General discussion


Tyranny of the offended

By MirrorMirror ·
I am looking for understanding, not flames. Seriously. I do not know any Muslims who can explain things to me. My son is putting himself in harms way to help bring freedom to Muslims. I have a serious stake in understanding what is going on.

Muslims around the world are offended by cartoons and are making threats of boycotts and violence. I have been watching this unfold, wondering where it would lead and am very dissapointed at the reaction from the Muslim world.

If the media and the world gives in to the insane Muslim response then we will all have a much more difficult time in the future defending ourselves from anyone else who makes demands because they are "offended". Lots of things offend me, but I know that I cannot go around threatening people and governments over them.

Let me state that I do not believe that the Muslim reaction that is being shown in the media is the norm. However, where are the moderate Muslims denouncing the extremists? Someone, please, give me something to show me that there is reason and tolerance in the Muslim world.

When Pat Robertson stuck his foot in his mouth not too long ago with his insensitive remarks about Ariel Sharon, Christian moderates all over denounced what Robertson said. Is is possible that most Muslims believe that they should kill someone over a CARTOON? Take a look at the signs on Michelle Malkin's site...

I do not understand how Muslims can seriously demand tolerance for themselves but will not tolerate anyone else. That is just plain delusional. All I can say is, support the Danish and anyone else who is not cowering down to threats.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Tony - What a silly message you posted

by maxwell edison In reply to On Vietnam and more

I'm not going to debate an issue (WWII), that happened years before I was even born, decades before many people around here were born, and out of the context of the political and global reality of the day. What an absolutely stupid thing you just said.

Collapse -

Max, you might be interested to know that the US never lost one battle.....

by sleepin'dawg In reply to On Vietnam and more

in Vietnam, and that includes the Tet offensive of Mar/68 made by the combined forces of the Cong and North Vietnamese Army. The US even cleared the Cong and North Vietnamese from the city of Hue which was a former capitol of theirs back when there were kings of Vietnam and was symbolicly important to them. I wasn't there as a soldier, I was there as a photographer for a magazine and a press agency. They also sent me to North Vietnam later, I forget which year but Hanoi Jane, the b|tch, was around at the time I was there. They sent me because I was Canadian and on a Canadian passport. If the Americans only could have believed how effective their bombing was on the North Vietnamese morale, they would have kept at it and maybe could have arranged a better peace plan than the one they ended up with. BTW one of my friends in South Vietnam was a guy called David Duncan, one of the best photographers I have ever known and one of the ballsiest guys I've ever known for taking risks to get "the" shot. RIP. He taught me more about photojournalism in three months than I ever learned in a classroom in two years. He was there when I got there and he was still there when I left. I only wish that I had a fraction of his talent and guts. He won many prizes, I think more than one Pulitzer but no medals, all though he would have deserved them if he had. He had more than one LIFE cover to his credit. He was the one who encouraged me to take the North Vietnamese assignment. I don't forget him; you don't forget guys like that.

Dawg ]:)

Collapse -

Dawg' - I never said they did

by maxwell edison In reply to On Vietnam and more

And I never said they didn't.

Collapse -

Just re read it

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to On Vietnam and more

Can't see anything silly about it.
Not even with 100% support could you have won in vietnam, all you could have done was killed them all. If you want to call that winning fine !

Fighting terror is not the question, it's how. Options range from nuke and pave to conversion. Get 100% support for the method, not on this planet.
Nothing to do with resolve to fight, everything to do with how far you are prepared to go to win.

War on terror is never going to work, every enemy you defeat creates two more.

Collapse -

Tony - Are you talking to me or dawg?

by maxwell edison In reply to On Vietnam and more

I read only the first part of your message, the one in which you were rehashing political decisions of the late 1930s at it related to W.W.II, and the political climate of almost 100 years ago as it related to W.W.I. That's about as far as I read, deciding at that point that your message was just down-right silly. I didn't even mention Vietnam in my reply, did I? (I did mention Vietnam in a different message, but in a vastly different context and intent.) And I still contend that saying such a thing is not only silly, but stupid and ignorant as well. (And it pointed out Europe's dismal failures over the past 100 years.)

