That was very insightful.
It's interesting how the Muslim people generally crave Democracy so much they move west.
Thats quite a leap....
Where to begin.....
What is clear is that as far as population grows, Muslims are leaping past us. Don't you think their intolerant views will have more and more influence in the world? The left likes to whine about religious conservatives in this country imposing beliefs, but we have NOTHING on the Muslims. It is really thoseMuslim religious that liberals, as well as conservatives, need to be wary of.
Even if we remain the great Democracy we are, will most certainly have to contend with a mostly Muslim European and Middle Eastern people. That could very well mean contending with Muslim leaders of many countries who see our way of life as evil. We have seen what many radical Muslims wish for the United States. The more there are, the more likely it is they can convince many to fight us. .Many like to argue that our enemy is Islam itself. I'm not ready to accept that. Nor do I wish to spread a fear of Islam.
As long as you don't "wish to spread a fear of Islam" I suppose it's okay to make demagogue like statements and not expect them to be misinterpreted.
We should be "wary" but not because of your words, as you don't "wish to spread a fear of Islam".
On the statistical analysis and forecasting you cite too... When was the last time that birth rates in each of the countries you cited stayed constant for 30 years. If the birth rate changes over the next 30 years (as it has over the previous 30 years since the dawn of civilization) then the numbers you cite will be a meaningless hypothetical.
Also, do you have any evidence that it is "the hard left evironmentalists" that oppose population growth???
The Chinese Government is hardly hard left. The U.S. Government has during this administration greatly reduced the funding available to the poor who have multiple children without the means to support them. Are they on the hard left?
The implications of your post are that their can be no meaningful Democracy in a state where the majority of the people are Islamic. Are you trying to tell us that Democracy has no chance of sprouting roots in Iraq? I don't think our troops would appreciate that sentiment.
"We have and are raising a generation of spoiled bratty children who lazy and are given too much materially."
Speak for yourself. I know plenty of children who are very hard working and don't have much materially. Perhaps you are looking for hope in the wrong neighborhoods.
It was just yesterday that I was reading a post claiming the Democrats were the party of Doom & Gloom, but it seems the shoe may aptly fit both feet here.
I am sure you will try to claim that you simply linked to the article that you were told to link to by "Papa Ray" and that the views stated in the anti-Islamic views in the Article should not be attributed to you, but you do have a tendancy to link to these types of articles more frequently than you link to articles about com
Leave it to jandrew to completely and utterly miss the point of the posting. Not at all surprising.
I may have missed it, please explain how the post wasn't about the threat we face from people of the Islamic faith and how our children are not equiped to deal with it, so we must handle it now.
Sorry, I overstated it:
As I read it, the post was about a possible future "threat" of being outnumbered by people of the Islamic Faith (based on a faulty analysis of selected statistics), and how our children will not equipped to deal with this threat in the future should it arise, so we should deal with it now rather than having faith in the abilities of our "spoiled bratty children who lazy and are given too much materially."
Also, is their any evidence that Islamic immigrants crave political freedom more than they crave economic prosperity.
What percentage of the Islamic immigrants which came to Europe did not go their seeking a more economically prosperous life for their families?? This is true of almost all large groups of immigrants, especially those that come to Western nations (traditionally Christian Nations) who have other religions.
RWS: Ask you neighbor why he came to America and has allowed his family to remain in the oppresive regime of Iran. I'm betting political freedom is not the reason.
The Chinise are communists. So yeah, I'd call them the hard left.
Cutting funding has nothing to do with. People are still free to have children without govt. funding. Geeze.
Regarding the meaningful democracy statement, that was not my implication at all. Nor did I imply our children couldn't deal with it. The only point regarding the selfish children I was trying to make was perhaps if they had siblings to help care for and their parents didn't spend all their money on just one or two kids, perhaps they wouldn't be so selfish. It had nothing to do with Islam.
I also know plenty of wonderful kids, including my own. But I have lived in 7 cities and I have seen my share of the selfish ones.
So if a meaningful Democracy can exist in a state where the majority of the people are Muslim, then what exactly is the "threat" of being outnumbered by people who do not follow your faith?
