[fluff]

Follow the logic, assume all is true:
-- middle east is packed with terrorists
-- terrorists are funded/backed by 3-4 ME countries.
-- Eventually, those countries will join the war against the USA when those terrorists have weakened and spread US resources thin.

IF that's true, the the loss of human life was a justified expense in a pre-emptive strike.

Obviously, that's no where near 100% true, but that was the thinking behind PNAC.

just sayin'.

So as long as an argument follows logic the truth of the foundation is irrelevant?

 

[fluff]

What's unclear about it?

This bit:

who think it's illegal for, say, the British government to exist and/or put Muslims on trial for bombing British soldiers abroad or citizens at home

Is that three separate points and where does 'home' refer to?

 

[MikeD]

Home is Britain for the British, and yes, those are three points all stemming from the same root...a belief that British (all non-Sharia, actually) government is illegitimate. This is a belief held by many natural-born British Muslims, who claim the rights and benefits of Britishness (or whatever country of which they're citizens) while holding these beliefs.

Most of those who hold such belief are the children of immigrants who attempted to assimilate to Western culture. This seems to be a fashionable backlash.

It's not too different from fundamentalism Mormons who think the US gov't is illegitimate, while trying to take as much benefit from the "beast" that they can. Bleeding the Beast, they call it. Except that the Mormons can't/won't/haven't managed to make worldwide war on Western institutions.

 

[LordOpie]

So as long as an argument follows logic the truth of the foundation is irrelevant?

Do you always have to be a tool? Seriously, you're more bitter and antagonistic sounding lately. When was the last you rode your bike or got laid?

I was explaining PNAC's thinking to Silver. I was not condoning it or dismissing the crimes they've committed.

 

[fluff]

Do you always have to be a tool? Seriously, you're more bitter and antagonistic sounding lately. When was the last you rode your bike or got laid?

I was explaining PNAC's thinking to Silver. I was not condoning it or dismissing the crimes they've committed.

Seems to me you're wound a little tight. I'm fine on both counts, if I were you I'd worry less about me.

 

[ohio]

That's a dangerously limited viewpoint.

I don't disagree with the threat posed by radical Islam, nor that it exists and is growing in Western countries. In THIS case, I didn't see anyone in New York calling for fatwah or death to the infidel. I only see people whining to the government and not in a manner ANY different than many other groups do. Now the government's kowtowing MAY be a response to the more global threat, but what I see occuring on American soil is troubling only for the government reaction, not the people's actions.

 

[MikeD]

Yeah, it's true that my particular viewpoint might frame things a bit more slanted towards caution than yours...you certainly are right about the facts here, but I think they are a piece of the larger puzzle.

 

[$tinkle]

hope i'm not the only one here pleasuring myself to the musings of hitchens, but i accept my fate.

 

[$tinkle]

In THIS case, I didn't see anyone in New York calling for fatwah or death to the infidel.

recall the cartoon fatwahs happened months after publication. the lemmings had to be told they were offended.

give it time, fellow infidel.

* edit * whoops: just realized this "crime" occurred in october of last year. that's some kind of irony there.