Not only that, but what friggin' point were you trying to make? That the USA is again entering the fight too late? Since we're the only one in the fight today (with England, Australia, and a few other nations, of course), and considering we are leading the way, I ask again, what point are you trying to make? The only possible point is to show how it's not the USA, but the rest of the world late on this one. So you appear to be criticizing the USA for entering those past wars too late as justification for your criticism of the USA for entering this one too ..... what, too early? Like I said, your message is just down right silly. And that's being kind.

But for the record, here's my opinion on the "war on terrorism".

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. We had war declared on us years, if not decades, before 9-11. For the past thirty or more years, radical Islamic fanatics have been at war with the west, in general, and the United States in particular, being met with only a tepid response, at best, to their tactic of choice, terrorism. The United Nations has been unable or unwilling to deal with it; and with the exception of Israel, every nation in the word, including the United States, has also been unable or unwilling to deal with the threat. We've all been paying only lip service, at best, to a grave threat. And not only have we been paying it no more than lip service, but in many ways, we (the world and the USA) have actually facilitated its growth.

President Bush is the only American president, and the only world leader, to FINALLY attack the real problem head-on -- in its entirety, seeing the bigger picture, not the usual and isolated lip service; and we FINALLY declared war back on them. However, I believe that the President and the U.S. Congress made a mistake in their approach to this thing, and the politicking going on in Washington and in the world wasn't making it any better. Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy. And I think the president erred when he declared this a war on terrorism, a tactic, instead of a war on radical Islam, an enemy.

However, I can see why that wasn't a viable option, for many reasons. First of all, we certainly couldn't make this look like a religious war, per se. And quite frankly, if this war had been declared in a manner similar to others, we would have had to declare war on Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Sudan, in the very least; and perhaps even Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and a few other nations as well! It could be strongly argued that if the state governments of those nations either facilitated or even tolerated such fringe extremist groups to grow and operate within their nations, that the very state itself was culpable for their actions. If Pat Robertson and his ilk, for example, grew and espoused violence on others in the name of their religion, trained and deployed suicide bombers to kill and inflict terror abroad, stole airplanes and crashed them into buildings in downtown Tehran, then the rest of the world would indeed hold the United States government both responsible and culpable for their actions. But if such things did happen in the US, then the US government itself would be the first to step-up and put a stop to it, something those Islamic nations did not, or could not do. Those governments failure to stop it is tantamount to those governments condoning it.

But like I said, that just wouldn't be a viable option. So here we are, going it alone (at whatever you want to call it), and being criticized all the more for the efforts. And while we may be late getting into this particular fight against radical Islamic fanatics, much of the rest of the world is still stuck on never.

And go ahead, Tony. Rehash all that stuff from the past. Tell us all how the United Stated did this wrong, and that wrong, and everything else wrong over the past 100 years. (But it was Europe dragged down in war for those 100 years -- great job, guys.) Therefore what, Tony? How does that possibly have any bearing on deciding what to do next? (And please spare me the history lessons and the "doomed to repeat it" crap.)

How about posting a message that isn't dripping with silly and insignificant blabber. Maybe you can post some justification, for example, of why we should follow the lead of the inept, incompetent, and corrupt United Nations. Yea, right. Sarcasm alert: They've been doing such a good job combating this thing for the past thirty years, haven't they? Let's just do what they want.

Collapse -

It looks like I was replying to everybody

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to On Vietnam and more

However I was and always will argue against the idea that the US entering WWII too late. That's a widely held British belief, but when you look at basic military doctrine, standard diplomacy and history compeletely fallacious.
First of all you won, if you'd have been late, it would have been over wouldn't it?
Why do people always miss the obvious ?

Sun Tzu, would have commended your strategy, because it would have been much harder and american losses would have been far greater if you'd entered earlier. The argument that Adolf might have piped down, if you'd have loomed over him I do not accept, man was too stupid to be afraid.

