics, the absolute complete and total conversion of the world to Christianity, and the death of everyone that refused to be converted. In the earliest days of the chruch it was actually worse than that. Stonings, massacre of villages, throwing the 'wrong kind' of Christians in pits with lions. All designed to terrify any 'non-believers' into following the true path. As I said, this is not about 'how' the do it, save requiring that people die in the process, it is about **why** they do it. Had the church remained unfragmented, then by the time the inquisition happened, there would have been nothing to stop it from lasting 2,000 years, instead of 200. It took the unwillingness of some alternative branches, *combined* with the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of them to end it. Now, imagine no alternative churches, or at least none willing to protest too much, plus church soldiers with explosives, RPGs and machine guns. Explain to me how or why the result would not be the same as in the ME, when it took until Pope John Paul II for the source of the Christian faith, and the ones who started out by killing unbelievers and the 'wrong sort' of Christians, to admit they where wrong about most things in science, that the inquisition was a bad idea, that Pagans and others didn't deserve torture and murder, etc? Two thousands years telling everyone else they where 100% wrong, because the church said so and condoning by silence the unknown numbers killed for the cause of the true faith, before they had no choice but to bow to the reality that their own followers no longer believed their version.

They didn't wake up one morning that decide, "Heh, I guess we where wrong!". They woke up one morning and realized that they where still living in 100 AD, while the rest of the world was in the 1990s and if they didn't change, they would become irrelevant. The differences here are simple. 1. They where already irrelevant to 90% of the people who followed the Christian religion, because they where no longer its core. 2. In the ME their religion is not the 'only' ones still living in 100 AD (or whenever), a large percentage of the population, because no fragmentation of belief ever truely took place, still think they are living back them too.

People want Christianity to be somehow different. The truth is that in the earliest days it was almost identical. Without Roman influences and people, who where both willing and 'able' to break off to create alternatives, history would have been very different. It was strong enough to survive while others failed, but weak enough for people to change it. That is an historical fact, regardless of what ever wishful thinking or excuses people want to make about how Christianity has 'always' been different than the religions it started from.

Kagehi! Apart from not knowing what the Inquisition was (not "terrorism", even though I think it was unjust), or when it was (not in the first few centuries of the Church), you make some other basic factual errors.

Most significantly, the early centuries of Christianity were not marked by BATTLES, let alone battles orchestrated or advocated by the church leaders to convert anybody. And those being thrown into lions pits were Christians; not the one's throwing. "In the earliest days of the chruch it was actually worse than that. Stonings, massacre of villages, throwing the 'wrong kind' of Christians in pits with lions." Wow, where do you get this stuff? Can you name an apostle who fought in a battle? In fact, the early Christians were basically forbidden to attend the Roman circus (at least as far as I can gather from Augustine and Terullian); so, they weren't running the circus or its lion pits. What village in the first centuries of Christianity was massacred by a Christian army? Are you talking about Constantine's army or something? What villages did they distroy? Have you been watching Platoon or something?

You're an antireligious bigot with an overactive imagination, pure and simple.

Kagehi, just noticed one other thing. I was arguing that early Christian attitudes towards fighting and early Muslim attitudes toward fighting were starkly different. One of the things you said in response was: "People want Christianity to be somehow different. The truth is that in the earliest days it was almost identical... That is an historical fact, regardless of what ever wishful thinking or excuses people want to make about how Christianity has 'always' been different than the religions it started from." Are you implying that Christianity started from Islam?

I think he is referring to things such as there being stories about sun gods from ancient civilizations that very closely parallel the Christ story, et cetera.

Not that I agree with him.

I am refering to the fact that its not the methods employed that define an idea, but the idea. Yeah, the inquisition happened later, so what. It was a resurgence of the ideas of the original founders, who also tried to kill off everyone that didn't follow 'their' version. They usually found threats of excommunication easier than wars, but where not above starting wars if that helped, etc. Its a matter of degree, not difference in basic nature. I am not anti-religious. I have no problem with Buddhists, Pagans or any number of others, but I strongly object to the selective historical memory of OT religions and the basic hypocracy they like to employ when claiming that being kinder and gentler murderers and/or tyrants makes them somehow morally superior to everyone else. It hardly matters how many centuries passed between the days when they murdered other Christians to prevent 'cults' from forming, instead of following the 'true' teachings, and the days of the inquisition, when they decided to eliminate everyone else. Nor does it matter when the crusades too place, to 'take back' the holy land and kill any unbelievers that got in the way. The fragmentation I talked about happened within a few hundred years of its foundation, so by the time the inquisition and crusades came along, opposition to them already existed. Without that opposition, what the heck do you think the result would have been? You appatently just don't get the point I am trying to make.

Kagehi: You have simply made very unusual statements while offering absolutely no historical facts to substantiate them.

When you claim that the "original founders" of Christianity "tried to kill off everyone that didn't follow 'their' version", you are expected to offer some evidence of this, because it is a very usual statement. Can you name an apostle or early church leader or missionary who fits this description?

I am refering to the fact that its not the methods employed that define an idea, but the idea. Yeah, the inquisition happened later, so what. It was a resurgence of the ideas of the original founders, who also tried to kill off everyone that didn't follow 'their' version. They usually found threats of excommunication easier than wars, but where not above starting wars if that helped, etc. Its a matter of degree, not difference in basic nature. I am not anti-religious. I have no problem with Buddhists, Pagans or any number of others, but I strongly object to the selective historical memory of OT religions and the basic hypocracy they like to employ when claiming that being kinder and gentler murderers and/or tyrants makes them somehow morally superior to everyone else. It hardly matters how many centuries passed between the days when they murdered other Christians to prevent 'cults' from forming, instead of following the 'true' teachings, and the days of the inquisition, when they decided to eliminate everyone else. Nor does it matter when the crusades too place, to 'take back' the holy land and kill any unbelievers that got in the way. The fragmentation I talked about happened within a few hundred years of its foundation, so by the time the inquisition and crusades came along, opposition to them already existed. Without that opposition, what the heck do you think the result would have been? You appatently just don't get the point I am trying to make.
Posted by Kagehi at July 12, 2005 06:11 PM

Your whole argument is based on the Inquisition which basically makes it BS. Some bad stuff happened in Medieval Europe in the name of Christianity so Christianity is bad. No thx.

The Spanish Inquistion was started by King Philip II of Spain, an enemy of the Papacy, and led/persecuted by Grand Inquisitor Tomas de Torquemada, a man who never rose past the rank of Friar in the Catholic Church.

As for the Roman Inquisition, yes some acts were horrible but it was much smaller and less bestial than the Spanish one. It is also good to point out that the Roman Inquisition was far more fair, accurate, and lenient than the secular courts of the day.

"When you claim that the "original founders" of Christianity "tried to kill off everyone that didn't follow 'their' version", you are expected to offer some evidence of this, because it is a very usual statement. Can you name an apostle or early church leader or missionary who fits this description?" -Short

When the soldiers came to take Christ away, Peter attempted to defend him with a sword. See, religious persecution of those innocent soldiers!

=P