Would it really be so bad to live in a country where you had religious freedom but your religion was not the majority? Your vote would still count, no?
And you also appear to have some confusion over the difference between social issues and economic systems. The Chinese Government is actually not "hard left" on social issues, as you stated. They are rather "Far Right of Right" when it comes to individual freedoms.
Here's a link to spying on political opponents.
Here's another.
And here.
Some of these folks are actually allies of the United States and posed no threat to our National Security, but were subject to illegal wiretaps by the NSA.
jandrew,
Are you familiar with Iran for example? There is no freedom of religious expression.
Regarding China, sorry, you can paint them anyway you wish, they are still communists.
That is not a "link to spying on political appointment". It is a link to an article about a former Clinton official fearing that some of his conversations may have been intercepted.
The second one in no way references domestic spying. Frankly, the second one is a perfect example of what our intelligence agencies should be doing. AlBaradei talking to Iranian officials ... why in the world would we not want to know about that ?!
The last one is in no way related to the most recent created kerfluffle, and only pertains to foreign citizens, not US citizens. Care to explain how those are relevant ?
So when the Muslim's outnumber us, our Constitution will no longer be the Governing Document????
Should we be taking a stand to defend the Constituion from every possible enemy it faces (including domestic enemies to the Constituion) then. It seems this document is all that will really protect our freedoms in the future.
And "Communists" are "hard left" because they oppress freedom of speech, restrict privacy rights, arrest political dissenters..... don't be obtuse, it doesn't suit you.
Good Grief. Bill Richardson "was concerned" and Bolton had "asked for intercepts" WEll, did he get them? It doesn't say. If not, the point is moot. If he did, then I would want to know why.
I know you lefties are chewing at the bit to make more of this than it is, but you are seriously looking bad on this to the American public who sees our need for secrecy when wiretapping.
JD:
They are relevant because they are examples of the Bush Administration using the NSA to gather information from people who did not pose a threat to our National Secuirty. They were simply people who had positions that were different politically from the current Administrations, and because of their political beliefs, they were subject to survielance by our government.
In the case of Gov. Richards, if the allegations are true, then Bolton should be jailed. We of course will never know, but Gov. Richards does not have a history of making reckless accusations.
Frankly, I don't think I agree with most lefties or the majority on this issue. I don't want the government listening in on any phone calls without a warrant. I didn't trust Clinton, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, or Bush II to defend my rights, and viewed all of them as a threat to my rights.
This is not a left/right issue. It is one of how much power should the government have. For the Right to be arguing that the President should have unchecked power to montior phone calls of U.S. Citizens, then use that survielance in law enforcement operations is beyond absurd. Where are the Conservatives???
Bill Richardson "was concerned" and Bolton had "asked for intercepts" WEll, did he get them? It doesn't say. If not, the point is moot. If he did, then I would want to know why
On this we agree RWS.... Only problem is the administration refused to turn this information over to Congress during Bolton's confirmation hearings, and then gave him a recess appointment. This Administration has gone out of it's way to make sure you and I do not know why.
Does this not bother you?
Very interesting. Mr. Beautiful attrocities just quoted me the same article in a discussion we were having on my blog. I managed to read most of it.
This isn't the sheepdog goats and marsupials guy is it?
Its just as long.
Basically I agree with most of it but not the sentiment. And my truly radical reaction to this realisation two years ago was to try and start talking to them (fundamental Islamists) now.
I know dialogue is a alien concept when talking up a war and painting people as vile, mad dog child eaters but there you are. What to do when you are a "liberal" and a bit of a hippy?
Iran maybe extreme but I saw more gay people openly "hanging out" (and giving me grief cos of my piercings) in Peshawar (fundamentalist Pakistan) than I would do outside the bars in Soho London.
Mr. Steyn is into hype isn't he.
A great thinker once said
"don't believe the hype"
in terms of numbers Shock and Awe killing and not counting is extremist radical fundamentalism.
Especially if you are underneath it.
Can you imagine?
"Osama who? what's that got to do with us?"
Slightly off topic, but this cartoon is classic. You gotta check it out.
