Replies

Glad anybody bothered to read any of it - lol. I can understand the perspective behind your quibble or modification, but I think it is out of place after the last year. It might have been reasonable to think, let foreign radical ideologues preach their hate as long as they are going after Africans, Indians, Israelis, and not after us. But surely it is by now clear that an international ideology of world wide dimensions is in arms against us already. And we will be a target of that ideology whatever we do, because we are in the way of its pretensions to eventually running the world. If your quibble amounts to not getting hot and bothered over, say, intolerance in Burma or Nepal, fair enough. If it is meant to imply there is any way the Islamicists could be got to leave us alone through some sort of contrite submission and non-interference with their rages, that is a delusion.

I always read your posts, even when it mostly goes over my head. You consistently elevate the discourse.

You have captured my quibble's meaning - we shouldn't pretend we can right all wrongs.

As for contrition and submission, I agree that will only encourage the enemy. Isolationism won't work against WMD, and I don't hear of any direct-action pacifists planning to share their love in face to face confrontation with the Islamists. Easy enough to agree so far.

I too read your #7, and it's a keeper.

Goes a long way toward helping to define what we are about, not just who we are against.