[Daily Nation (Kenya)] Part of fugitive former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's legacy maybe inadvertently arming like-minded "You-either-let-me-rule-you-or-perish" types.
Leading candidates in Africa are the Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Al Shabaab in Somalia, and Boko Haram in Nigeria.
They are Islamists. Their agenda is establishing states governed under the Sharia, the Islamic law.
Boko Haram is most potent. It has a pricy habitat, too, Africa's most populous nation and one of the continent's leading oil exporters. It's also home to a most cantankerous citizenry, a fertile recruitment ground.
Libya's revolution is unique. It lacks a charismatic leader a la Cuba's Fidel Castro. Ideologies are as shifty as dunes in the Sahara Desert. Incredibly, an angry and disorganized mob is winning.
Plausibly, had Gaddafi not vowed to flood Libya with the blood of the "rats," thereby alienating world opinion, the Nato bombing campaign wouldn't have taken place.
His crucial forces neutralised, he ignominiously became his opponents' Quartermaster General. Rebels looted armouries, but hardly protected weapons they didn't need.
Consequently, weapons, including shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, are "travelling."
Nigerian Tribune recently reported arms and ammunition from Libya are entering northern Nigeria's cities through Niger and Chad. So are Nigerians, some of whom served in Gaddafi's forces.
Niger and Chad border southern Libya and share 4,500-kilometre borders with Nigeria.
They are incapable of effectively monitoring their border with Libya or Nigeria. The latter isn't doing much better. It has 480 irregular and 12 regular border crossings with Chad and Niger.
A CNN report says Niger and Chad have admitted the smuggled weapons include detonators, plastic explosives called Semtex, and Russian-made shoulder-fired missiles.
Though antiquated, these missiles can shoot down aeroplanes flying at 11,000 feet. Libya reportedly had 20,000 of them.
In the wrong hands, "They could turn all of North Africa into a no-fly zone," CNN quoted Peter Boukaert of the Human Rights Watch as saying.
A few hundred in the hands of Boko Haram could do the same in Nigeria. And Boko Haram wouldn't love anything better.
Established in 2001, Boko Haram has, as Nigeria writer Sola Odunfa noted in a BBC column recently, "graduated from carrying out homicidal attacks on unarmed people" to "carrying out suicide bombings this year on the headquarters of the police and the United Nations in the capital, Abuja."
Government officials, Odunfa noted, "can only express horror at the bedside of survivors, vow on television to catch the perpetrator and then rush to fortify their motor convoys, offices, and residences."
A report by a presidential committee on circumstances that bred Boko Haram concluded federal, state, and local governments are guilty of the injustices that partly gave birth to the menace.
That's a gargantuan situation problem Nigeria's political elite need solve. The worst possible scenario is that Boko Haram acquires Gaddafi's "travelling" weapons.
That should not only give Nigeria's political leadership nightmares but lead to serious soul searching and quick action.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/18/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Let me see.
Nicki & Davy (mischievous, but good hearted boys) engineered a war to replace a horrible, horrible dictator (who threatened their oil revenues, or their machismo, or something) with adherents of Religion of Peace. As a result of this war a lot of people in Libya died (and a lot more are going to die) and a lot of weapons found their way into the hands of (what is called by people unwilling to face facts) Islamists. My question is, what the f*ck the author means by the title?
#2
Agree with your question, g(r)omgoru -- clearly some Kenyan editorial creativity was involved. But I seem to recall that the impetus for supporting the various rebels was that the dapper colonel had threatened to open the floodgates and let all of Africa pour into Europe.
Unless Canada, that most pacific of North American nations, is restrained, then life on earth as we know it may be finished. The Washington Post reports that in May, environmental writer and activist Bill McKibben pondering a simmering energy issue asked a NASA scientist to calculate what it would mean for the Earths climate if Canada extracted all of the petroleum in its rich Alberta oil sands region. The answer was blunt. It is essentially game over, wrote James E. Hansen, who heads NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies: It would push atmospheric carbon concentrations so high that humans would be unable to avert a climate disaster.
#2
So the Post asked Mr. McKibben to ask Mr. Hansen for an opinion, and lo and behold, they got exactly the answer they sought.
Boy howdy, how amazing is that?
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/18/2011 14:39 Comments ||
Top||
#3
And if the world doesn't end the west would have fairly cheap plentiful energy without any need to deal with the middle east or abandon cars. That is the real thing freaking out the greens right now.
