‘… war for national survival …’ (updated 12may2011)

George Rebane

Thank goodness, at last I’m not alone ;-)  In these pages my commentaries on the resumed war between (radical) Islam and the West have met with some pretty hard criticism from our progressive brethren.  My assessments have been described as everything from lunacy to racism.  While I have never claimed a sole perch on this tenet, others have bestowed that upon me.

In regard to the war on Muslim terror, yesterday 3may11 the venerable Wall Street Journal again acknowledged that “we cannot forget that this is a war for national survival against enemies who would annihilate our cities if they could.” (emphasis mine)

I suppose my detractors will now argue that the WSJ is just playing catch-up with RR, even though I myself would take a more modest stance on such a conclusion.

[12may2011 update]  The debates in the comment stream to this post notwithstanding, I early on joined with those who saw the conflict between radical Islam and the West as something much larger than fragmented Muslim vendettas against the western countries for their alleged and acknowledged acts of imperialism.  My claim was that I agreed with the declared Islamists and their condoning silent majority.  Among these was the former head of Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden.  As reported in the world’s leading journals it was bin Laden who “by framing the fight as a clash of civilizations, he could draw the West into a global war on terror.”  (The Economist, 7-13may11)

In the meanwhile it has been the constant and conspicuous labor of the left to minimize the scale and scope of this confrontation to the point of attempting to trivialize it into a series of disparate criminal activities.  As the conversation in the sequel reveals, the left is coming around to acknowledging the global import of radical Islam, and instead, is now citing a view of history highlighting the argument that the West had it coming.

The natural extension of this line of reasoning is that our proper response should be contrition in the extreme, doing everything we can not to aggravate or further irritate Muslims wherever they may be found – in their historical lands or in our midst.  All asymmetries in how the two cultures treat each other’s members should be ignored.  And since our culture is the guilty party, it falls on us to bend, comply, and comport ourselves properly so as to bring the matter to a peaceful conclusion acceptable to Islam.

Comments

[Todd Juvinall]

Sorry I don't need to repeat myself, do some homework.

[Paul Emery]

Here was your response to my question "Do you not consider the coup against the sovereign nation of Iran an "outrage", as you use the word?"
Your response

Pail wasn't the Shah actually a legal heir to power in Iran? I suggest you read "Jefferson's War" if you haven't. The west was under attack and paid tribute to the Barbary Pirates in the 18th and the beginning of the 19th centuries until Thomas Jefferson kicked their butts in Tripoli. The reason the "pirates" were doing this is because they had declared "Jihad" against everything western. Some things never change eh?

If you don't want to answer my question just tell me so. Don't pretend that you did with this.

[Todd Juvinall]

A coup can only happen if a person or group of people are not already the rulers or were deposed rulers Paul. Your question is moot.

[Paul Emery]

Todd

Are you saying the Shah was already the ruler of Iran therefore it wasn't a coup? The CIA itself calls it an action to "remove Prime Minister Mossadeq" I suggest you read the CIA's own documents on this action before you embarrass yourself further.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/iran-cia-intro.pdf

Let me reword my question then. How is this

"Do you not consider the CIA action to remove the Prime Minister of Iran in 1953 an "outrage", as you use the word?"

You may chose not to answer the question just tell me so.

Here's more from James Risen about the document linked above.

"The document, which remains classified, discloses the pivotal role British intelligence officials played in initiating and planning the coup, and it shows that Washington and London shared an interest in maintaining the West's control over Iranian oil.

The secret history, written by the C.I.A.'s chief coup planner and obtained by The New York Times, says the operation's success was mostly a matter of chance. The document shows that the agency had almost complete contempt for the man it was empowering, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi, whom it derided as a vacillating coward. And it recounts, for the first time, the agency's tortured efforts to seduce and cajole the shah into taking part in his own coup.

The operation, code-named TP-Ajax, was the blueprint for a succession of C.I.A. plots to foment coups and destabilize governments during the cold war — including the agency's successful coup in Guatemala in 1954 and the disastrous Cuban intervention known as the Bay of Pigs in 1961. In more than one instance, such operations led to the same kind of long-term animosity toward the United States that occurred in Iran."

[Todd Juvinall]

You have your view I have mine.

[Paul Emery]

So can I assume that your view supports this type of covert interference into the sovereignty of other nations for our national interest? Is it not a moral equivalency then for other countries or cultures to do the same to us?