Clausewitz would also have been happy with your strategy, after the war, politically you were in an extremely strong position. In fact you still are, the only things making inroads into that are industrialisation of china and the rise of the EU.
10/10 for FDR and co, the fact that we ended up with the brown end of the stick, means we took our eye off the ball. No point in whining about it, you won, we lost. We'd have done the same to you given the opportunity and we'd have expected you to be grateful for it.
Why you won the war, well only a halfwit would say it was one particular factor. The single biggest one was definitely your economy in my opinion. Will and resolve I take as a given in any nation, after all without the desire to fight there won't we a war, just a surrender. Why did that desire occur?
Germany successes were beginning to be worrying
The abysmal stupidity in lining up with japan
German attacks on your shipping
America's desire to be the biggest dawg in the yard.
You know more about it than I, but everything I've read says that the american people were not interested in fighting 'our' war in 39. Not didn't have the balls, not too busy navel gazing, just not f'ing interested in dying for it. Why should you have been ? Until there was support for doing it, entering the war would have been madness.

Don't take everything as an attack MAX & 'Dawg. I aren't going to agree with you all the time, that would be boring. But only someone blinded by their own patriotism would say you entered WWII or I too late.

I don't think you should have fought it.
I don't think you could have won
I know you didn't win
I'm positive if there had been real political support for that war, you would have fought it differently. Awe and Destruction mode was the way to go in there, to have a chance with a straight arm wrestle.
The reason I don't think you could have won? You remember that really bad film Red Dawn?. How many generations do you think the american people would have to be oppressed by a foreign power before they gave up their brand of freedom ? How much would it cost any invading power to maintain the level of effort required to fail slowly. Too different, you are never going to turn a vietnamese into an american, an american into a russian, an afghan into a russian, a brit into a german, or an iraqi into a westerner. Our values are our values because of what we are. Imposing them on someone else, denigrates everything that they value and everything that we value.

Collapse -

Well, Tony, you apparently still aren't replying to me. . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to On Vietnam and more

....because you didn't touch on a dang thing I said.

If you want to debate the historical accuracy of people's views of events that happened decades ago, you'll be arguing with yourself as far as I'm concerned.

And you wonder why I called your messages silly?

Okay, they just got promoted to absurd.

Collapse -

Well Max, we definitely seem to be talking past each other

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to On Vietnam and more

War on terror is doomed. You can laud your president's virtues 'til the troops come home. I don't believe in him, I don't have to believe in him.
I'm a Brit, I'm not being un-american, I'm not being unpatriotic, I'm not being a f'ing democrat.
Stop confusing me with the political opponents you despise.
I didn't bring in the too late argument nor did I stupidly compare vietnam or WWII to the war on terror.
You can't war on terror. The only way to 'fight' terror is to stop making people afraid, war is not the best tool for that, is it.
Forget how pissed off you are for the moment.
Ask yourself this question?
From the persepctive of the victim, what's the difference between a terrorist atrocity and unfortunate collateral damage. If you think there is one, cease all this preaching about the pursuit of freedom, liberty, justice and happiness and say it like it is. Vengeance, retribution and the imposition of american values on anybody who makes you unhappy.

All the visible successes in the war on terror have consisted of attacking visible opponents with a highly visible infrastructure after defining them as supporters of terrorism. They may have been supporting terrorists, certainly the Taliban did, but the damage done to them has been more than offset by the polarisation of the confict in nationalistic or even worse religious grounds. That created more supporters than we got rid of , dispersed our enemies, widened the theatre of operation and killed or negated any information assets we had. Political necessity perhaps, strategically advisable I doubt it, and tactical insanity.

So unless your president is giving us the current visible operation to lull his opponents (terrorists not democrats) into believing he's incompetent, then in my opinion he's incompetent or he's being driven by political expediency. The latter I find even scarier.
I'd be overjoyed to find out he's a master strategist, with a desperate need for domestic support so he can clandestinely undermine and defeat the terrorists. That with great regret he's thrown away the lives of his own troops and others to put his opponents off guard and stop his political opponents of charging him with doing nothing. I just find it hard to believe though.

Collapse -

Tony - Yes, I suppose we might be

by maxwell edison In reply to On Vietnam and more

So let's just give it up.

Collapse -

Apparently, you can't understand 80 to 1 wounded and 40 to one kills=win

by X-MarCap In reply to Just a small reality chec ...

We lost political support at home. We kicked butt in Vietnam. The French didn't do as well as we did.

As a person who knows what perception is many peoples reality means that you bought the Communist lefts lies. Semper Fi

Related Discussions

Related Forums