Anger over Forest Gate fuels culture of denial for Muslims

The Times UK ^ | August 12, 2006 | By Sean O’Neill

[dennisw]

George Orwell would have lots to say about today's UK. He would find the USA a much freer nation.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

I defer to the arguing with idiots theory. Bu bye.

[MarkL]

Terror plot: ON THE streets of High Wycombe, where the police are searching a number of addresses in the anti-terrorist operation, a young Muslim called Amir denounced all talk of terrorism. September 11, he declared, was not an act carried out by al-Qaeda suicide bombers. It had been proven to be the work of the United States Air Force.

Un-Frigging-Believable! There's a video tape of Bin Laden saying that he can't believe how effective the attack was! Oh, I forgot. OBL is actually a CIA mole... Right.

The mental gymnastics the muslims take would get them a set of 10s in the olympics! Talk about self-delusion and denial!!!

Mark

[vimto]

I understood your point - I didn't see it as advocating anything. It was reasonable, and made a difficult point succinctly.

[muir_redwoods]

Thank you. I didn't see it as advocacy of any kind nor confusing but there in no entrance exam for commentary

[grey_whiskers]

The sad thing is that when reading your profile you seem like a decent person. How you could seriously advocate what you are is beyond me and is no better than the Islamofascists who share your view. It is very dangerous.

Despite the first quote on your FReeper home page?

It is quite a bit better than the Islamofascists; and they do NOT share his view.

He'd be quite willing to leave them alone if they'd stop flying airliners into buildings, trying to blow themselves up with backpacks full of nails at college football games, sending missiles full of anti-personnel shrapnel into civilian areas, etc. etc.

The last I saw, your Freeper target hadn't done, or endorsed, *any* of those things.

Makes me wonder about your FReeper handle...

Cheers!

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

This is the quote you referred to in your post. I agree with it, but I don't believe in destroying millions of people for no reason.

[grey_whiskers]

I agree with it, but I don't believe in destroying millions of people for no reason.

Suggesting that Muir_Redwoods was "no better than the Islamofascists who share your view" (post 33) was beyond the pale.

As well as inaccurate.

The Jihadists seek to eliminate or subjugate all others merely for not being Muslim.

Muir was merely re-asserting what has long been taboo, the cultural superiority of the West: he was not advocating pointless destruction.

And--even if you press the point and insist that Muir was advocating a mass attack on Jihadists and their "camp followers" in the ROP, if you will--
that would not be pointless, but a response to decades or longer of unprovoked attacks.

Which brings us to your Freeper about page and its quote.

It sounded like, from some of your earlier responses, that there would be no attack too severe for you to support a massive Western response.

Do you really believe that?

Or, to put it another way: is there a threshold beyond which you would agree the gloves have to come off?

If so, can you give a rough idea of where that line is?

Cheers!

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

Let me just say that I am all for defeating those who want to harm us. But, I want to use realistic methods that actually solve the problem. Suppose the animals used a nuke in NYC...Here is the problem with a massive retaliation. Who would we attack? We can't be in the position of just lobbing nukes at countries full of Muslims without some evidence that the country was behind an attack. Not just because we would murder thousands and thousands of normal moderate people who don't want to be involved, but because it would not weaken our enemy. In fact, a large scale indiscriminate murder of hundreds of thousands of Muslim civilians would certainly inflame the 1 billion Muslims on earth as much as an attack on us would inflame us. I'm not saying that what we do should be dictated by "the Arab street", but the repercussions shouldn't be ignored from decision making.

If you want to get an idea of what is so frightening about the current Islamofascists, read the book "Flyboys". The book is about WWII and the pilots in the Pacific. A good portion of the book discusses Japan. It is unbelievable how unbelievably willing so many were willing to die for the emperor. In the end, the emperor finally relented and the war was over. Apply the same crazy devotion to the current situation and you'll see that there is no one to declare the war over. Flyboys is one of the best books I've read and it is a great reminder of the sacrifices some have made for us.

The reality, and what I think has so many people scared and so willing to "wipe them all out", is that there is no way to instantly bring an unconditional surrender or end he war. I'm afraid that this war will go on long after we are gone. Some would argue it has been going on since long before we were born. I do see an abrupt change in the openness of our borders in the next 10-20 years.

[grey_whiskers]

Hmm, so you feel it hopeless by conventional means.

Try my recent vanity on this very topic.

Cheers!