[Todd Juvinall]

What the heck are you talking about. Nazi in America until FDR took them out?, Communist agents infiltrating our country confirmed after the fall of the USSR? How about the British invasion in the War of 1812? Or, the Revolutionary War where the French helped us? How about the Fifth columnists during the Vietnam War like Jane Fonda? Or hey, you believe the mafia killed JFK in conjunction with Castro. Or the Monroe Doctrine? Yes I believe there are times when in our national interest and self protection we must involve ourselves in other country's. I like the Bush Doctrine. The one where we take out the terrorists before thy take us out. You?

[Paul Emery]

This conversation is about our policy in Iran in the early 1950's and how we were instrumental in removing a democratically elected ruler and replacing him with a dictator to protect our economic interests and the interests of our allies. You seem to deny or are ignorant of how this action led to the radicalization of the region and how that effects us today. I have to dramatize once again how we would feel towards a country that removed our President in this manner and replaced him (or her) with their puppet.

[Todd Juvinall]

I would rather concentrate on the Pax Roma and its affect on modern diplomacy and how the borders of Europe and the Middle East were formed. America is a late comer and maybe our diplomats were not as good as the Old Country diplomats. But hey the word assassin comes from an Arabic tribe of a similar name which were mercenaries who took out leaders of many countries during their time.

[Mike Thornton]

Gee, Paul next you'll be talking about Guatemala, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador and perhaps another 1/2 dozen or so countries around the world, where the USA has either helped to overthrow governments to install and/or support brutal dictators to keep the peasants in line. Hmmmm. lets see.... We've got Iran (you've already got that one), There's the Taliban, there's Iraq, Saudi, Egypt. Oh lets not forget Patrice Lumumba in Congo, Invading Vietnam, after Ho asked us for help to get rid of the French colonizers, Supporting the Apartheid regime in South Africa etc.
Of course, for some, talking about any of this is "Un-American", even though much of the rest of the world is very clear on these facts and views the US through this lense.
Oh yes and then there's Libya and who was it that gave official sanction to the dictator there just a few short years ago?

[Todd Juvinall]

Why do you hate your own country?

[Mike Thornton]

I don't.
I believe we're good enough and strong enough to do better.
The American people (for the most part) don't really understand what's been done "in their name" and if you look at the list almost every one of these decisions were made because they benefited the rich and powerful, not the work-a-day Americans.
I think the thing that Paul has been trying to point out, is that if some powerful country a world away (like China for instance)were to have tried any one of these things in the USA, we'd be really ticked off about it and rightly so! You simply can't say that it's OK for us to do things to other people/countries that we would never accept and then act like there's something wrong with them for not liking it!
The other thing that we can't do is to pretend it hasn't happened, because it has.
My position is that it's better to acknowledge the truth and then move on from there.

[wmartin]

"Do you not consider the coup against the sovereign nation of Iran an "outrage", as you use the word?"

Good heavens, I certainly can see where it was a reasonable thing. 'Outrage' is a word better kept to interpersonal affairs, it doesn't scale up very well.

The US has this strange failure of not always acting in it's own self interest. I think, as a nation, we just tend to confuse everyone else via mixed signals.

[Todd Juvinall]

Thornton says "The American people (for the most part) don't really understand what's been done "in their name". Well, I think they do. The American people are much smarter than you give them credit for and I must say your position is a typical arrogant liberal statement. What hubris! America isn't perfect but it has extended our country's desire for others to share in our Republican form of government and has done a pretty good job of protecting the citizens. If we had to project our power to other places to achieve that then so be it. I would dare say the liberals should travel over to Libya and Syria, maybe Burma and Yemen and do some protesting. That would be interesting.

Then you say "My position is that it's better to acknowledge the truth and then move on from there". It appears ou can't take your own advice. The whole thread proves you liberals are unable to acknowledge the past actions and move on. You are stuck in the past. We conservatives are the one's who are moving on. You all want to remain the superior morally outrages group. That just is silly.

[Paul Emery]

Outrage was Todds word.

Our actions in Iran directly affect what's happening in that region today so it's not talking about the past

So if our self interest involves the destruction of a Democracy, such as in Iran in 1953 so be it. Our love of freedom only goes so far. If it's not in our economic interest screw um and let them die in torture chambers. America right or wrong is not patriotism. In fact it's quite the opposite.

"share in our Republican form of government".......

I guess that didn't include the people of Iran in 1953 who had the first real democracy-and yes republic- in the region.