#5
So IIUC, thanks to free-market economics the US + CANADA = NORAM possess the world's largest reserves of oil - adding Mexico/Mahico would make it better.
Which IMO once again leads back to Govt + Industry Energy Perts + UNO dev a common consensus on the magnitude of the alleged leaking or "cracked" seafloor in the Gulf of Mexico, ala BP DEEPWATER HORIZON.
OWG-NWO = akin to PROTO SPACE GOVT-ORDER = Humanity needs to know the TRUE LEVELS/SCALE OF ITS PLANETARY RESERVES AVAILABLE-VS-NOT-AVAILABLE FOR NEAR-EARTH + DEEP SPACE EXPLORATION + COLONIZATION.
Dats what Political Leadership + Gubbermints are for, correct???
#3
mom- Thanks for posting the link. I think any and all reasonable and decent people would empathize with the plight as described by author. No sane person can begrudge anyone who is doing their honest best to make ends meet and pay the bills. Folks like the author of the response under discussion have good reason to be upset, dissatisfied, and disappointed with the "system".
The question in my mind is what "system" are we talking about here? In other words, who is responsible for the terrible economy and job market? It goes without saying that Wall Street deserves some of the blame. But in my opinion, far from the majority of it. That's not to say we all shouldn't expect-- nay, demand-- accountability from our financial sector and that any bad actors should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. That's what the SEC and other various government agencies exist for. We saw this happen in the case of Raj Rajaratnam, who just the other day was sentenced to the longest prison term of any insider trading case. If that's not at least an indication of some accountability on Wall Street, what is? Bankers hanging from lamp posts?
My point is that while some of the OWS grievances are legitimate, they are focused on the wrong "system". The system they should be protesting and demanding greater accountability from and within is our government. And in a roundabout way, I think that's what the 13 year old girl who has ignited this debate with www.getadamnjobyouhippie.com is trying to say. It's not Wall Street or the private sector that is holding you back from getting a job. On the contrary, I would argue that any business operating in a free market environment would love to be able to hire more as that indicates that the enterprise is growing. Rather, it's our public sector, i.e. our government, and all the corrupt politicians that inhabit it who have created the conditions that made the Financial Crisis of 2008 possible; that have put our country down a path of fiscal insolvency that we seem incapable of correcting; that have made the recession far worse than it could be by using taxpayer funds to buy votes in the name of "stimulus".
So I say to the OWS crowd the following: Forget about accountability on Wall Street for a moment. WHAT ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY IN OUR GOVERNMENT? If you've been listening at all, which is highly doubtful, it's the same basic question the Tea Party has been asking. WHY DON'T YOU START AT THE SOURCE?
And yet, to add insult to injury, for all the irresponsibility, corruption, and malfeasance that goes in government, the OWS crowd and those who claim to speak for them want MORE government. The irony is that this reveals their true intentions in a way they most likely never anticipated. They don't want to fix the "system". They want to expand the system in their favor. For if they were serious about fixing the system, they would start with Washington first before they even set foot on Wall Street. But alas, that would require them to question their blind faith in big government. And sadly, without big government, they have nothing.
The question on the table here is what principle shall the Right and Right/Libertarians in the United States advance with regard to OTOH the deep constitutional principle of freedom of religion and OTOH the threat to that constitution and principle by e.g. militant Islam and soft as well as hard jihad.
In other words, can the Right and the Right/Libertarians articulate a principled response to those who say the Constitution should be interpreted to allow such things as shari'ah courts that are sanctioned to operate instead of secular law?
Or must we say that there is no Constitutional basis to address this? What then?
---------
In the thread for today's Bloid, "SofaSoldier" suggests that Islam is trending away from moderation.
That may be true. It's certainly what the Wahabists and the Salafists want to be the case, and they understand that creating such a public perception can eventually create the reality itself.
Which is why, IMO, it's way overdue for the Right and the Tea Party to articulate clear principles that go beyond slogans for dealing with this.
Here's one to try on and critique. It addresses a confusion / lack of understanding I've found among naturalizated citizens who grew up Muslim and consider themselve moderate, but who haven't really internalized what the Constitution is all about. It might clarify a few things for historically illiterate leftists, too.
The US was founded on a radical idea: that the religious and political liberty of a religious nation is best ensured by a system of government that carefully avoids legal establishment of any religion at the expense of other religions, including the unbelief of those who profess no religion.