It completely sums up the character of a liberal......in more ways than one.....
http://www.coxandforkum.com/arch...ves/
000745.html
I wonder if the birthrate off-sets the number of suicide bombers?
Jill! That cartoon is perfect!..LOL!!
OK. Lets be even on a few things. Bones, you're way off base. You need to remember that many of the most notorious AQ leaders all say the same thing - destroy America. Particularly interesting is the statement by the former Hezbollah leader (and I have to paraphrase a little without looking it up)
-they are not interested in negotiating for anything - "We want to eliminate you." Accept that and you begin to see that part of the solution is to win any and all military battles to snuff them out. But there is another part of the solution that needs to come from both sides - not just those who already enjoy democracy.
No, we don't need to paint the Muslim religion as "vile, mad dog child eaters". But AQ is most certainly able to be defined there. Killing children indiscriminately is unacceptable in any religion and in any culture and in any country.
Islam is not to blame. Hiding behind Islam and using religion to advance a political agenda is all AQ wants to do. They aren't "Islam" any more than I am. A world of Sharia law is their goal and they can achieve this if democratic institutions ignore them. Bush very aptly pointed out that this will be a long war. And fought on very different fronts. Each time AQ battles us, they lose. But they fight different now - they have adapted and will continue to do so. Longevity is their goal - wear us done and make us give up and go home. Then they'll be here soon enough.
Sure, we have to change their minds about us - we have work to do there. Helping them with democracy is a start.
But they have to change their minds about us, too. When 64% of Muslims in England say they are sympathetic to terrorism, they have work to do.
If "we" the western fundamental extremists actually killed Muslims who said this rather than uncounted numbers of the "Osama who?" variety in their homes....
Infact if "we" even BOTHERED to LOOK for them...
From this blog entry:
My question was has anything ever really been done to try?
Not until now.
A look at world history - just within the 20th century - shows that this has been "tried" numerous times, by a number of Western powers.
In fact, the 2003 Iraq war is the third time that just the U.S. government has intervened, to effect regime change in Iraq. [Before that, it was the British and other powers.] Similar interventions have been done in a number of Eastern nations, Islamic and other.
Well, I didn't mean regime change. I think before we would have seen the regime change and left. Now we are actually trying to change things.
dave, totally unfair and untrue.
Uncounted thousands untrue? Are you sure?
Between 10 and 100 000?
No more guilty than the unborn you believe in protecting.
How many Al-Q have they found and killed or imprisoned?
Who is looking for them?
I think it is hopeful, maybe naiive to believe you can change the middle east into democracy by invading it. Maybe it will work. I can't say that I'm against it if people want it and I have read the blogs of Iraqis that do.
What if the majority either don't want it, don't understand the concept or (as was reported in the doc I quoted before) they just wait to be told who to vote for by Moktadr al-Sadr and co?
The US troops are in no position to do anything about that now in Sadr city, whats going to change?
I have also seen the blogs of american soldiers who are making great "democracy missionaries" but a "shariah missionary" on his own turf would call them crusaders, which, as they are backed up by force I can't argue with either.
maybe this will work.
This is from yesterdays (1/4/06) Press Gaggle at the White house. It reminided me of this site for some reason:
Q How can you justify killing children and grandchildren at home?
MR. McCLELLAN: Look at what took place in Iraq last month; successful elections, where you had nearly 70 percent of the voters turn out --
Q That has nothing to do with my question.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and if you look at the pictures from that election, the Iraqi people are determined to live in freedom. They want to chart their own future. And the President talked about that earlier today...
Oh, and also this precious little tid-bit:
The President's speech today at the Pentagon as far as terrorism and fighting terrorism is concerned, do you think that Osama bin Laden is still in -- is running the al Qaeda business?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, who?
Q Osama bin Laden. And where he is now? He is in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq or Iran?
*** Both of the above are taken out of context and are provided mearly for their humor.
jandrew : Those examples were not relevant, as they related to foreigners, who are not able to avail themselves of the protections under the law, but you know that. Nothing like throwing out some hypothetical conjecture, based on faulty assumptions, and hoping that it will stick ...