This is not the America I believe in.

Conservatives moving on? Not Todd. He'd rather talk about the Barbary Pirates or Islamic conquests a thousand years ago.

[Todd Juvinall]

Paul, you have lost it man. Iran seems to be stuck in tour craw and you have become irrational about it. Jimmy Carter did your political bidding to set things straight in Iran as you wanted and yet that seems to be overlooked. Why? Why don't you understand the Russians desire for a warm water port? Oh, that would destroy your premise.

[Paul Emery]

If you bother to read the CIA report I sent you you'll see that was never an important part of the reason we staged the Iranian coup. (warm water port) You are trying to rewrite history to your convenience.

I am in no way irrational about Iran. You seem determined to believe that this was a justifiable action. It's "my country right of wrong" no matter what we do. The end result of the coup in Iran is that the Democratically elected Prime Minister, Mossadeq was tortured for three years and died in prison under the supervision of the CIA controlled Iranian police. Now that's a golden moment in American history. I want to be proud of my country and believe that we will stand up for freedom loving people not destroy them. What's unpatriotic about that?

What does Jimmy Carter have to do with this?

[Mike Thornton]

No Todd, I think you're wrong about what the American people know and don't know.
The fact of the matter is that as a whole Americans are woefully uninformed about what's happening in our own country, let alone in the rest of the world.
Poll after poll after poll, proves this point and in fact (as you are well aware) there have been several such polls, that show so-called conservatives that get their news (primarily) from FOX are some of the most ignorant of the lot.
When I was in Syria, there were indeed folks who told me that there are many things about America they admire, but they don't want it shoved down their throat!
Frankly (imho) I think we'd be much better off with a "parliamentary" form of government than the dysfunctional "republican" system we have now. Nothing illustrates the need for a change more than the going nowhere debates that happen here. I think we have reached the point of needing a national divorce due to "irreconcilable differences".
Anyway, this is all starting to feel like a gigantic waste of my time.

[Todd Juvinall]

You comments are a waste of time to respond to. I would suggest the comment section at "The Nation" for your ideas. We prefer discussing freedom and goodness and light. You and Paul can dwell in the darkness of the past but don't expect us to do so. Regarding FOX News. Give me the links to your polls so I can see how supposedly stupid most Americans are. You arrogant folks are a small minority now and that is because of your attitude. American politics is much better than a Parliamentary system so once again you show your ignorance. In America we already have numerous parties and if you want to be in charge, go run for office as a candidate in one of them. What is sad about your political philosophy is you really are just lazy. Even though I rarely agree with a Terry Lamphier type, I still give him kudos for having the guts to run. Most liberals have no guts.

[Steve Enos]

George... nice that you let Todd post his endless, name calling personal attacks here on your blog. Such a nice blog site to have a rational, topic based discussion at.

[Todd Juvinall]

Then why don't you start changing your ways and be part of the discussion rather than whining all the time?

[Steve Enos]

Like I posted George... Todd sure makes your blog look like a sick joke. Todd posts he will stop with the personal attack posts, but never does.

EXIT QUESTION TO GEORGE: Will you ever address Todd and his endless personal attack posts or will you just keep letting him spew?

[Mike Thornton]

Truthfully, I don't know what to say to you Todd.
I've rarely met anyone who combines the level of ignorance and arrogance that you seem to so comfortably wear.
But, I get it. You're the result of the devolution that has been happening on the right wing for the last 40 years. You're all bluster and BS and you're strategy is to just screech and scream louder and louder and you'll never stop, no matter what

You say:
"We prefer discussing freedom and goodness and light."

My guess is even your fellow travelers, must be laughing at that one!
You wouldn't know "freedom, goodness and light" if it walked up and kicked you in the tush.

Pity-Full!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Todd Juvinall]

You and Steve are cut from the same cloth. LOL

[Mike Thornton]

Well, I gotta tell ya Todd, I'd much rather be associated with Steve Enos, than you!

[Todd Juvinall]

Me too, you two are such a prize!

[Steve Enos]

Hey George... why do you allow Todd to post endless personal and name calling attacks? This sure impacts thios blogs value to have a respectful, rational discussion.

EXIT QUESTION TO GEORGE: Will you ever address Todd and his endless personal attack posts or will you just keep letting him spew?

[Todd Juvinall]

Oh stop whining SteveE.

