Posted on 05/14/2005 11:23:48 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Actually most 16th Century Europeans would probably understand and accept our culture (after the initial transition period). All of the things that the religious right rails against existed in the Medieval period of Europe. If you doubt me look at the Canterbury Tales (which is of course 13th-14th Century). Our culture is no more or less vulgar than our forefather's. Our media is just larger, more global, and omnipresent. Culturally Islam will have to bend to accept us, or eventually we will come to loggerheads and have to fight it out. I vote for the first option, but also can see the second.
Cheers,
CSG
Following the thread Reply To markers, my post 129 was a Reply To your post 12, your post 12 was a Reply To post 1. Post 1 is the article. You didn't direct your response to any of those other posters. That's pretty clear and straightforward.
And to do anything other than that was being 'PC' and an 'apologist for Islam' etc. I was simply pointing out to do so would be foolish and not further our cause. Go read it again...
Guess what? I fully agree with the "point" you're trying to make here. The problem is that your aim is bad and you blasted the wrong target. Free Republic, like most discussion boards, is full of posters who shoot from the lip and think that the solution to every issue is to "nuke 'em", etc. - it's not always easy to stay "on point".
The premise of the article and your premise are not mutually contradictory or incompatible if you follow the logic of the actual words.
That is precisely the reason those types of slogans are used to frame these issues in the public consciousness. You and I are in agreement on this.
There will always be a drug problem; groups with no access to conventional weaponry will always resort to terrorism.
Again, I fully agree.
It's not a semantic trifle because "being at war" is invariably used to justify encroachments on constitutional liberties.
I also agree with the second part of this sentence, but the first clause is misguided and irrelevant. I made no accusations of anyone's statements being semantic trifles, and I specifically acknowleged the appropriateness of debating the merits of these types of slogans. I also did specifically point out that your attempt to define the discussion in terms of your arbitrarily narrow definition of the word "war" was incorrect, and that the author's use of the word in the context of her article was correct.
How many abominations against the fourth amendment were perpetrated in the holy name of the War on Drugs? "It's a war, you see. To win the war we may have to make some changes, maybe temporarily sacrifice some rights. What? You don't want to win the war? Whose side you on?"
I'm on your side, Petronius. The so-called War On Drugs is a Trojan horse attack on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. So are aspects of the War On Terrorism. We do have a corrupt "bi-partisan" oligarchical governing elite which is exploiting these and other issues, e.g. our open borders, to maximise their own power and further their own agendas. Our system of Constitutional checks and balances has been subverted into a legalised mob racket engaging in what I call "institutionalized treason". We have, as a people, fouled our own nest.
None of this, however, has anything to do with the fact that a resurgent radical Islam is at war with our "modern Western civilization", except in the sense of rendering us more vulnerable to the threat. The author of this article is not advocating or defending the cynical sloganeering which so greatly concerns you. She is simply acknowledging an evil reality, and suggesting that apologising to that evil is counterproductive. You have some legitimate disagreements with some of the posters in this thread, but not with the author's premise as stated in the original article. My posts here have simply been to refocus the discussion.
Once those Muslim countries have no cash flow they will go back to the stone age where they belong!
"A Saudi Islamic cleric gave bin Laden permission to detonate a nuke in a major American city."
Yeah, if that happens George Bush will give permission to the Strategic Nuclear Forces of the United States to detonate nukes in evey major Muslim population area on the globe. Also the streets of this country will run red with blood of Muslims slaughtered by an outraged US public. The clerics better watch out what they wish for.
BOFFO!! I wish that at least 250 million of the 300 million Americans had your "resolve" and your "can do" attitude!
Thanks so much for such a strong statement. I agree with you totally!
Char :)
Will do right now. Email the article to my Georgia Reps. that is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.