Walsingham

As a freelance scientist, may I suggest you GET SOME FREAKING SLEEP, YOU NUTCASE.

Off to volunteer again for Blighty. I'm too old and fat for 'owt but the Signals this time, but by god I'll try! That'll teach me to waffle on endlessly about war.

But wouldn't the corporate lobbyists have made the case?

Who is it that would investigate an illegal act committed by the administration?

OK, GDM, I guess I understand your position better. I also now understand what I think is your main point about how whenever the topic comes up in some circles it leaps immediately to how bad the USA is. Personally I dislike such arguments because they serve as a legitimising smokescreen for the a-holes who perpetrate such acts. I thought it was particularly interesting that of the 'Muslim' countries surveyed recently support for suicide bombings had plummeted in the last seven years except in two places - Palestine, and Nigeria. In Nigeria it had actually risen. I feel the fact that Nigeria has experienced few if any suicide attacks may have something to do with this. Far too many of the countries where radicalism is rising seem to have too little concern for what would actually happen if the jifascists get their way and a confrontation occurs. Removing this tacit 'approval' of terrorism will not stop terrorism. But it would serve to halt a number of recruits who sign up to be heroes of the people.

You mean like if he enjoyed the music of Vanilla Ice?

Wait, GD, I'm confused. Does that mean it's OK?

Hold on, GDM, I think you're getting too het up with Yuusha. Fwiiw I don't think he's advocating anything close to terrorism. And you can hardly accuse me of being forgiving on this topic! Thsi is an opportunity to get an insight into Indonesian views on the subject from educated mature chap. So let's keep it civil if possible.

I always assumed it came from when members of Parliament gathered to lob things at peasants. I don't know if your Rangell example is him being ignorant, or merely playing the game to the voters. The voters are more likely to perceive it that way than a guy who sits on tax committees, surely?

Hot spam.

Tigranes has asked most of the question I was going to. He/she has also addressed your question of UN peacekeepers. The only other actors capable of large scale intervention would be (In order of willingness) China, Russia, and France. Given their behaviour right up to the invasion, and their past performance in (respectively) Central Asia and Africa, I don't know what you are suggesting. I don't mean this to sound harsh, but we aren't talking in the abstract here. Solutions have to be practicable. BTW, I would rarely accuse anyone of supporting terrorism. It's a horrible thing to say. However it is reassuring to hear an affirmation from anyone from any background. You'd be amazed who IS willing to say that they do, and smugly barf out the old lie about freedom fighters. Finally, Lare, are you serious about he Rape of Nanking being equivalent to Coalition behaviour in Iraq? I think such a statement deserves more proof. Unless you are happy making grossly insulting statements and running off.

I don't want to sound like I'm averse to changing my mind on this, but my firm belief is that if you limit the terms you simply move power to the guys behind the scenes, who spend their whole lives in power. Haven't we seen this with the Bush administrations?

Obviously I'm not in any position to render judgement on quality of argument. However, I personally feel it is permissible to address the question of the nukes in light of the terrorist question. If only because so many people do. There are two substantive questions raised in my opinion, given the topic we are in: 1. How does the motivation of the crew of the Enola Gay (the nuke bomber) differ from our example jihadi/jifascist? 2. More tenuously, but linked to the above, is large scale warfare morally and intellectually distinct from acts of terrorism? I haven't seen any attempt here to answer the first question. As for the second question I shall have to forcibly restrain myself, and restrict my comments to a single point. This is that if civilisation is to exist (with all its benefits to the human condition) it must depend upon the axiom that actions by a freely appointed state can have legitimacy over the actions of an individual. Terrorism at the coal face is quite simply the decision by an inidividual that their opinion of right and wrong is sufficient to immediately go out and kill another human being.

Who in their right mind would come here in the first place?

Now hold on a minute. The civilian death toll of the two bombs was, what? 180,000 iirc. Taking Okinawa the old fashioned way cost 300,000 Japanese Civilians. How many would have died to secure a surrender by nice clean methods? And this is ignoring what some would argue is the more compelling question of how many Allied servicemen would have died.

I thought end boss battle in OpFor was easy. I misunderstood what I had to do for about 30 minutes, and still didn't die. The jumping bits in Half-Life have made me just ignore the ending of that game. I really REALLY don't like jumping puzzles.

Pruned.

The woman might sound younger than she is because the translator was a bit crude.

Yes, it does have to be said that we the US and UK were under threat before the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq, and will be after we leave. I hate to sound like George Junior, but the simple fact is that radical fascist islamism is naturally going to want to destroy the West because we fundamentally oppose what they want. They despise democracy as weak and corrupt. They regard freedom as irrelevant to the true believer. We stand in their way. However, what I do think is interesting is the extent to which radicalism promises an end to secular corruption. Because in many ways this was what the Chritsian puritans used in England and elsewhere. Cromwell was vital for the development of the UK, but he was a bit of a bastard. A point? erm... I find jifascism boggling, but at the same time, not impossible to empathise with.

Le Tigre - Deceptacon.

Actually, I believe you aren't giving the members the credit they deserve. Not only do we have several muslims here, who have generously explained the complexity of jihad, and who might feel you are assuming a lot by claiming to be a victimised muslim. There are also several unbelievers who have made independent study of the subject. We know that jihad is taken in many different ways, and that is why I for one encourage use of the term jifascist. It's fascism with a jihad twist. Howevrer, plenty of people don't know what the hell is ment by a jifascist, so I titled the thread jihadi. Back on topic, if you've read the initial linked article I'd be interested to hear your comments on the woman's view of jihad.

Good point. In fact we have. Aum shinrikyo, the provos, and loyalists all get short shrift.

Ah. See, now that makes me properly worried. Ex-cons are notoriously vindictive. I'd definitely flag that up with the cops.

We've got wyrmsign!

But you're a taciturn Texan, aren't you?