[Steve Enos]

EXIT QUESTION TO GEORGE: Will you ever address Todd and his endless personal attack posts or will you just keep letting him spew?

[Sarah]

shocking to see members of the extreme left asking for censorship; NOT!

EXIT QUESTION... George why do you allow Todd to do this over and over and over?

Posted by: Steve Enos | 09 May 2011 at 12:50 PM

[Todd Juvinall]

I think SteveE likes me.

[Greg Goodknight]

Thornton writes "You're the result of the devolution that has been happening on the right wing for the last 40 years. You're all bluster and BS and you're strategy is to just screech and scream louder and louder and you'll never stop, no matter what"

And just how does that differ from Mike Thornton's posts here?

[Todd Juvinall]

I actually don't screech, that is a girly man's sound. I am more of a baboom, a man's man sound.

[Mike Thornton]

Well, Greg the big difference is that I don't make things up and lie.

[Todd Juvinall]

Greg as you can see denial from a liberal is not a river in Egypt.

[Mike Thornton]

What is this, Todd, the "And so what are you" argument?
Can you please give us a list of what the Republican party has done to better the country in the last 20 years?
You guys are forever talking about how great your ideas and policies are. so this shouldn't be a difficult task!

[Todd Juvinall]

Well yeah. The R's have balanced the budget, fought and defeated Islamo-Facists, had a tech, housing and Wall Street boom. Almost full employment of Americans, and fought the liberals to retain our freedoms. Want some more?

[Paul Emery]

Slow down Todd

When did the Repubs Balance the budget? The only year in recent times was 2000 under Bush but that was Clinton's inherited budget and tax rates. The largest growth in the deficit was during the Reagan-Bush 12 years surpassed by Bush 2 and now Obama. If we defeated the Islamo Facists under Bush why did he leave us with two unfunded wars? Do you want me to show you the details? Bush sat on his butt and let the economy collapse then bailed out all the big boys from their mistakes while doing nothing for the family's that lost their homes. Obama, of course carried out almost the identical plan. Almost full employment? The job growth under Bush 2 was less than 20% than during the Clinton years.

Please show me some documentation to justify your quite astounding assumptions or is this just cheap talk.

[Mike Thornton]

Really?
Do you mean they balanced the budget, by racking up several trillion dollars in debt as we continue to fight the unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they never captured Bin Laden and the Democratic president finally "brought him to justice"?
Or the other budget busting unfunded Medicare part D, where the Republicans barred the US government from negotiating for lower drug prices?
Or do you mean the economy destroying, "Tech", "Housing" and Wall Street, street "Scandal", that destroyed the retirement accounts of millions of hardworking Americans?
Oh yes, our "freedoms"... Was that accomplished through the USA Patriot Act and illegal wiretapping?
Yes, I would very much like some more, since so far you haven't come up with any!

[Paul Emery]

Todd

I'll make it easy. You can fill in the blanks with documentation. Thanks in advance for educating us

The R's have balanced the budget

defeated Islamo-Facists

Almost full employment of Americans

fought the liberals to retain our freedoms.

Want some more? After you do your homework on these.

had a tech, housing and Wall Street boom

[Mike Thornton]

No wonder we're in such a mess.
These are the kind of disasters, that Republicans think are successes!

[Todd Juvinall]

You know I am right. Let's see. Republicans took Congress in 1995 and reformed welfare and balanced the budget (Clinton signed both). Tech boom same time. Bush, 4.5 unemployment, housing boom, and defeat of Taliban. Want more? There is a whole bunch.

[Paul Emery]

So since you're a fan of the Clinton-Replublican balanced budget formula you should welcome a return to the same tax structure that made that possible. Since the Taliban has been defeated, in your opinion is it time to bring our troups home and declare mission accomplished?

[Paul Emery]

Come to think of it Todd, the original topic of this posting was the continued war on terror. Since the Republicans successfully wrapped this up in your opinion, you must disagree with George on this.

[Todd Juvinall]

Paul, The budget can be pared way back so there doesn't need to be any upward movements in the tax structure. Except of course for obsese people(See my blog LOL). Yes, it is time to vacate Afghanistan and declare victory. When the Taliban murder their way back into power, we can go back and kill them again.

Iraq was a just war and the millions of people we saved probably agree with me. Especially the women and girls. What is your opinion?

Terror is happening all over the world and when they attack us, we must defend ourselves. Do you agree?

