Replies

How can I believe you?

Quite frankly, if you've really been that involved, you may want to re-think your approach.

I have had my disagreements with other posters here. Poohbah and I have disagreed on whether or not the Iowa-class battleships should be reactivated (I'm for reactivation, he's against it). Long Cut and I have disagreed on the need for the SURTASS LFA sonar system (I am in favor of developing and deploying that system, he is against it). In neither case do I feel that their opposition to those systems is cause to question their commitment to this country's security.

El Conservador and I have disagreed about the AUC and Carlos Castano. I see them as a valuable ally against FARC and the drug lords, and I feel his work with Los Pepes ought to count for something. His view about the AUC and Castano is much different from mine, and I am sure he will not hesitate to jump in on that. But I think it is safe to say that both El Conservador and I both want to see FARC out of business and that we both share a desire for Colombia to experience doestic tranquility.

Both Nick Danger and Bob J have made some very valid points in this thread. And it looks like both of them are being attacked for not going along with the charges that have been thrown at Norquist.

There are conservatives who have concerns about the Patriot Act. Bob Barr and Dick Armey come to mind right away. Does that leave them open to the same sort of charges that are made against Grover Norquist?

Am I a "terrorist supporter" because I believe Colin Powell made the wrong call about the AUC?

Am I a "terrorist sympathizer" because I don't buy the "Islam is the enemy" bullcrap some people are foisting here?

Am I a "terrorist sympathizer" for pointing out that this feud could be more related to the known tension between cultural conservatives and the more libertarian wing of the movement?

I'd like to know.

I'm sure all that is interesting to someone. I didn't address any of those issues, nor make any of the implied statments or allegations (e..g, "terrorist sympathizers"). I have just posted facts, asked questions and answered people's, largely rhetorical, questions. I would be interested in seeing you stay on subject and reply in kind to the "very valid points" I have made.

Re would I answer your four questions from #299, rhetorical though they were:

My answer to your 4 questions is the same as yours, I assume. So, Can you accept agreement? Or does that stymie you?

Re Islam. I don't know what others have said to which you refer as "crap" -- but what Gaffney, and myself, clearly and carefully stipulate to be "Islamists" is a thing distinct from "Islam" or "Muslim," and is the accepted academic, governmental and journalistic term for politicial Islam's espousers, whether violent or not in mein and modality.

In religious terms, they are Salaffi, wahabbi, deobondi, tablighis, and related variants, as I'm sure you know.

Islamists are the enemy, or more formally, Islamists call themelves our enemy -- the West, the US, moderns, and any non-them Muslim is the enemy,and is plainly identified as such as in "the US is the main enemy of Islam." -- Bilal Phillips(look him up,he started the organized Saudi recruitment of US miitary during the first Gulf War and is an often cited figure and featured guest of many of Grover's groups).

This distinction is now increasingly well understood by policy makers, and others dealing at serious and senior levels. People, including the President and the Securty cabinet, may speak euphimistically about "Global War on Terror" but they all know what and who is meant.

It is what Rumsfeld's recently leaked memo about the war of ideas and the need to interdict at the madrassah level was all about. There are 10,000 madrassahs roughy, in each of Pak, Indo, and Malysia and a not insignificant number in India, not to mention of course Afgh. Most of these are less than 2 decades old -- n other words a massively funded rabidly grown phenom on a sharply upward curve. They are, in the main, Saudi funded, e.g., the Sauds spend more on these schools in Pak. for instance that the Pak. gvt. spends on all levels of education.

A few million more graduates a year and in a decade they will be Islam -- and then we will be at war with Islam. That is, strategically speaking, why it is so crucial to call a spade a spade here, stop wasting time with (much less legitmatig) the "wrong" Muslims and instead embrace, shore up, and work with the moderates while that is still possible.

Last, from that point of departure, I would suggest to you that the root of this contretemps with Gaffney and the national security convervaties is the above -- not personal ,political, points, jealousies, or whatever. These are serious strategic thinkers, people who understand how the world of security and threats works, and who helped to win the Cold War -- they are not gadflies or people dipping into the security realm, skimming the surface like a waterbug, making casual observations to fit one or another prejudice.

One does them, the movement and one's own argument a large disservice to think otherwise, no matter what a comfortable default that may be for some. It is a deeply flawed thesis.

Islamists are actively threatening Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, East and Central Africa, the Balkans and Central Asia, and virtually run Pakistan as well as dominating the Muslim community's voice and institutions from Mecca and AlAzar to Finsbury Park, Marseilles to Chicago, LA and DC. It is time for strategic clarity on the matter.

There are conservatives who have concerns about the Patriot Act. Bob Barr and Dick Armey come to mind right away. Does that leave them open to the same sort of charges that are made against Grover Norquist?

Non sequitor. Were that the case, they would be facing the same sort of charges. They aren't.