Are you implying that these posts do not show that Bush will abuse his powers to use any resource at his disposal for political means rather than actual National Security reasons.
Take a look at the 80,000 person "no-fly list", oh, sorry, your not allowed.
Sen. Edward Kennedy spent three weeks proving that he was not "affiliated with terrorist groups." (I'm sure Jill and GE will find this humorous rather than a serious abuse of power because Bush did it instead of Clinton)
The Author of "Bush's Brain" (James Moore) is on the list. As are various political activists, and the attorney's who represent them have also shown up on TSA's no fly list. There is no information available about how the list is created, who is in charge of it or otherwise.
Being on the list severely limits your ability to travel freely (as ordinary citizens can) which is a violation of the right to liberty (See the Fifth Amendment).
Aside from this, the list is shared with every airline who flies into the United States, and can be accessed by every counter attendant for those airlines. If the U.S. Government really including the names of all and only those individuals who are under suspicion of being affiliated with Al Queada by the U.S. government to that many people and then claiming that running a story without any names about NSA warrantless wiretapping is a threat to our National Secuirty?
"My question was has anything ever really been done to try?"
Do the Crusades count?
No, your posts do not show that President Bush will abuse his powers for political purpose. What they show is that you are more than willing to impute nefarious motives and lob unfounded allegations at our President regardless of the situation.
Are you so willing to just ignore our system of classified information? Or are you only willing to do so when the person that breaks the law has a motivation that you agree with ?
Show me one person who has had his or her flying restricted. Geeze.
So if noone is having their flying restricted, then exactly what purpose does the list serve??
Isn't the entire point of the list to restrict the flying priviledges of those who appear on it?
JD:
Do you see any difference between information which is damaging to George W. Bush politically and information which harms the Security of our Nation???
Second, do you believe that it is the responsibility of the New York Times to defend the secrets that the Government does not want us to know?
Third, how did the NYT story harm National Secuirty in any way?? Read the article and explain to me how terrorists will be changing their tactics based on anything contained in it.
If a terrorist believed that the Government could legally listen in on his conversations by obtaining a FISC warrant, and that only 5 FISC warrants had ever been rejected (both of which were public information) how could he not believe that the Government wasn't listening to his conversations legally?
The only harm done to "National Security" was that it exposed our current President as a firm believer that he need not abide by the Bill of Rights because Congress had granted him war powers.
Yes, there is a fundamental difference between the two.
I seem to recall your panties being in all sorts of a bunch over the alleged "outing" of Valerie Plame, and her allegedly covert/classified status. Now, when something that is unequivocably classified is blatantly leaked, that is quite alright with you.
Does your hypocrisy know no bounds ?
I believe it is the responsibility of the NY Times to do their jobs fairly and accurately, which they fail to do miserably. They framed this as some bogeyman "domestic spying", when that simply is not the case. It would be freaking wonderful to see somebody in journalism, say at the Grey Lady, to recognize that their job as journalists is not to compromise national security. But, that would get in the way of a good partisan hit job.
There does not have to be a demonstrable harm. That is such a disingenuous question to begin with. Somebody actively divulged classified material, and it would be safe to assume that they did so for political reasons. It is against the freaking law to do so. But, you only care about the nuance of the law when it suits you.
I believe it is the duty of the executive branch to enforce all the laws of the United States. I believe it is the legislative branches job to create those laws, and the judicial branch has the duty of interpreting them to determine if they are constitutionally valid.
I think we can agree on this.
If the Executive Branch is now going to take over the duty of interpreting the laws validity, and the intent of the law, then it is important for the people of the U.S. to be informed of this, no?
Further, if a leak of confidential information is coming out of the executive branch, they judicial branch should be the ones hearing the case (after it is determine who it is.)
This administration has yet to find the Anthrax mailer and yet to find Osama Bin Landen (to known criminals one of whom's identity remains unknown). I sincerely doubt they will be able to figure out who the 12 persons in the Administration were who leaked this story to the NYT, but if they do, they should receive the same treatment that Libby, Rove and others will if their actions are determine to be illegal at some point in the future.
Commenting by HaloScan