[Paul Emery]

Let me take one issue at a time. First Women in Iraq. Now that Iraq is under Sharia law things have become worse. We (KVMR) have run many interviews with Women from Iraq all saying the same thing, that things are much worse than under Saddam. Where do you get your information? Here's from the Washington Post

"As Islamic fundamentalism seeps into society and sectarian warfare escalates, more and more women live in fear of being kidnapped or raped. They receive death threats because of their religious sects and careers. They are harassed for not abiding by the strict dress code of long skirts and head scarves or for driving cars.

For much of the 20th century, and under various leaders, Iraq was one of the most progressive Middle Eastern countries in its treatment of women, who were encouraged to go to school and enter the workforce. Saddam Hussein's Baath Party espoused a secular Arab nationalism that advocated women's full participation in society. But years of war changed that."

I suggest you read the whole article here

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/15/AR2006121501744.html

Here's another one from the Christians of Iraq website. Check it out

http://www.christiansofiraq.com/sharia-law-andwomen-in-iraq.html

May 27th, 2009

by Dr. Katrin Michael

May 2009Under sharia, or Islamic law, women are considered inferior to men and have less rights and duties. With regard to blood-money, evidence, and inheritance, a woman is counted as half a man. This also holds true with regard to marriage and divorce. Woman’s position is less advantageous than that of man. Today I will outline for you a number of cultural and legal challenges that women in Iraq are currently facing.In Iraq, personal status law comes from the Hanafi and Jaafari schools of sharia. Article 102 of the personal status law comes from this tradition. It states that the guardian of a minor is first the father, and then a relative of the father.

Article 17 states that a Muslim male may marry a Christian or Jew, as People of the Book, but a Muslim female is not allowed to marry a non-Muslim. Article 111 of the penal code permits a husband to discipline his wife, meaning the husband is permitted to beat his wife. The Islamic context for this last provision is described in the Quran in Surah 4, verse 34..............

[Todd Juvinall]

SO the women of Iraq are worse off now that they aren't being raped and murdered by Sadaam and his sons along with the Tikrit brothers? Sorry, but before I agree with you I would like to see some statistics rather than some leftwing opinions from biased journalists. I have seen many women interviewed and they say just the opposite.

[Paul Emery]

Gee Todd, the examples I gave you were from the Washington Post and the Christians of Iraq. Are you saying these are left wing sources? The fact is that Iraq is now under Sharia law which it wasn't under Saddam. Also, the persecution of Christians and Jews in Iraq has increased because of the strength of the fundamentalist movement that has taken over much of the country. Here's from USA Today

"Before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 there were about 1.4 million Christians in Iraq, a Muslim-dominated nation of nearly 30 million. Since then, about 50% of Iraq's Christians have fled the country, taking refuge in neighboring Jordan, Syria, Europe and the USA, according to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC)."

And saved millions of lives? Who says so? Where do you get that number. Can you to show me some documentation or are you making this up in an attempt to prove a point.

[Steve Enos]

Paul... "making this up in an attempt to prove a point" sums it up... "attempt" being the key word in this case.

"The persecution of Christians and Jews in Iraq has increased because of the strength of the fundamentalist movement that has taken over much of the country"... this is what most rational folks call a fact. It's based on facts, not an "attempt", but a fact.

[Todd Juvinall]

Saved in regards to freedom. Christians are being persecuted and killed all over the middle east, churches burned, I don't get your point. I would say you are actually making my points for me so keep it going. Thanks.

[Mike Thornton]

When I was in Syria, I visited a safe house for Christian Iraqis that had fled their own country, what I was told was that they suffered no real discrimination in Syria because they were Christian, but they did suffer discrimination because they were refugees from Iraq.
I stayed overnight in Bethlehem at the home of a Palestinian Christian family and observed Muslims and Christians respecting each others Holy days and sites while I was there.
So the idea that all (or even the majority of) Christians are being persecuted by all or the majority of Muslims, is simply not true.

[Todd Juvinall]

Well golly, why don't you travel over to Syria this week. Seems as if its great leader is killing many of his own citizens. Or maybe Egypt where the Christians are being killed and their churches burned. You defense of the persecution of Christians is amazing.

[George Rebane]

MikeT - your personal sample will successfully defend against the "all", but I'm afraid it will not stand against the gale of data in supporting the "majority" claim. The surface harmony between Muslims and Christians in Islam has for years been correctly reported as the exception and not the rule. Or to put a finer technical point on it, the topical successes do not eliminate the synoptic failure of Muslims accepting non-Muslims in their midst when they are the overwhelming majority or even a minority enclave.

[Mike Thornton]

There is no evidence that the majority of Muslims are attacking Christians.
The idea that Islam is inherently anti-Christian is illogical, since (a) Jesus is considered to be a great prophet in Islam and more importantly Mary (the mother of Jesus)is considered to be nearly on a par with Muhammad himself.
Look, I know you guys want Islam and Muslims to be the replacement for the Soviet Union Communism, but it just doesn't wash.
By your logic, the fact that American Christians burn the Quran, attack Masjids and protest the construction of Masjids, after a thousand years of Christian leaders calling Islam a "gutter religion" proves that Christians don't accept Muslims either, right?
Lets also remember that much of the conflict in the Middle East has less to do with religion than with various tribes, being forced to live under arbitrary national boundaries that were draw by foreign occupying forces. There are huge divisions within Islam itself and the vast majority of religious violence involving Islam is between competing Islamic sects. In modern times anti-Jewish sentiment in the Muslim, Middle East is largely fueled by the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. And historically you would be hard pressed to show the same level of anti-Jewish violence in the Muslim Middle East as was perpetrated by Christians in Europe and Russia.

[Todd Juvinall]

OK, explain Ahmidenijad and Iran to us so we can understand how Islam is our friend.

[Mike Thornton]

Well, Many Iranians (as we've seen) don't like Ahmadinejad or the regime either, correct?
So that kinda throws a rock through your theory that all Muslims think alike, right?
Besides, I've never said that Islam is our "friend", I've simply said that it isn't our "enemy"!
Do you really want to go back to Paul Emery's discussion of the overthrow of an elected Iranian government, the installation and support of a brutal dictator, who was then overthrown by religious extremists?
One could make the argument that most if not all of our current problems with Iran could be laid directly at the doorstep of BP and the CIA. Without them, we don't get the Shah and without the Shah, perhaps we don't get Ayatollah Khomeini.

[Todd Juvinall]

That is the lamest response you have made so far. Iran has been run by religious Muslims for 32 years now. You are stuck in the past. Explain how your views make any sense regarding the Iranians present day government and their views and pronouncements on the west.

[Mike Thornton]

I think what you really mean to say, is that YOU have no idea how to respond and so you've come back with an inane response to what I've already said!
It's really not complicated, Todd.
You say that because the Iranian regime is belligerent to the west, that proves Muslims are bad and Islam is evil.
I say that many Iranians risked their lives to oust the regime and so it proves that Muslims don't all think alike and so therefor can't be labeled as a group.
As far as the rest of it is concerned, Iran had a democratically elected government that was overthrown, we helped install and supported a dictator that so abused his people that they were willing to accept a government run by religious extremists in order to get rid of him.
Maybe if we hadn't gotten rid of the first leader we wouldn't have gotten the third.
Why is that so difficult to understand?

[Todd Juvinall]

Your responses are so insane it is unbelievable. Are you sure you had political science and social studies because what you are writhing is bogus. Iran had elections a couple of years ago and the rulers didn't like the outcome so they threw the opposition candidate in the clink, negated all votes for anyone or party they didn't like and did it all under the guise of Islam! Perhaps you need to read up and get educated on current vents rather than worrying abut things that happened 60 years ago. Amazing! Ih, and when the Iranians leaders say they want to wipe Israel off the map, because the 12 Iman (out of a well no less) is coming, how do you interpret that?

[Mike Thornton]

Todd, Do you just act stupid in order to get a reaction or are you genuinely as dense as you seem to be?
Did anyone say that the current regime in Iran wasn't corrupt?
The point is (and I'll try one more time) you try to paint all Muslims with the same broad brush, but tens of thousands of Iranians were protesting and trying to oust their current government, right? That's not ancient history, right? So all Muslims don't think and act alike, right?
Even some of the country's religious leaders were protesting against the extremist regime, right? So that means that even all Muslim religious leaders don't think or act the same, right?
When the Iranian leader says that Israel needs to be destroyed, do you honestly believe that every Muslim in Iran (much less in the entire world) believes that too?
Do you believe actions have consequences? Do you believe that people are responsible for the choices they make and have to take responsibility for what happens because of what they did? Think it through!
And as far as the craziness of religions are concerned, do you believe everything that's written in the "Book of Revelations"? There is some pretty wild stuff in the Bible, ya know. Is it really any more or less crazy than and "Imam in a well"?
Why is it that you only want to focus on bad things that are (as you correctly point out) done "under the guise" of Islam? What about all the bad things that are done under the "guise" of Christianity? Why don't you paint all Christians with the same brush?

[Todd Juvinall]

I think there is a disconnect in your mind with reality as of today and your droning on about the past. I call that an uneducated position. Do some reading of current events and get back to us.

[Todd Juvinall]

Oh, here is the latest Islamic love. This is today.

http://www.theunion.com/article/20110513/BREAKINGNEWS/110519836/1066&ParentProfile=1053

[Mike Thornton]

I'm sorry, Todd, but your positions are just ,"scary stupid"!

[Brad Croul]

I don't think we are in a " war for national survival", and I am not sure who at the Wall Street Journal came up with that phrase, but it does not make sense to me.

If we are "at war", when did this war start?

If Bin Laden was commander-in-chief, and he is dead now, the war is over.

If the WSJ is referring to Al Queda as the enemy we are at war for national survival with, how does Al Queda kill our nation?

Our nation will still be here, even if a Bin Laden, or Timothy McVeigh blow up a building, or two.

What is Al Queda's goal, to rename our country "New Baghdad"?

Al Queda operates as little more than a drug cartel in flowing robes, with their drug of choice being their twisted interpretation of their religion.

"War for national survival" is just a catchy phrase.

I am not afraid of Al Queda.

[Todd Juvinall]

You and Thornton must live in an alternate universe. You two are scary. Especially Thornton. I haven't seen such ignorance since the USSR evaporated.

[Todd Juvinall]

Here is another story today the defenders of Islamo-Fascists will enjoy.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110512/D9N674D00.html

[Paul Emery]

I won't comment on the intellectual value of Todds arguments or the intelligence required to come up with them . His depth of his research and unwillingness to defend his proclamations with any kind of documentation are what they are.

And yes Todd, lets talk about the present not the past. That's why you introduced the relevance of our foreign policy towards the Barbary Pirates into the conversation. Now that's really important.

"The west was under attack and paid tribute to the Barbary Pirates in the 18th and the beginning of the 19th centuries until Thomas Jefferson kicked their butts in Tripoli. The reason the "pirates" were doing this is because they had declared "Jihad" against everything western. Some things never change eh? "

[Todd Juvinall]

That is my point. I do realize that when one questions someone one on the left they become the target of comments such as Thornton's. Too bad.

Yes, i would say not mich has changed since the 7th century actually with the Muslims. The West has moved on to progress of human life and the Muslim's haven't. Since the Ottoman Turks had hegemony over most of present day Arab lands, do you think they had something to do with the attitudes of the people under their power? You see, you folks think you have the answers but your questions are what are suspect. I am simply providing a contra point based on my support of the values we enjoy in America because of the expenditure of blood and treasure by many people to protect that right. You fellows just want to be mad so go go ahead and be mad.

[Paul Emery]

I prefer not to use characterizations such as calling someone a fool when responding to intellectually shallow and vacant comments. An example being it's okay to go back in time and use the Barbary Pirates in the late 1700's to illustrate the continued barbarism of the Muslims but not Iran in 1953 to demonstrate American imperialism. Todd, the great Liberal slayer of the early 1990's seems to have lost a touch and can no longer put ideas together in a coherent manner. There are others that I respect that can express conservative values and concepts that I can learn from that I prefer to engage with that don't need to resort to calling those who have opposing views fools or idiots.

[Brad Croul]

"The reason the "pirates" were doing this is because they had declared "Jihad" against everything western". Paul, this statement and Todd's, "i would say not mich has changed since the 7th century actually with the Muslims", speak to my question regarding how long we have been in this "war for national survival" and illustrates the silliness of calling our skirmishes with Al Queda radicals "a war".

Al Queda, and other groups that use religious teachings for political ends, are no different than protestors in the streets rallying against causes they feel are not consistant with their idealistic world view.

[Todd Juvinall]

Paul, I appreciate being called names by liberals because I know I have defeated their vacuous arguments. Again, thanks.

[Paul Emery]

Todd

I don't believe I've called you any names. I can't call you an idiot because I don't think you were born stupid. Fool won't work because to be a fool means, in a classical use of the word, that you have some entertainment value. I think I'll call you a Legend. Todd Juvinall, a legend in his own mind.