This means that Muslims and those of other religions are welome to participate in this country, provided they accept and live by the following guidelines:
- they swear loyalty to the Constitution and as a consequence of that oath, live in accordance with the law of this land
- they agree that shari'ah law or other religious codes must not take precedence over the Constitution and our secular laws
- they agree that conversion to Islam / their religion can be sought, but only by putting out their message and living lives they hope will be attractive to others
- they do not seek to stifle criticism of Islam / their religion, which they are free to counter peacefully in debate - but not otherwise
- they recognize that, in the event they abrogate these priciples (for instance, by advocating shari'ah courts or funding groups that seek to attack and destroy this country using whatever means) then this society and this country will take the necessary actions to expel the invading foreign attack from our midst.
Muslims and anyone else who can live with these guidelines are welcome, subject to the legal processes for immigration and naturalization if they are not native born.
Because this principle is foundational to the Constitution and to our way of life, those who are unwilling to adhere to these guidelines have no automatic right to live here whether native born or not and should go elsewhere. Should they actively seek to undermine the Constitution or otherwise attack us, we will treat them as enemies and destroy them.
A moderate and well educated Muslim I know was actively startled when I told him this was a principle I was willing to fight and die to preserve. It would, I think, apply equally well to violent militias that claim to be acting as Christians while in fact seeking to overthrow the Constitution and legally valid authorities.
Anyway, that's a first pass at wording - your comments / refinement welcome.
#4
Whether or not these tenets (please don't confuse them with renters) are accepted is a matter of choice for each Muslim or other religionist.
Stay and comply or leave peacefully - fine. Stay and attempt to subvert or attack from without and we will come down on you like a ton of bricks. Or a Hellfire, if you're outside our territory and we have no effective allies there to do it for us. That's the gist of it.
Their choice and their responsibility for the consequences (good or bad) of that choice.
The intention here is to state a clear principle that articulates under what conditions we will take action against Muslims or any adherent of any other religion or ideology. To date, such a principle has not been articulated by the Right or the Right-Libertarians. As a result, the principle of Freedom of Religion has been turned into a lawfare weapon against us.
We have a choice of policies we can invoke to protect ourselves. I submit that this one, or something like it, could be effective while preserving our own integrity and liberty. ROEs, in fact, for cultural and societal survival.
#5
Stay and comply, leave peacefully or stay and attempt to subvert - in which case we will come down on you like a ton of bricks, is the message.
Their choice.
Posted by lotp
Sounds very harsh, possibly genocidal. Wasn't there an Austrian house painter who gave a similar leave here or else threat in the 1930's? Yes, yes of course, one "n" in tenet. Good catch!
#6
Not genocide, which includes the slaughter of people for who they ARE. And not reprisal attacks against noncombatants, either, in response to things they DID NOT DO.
This is targeted at individual offenders and is intended to be proportionate to the offense. It might even be said to comply with the spirit and perhaps the letter of international conventions for armed conflict, suitably interpreted for an age when such conflict is often pursued by those who do not wear the uniform of a state military.
Oh, and Besoeker/Sofa-Soldier, really - descending to Hitler references so soon in the discussion? You know perfectly well that the expulsion of the Jews under the Reich was justifed on the basis of WHO THEY WERE and not what they did - calumnies about Jewish bankers notwithstanding.
But - thank you for engaging. You raised exactly the important issues that come up when discussing this sort of thing, and that this is intended to contrast with.
#8
Isn't this already the law? Aren't Muslims already flaunting it?
Beyond that, I doubt whether there is a moderate Islam, or ever can be. I think there can be "Jack-Muslims", but that anyone who takes Islam seriously is basically a poor candidate for a free citizen in a democratic society. Those are two different paths and they do not cross.
#9
On the one hand, it is difficult for me to sympathize with Moslems when terrible things happen to them. They have their own culture, their own societies, and their own governments. When the government is on the one hand inshallah, and on the other rapacious and corrupt my emotional reaction is that it's their problem. They don't like our culture, they're welcome to theirs.
That means when there are floods in Pakistain and the rest of the world kicks in to alleviate the suffering and the government rakes off a goodly percentage, steps on and then kicks out aid workers, and makes no provision for handling recurrences, I don't see a requirement for the rest of the world to kick in when the same thing happens a year later. I have nothing against granny ladies and my heart weeps for the poor little kiddies, but that doesn't man I'm willing to acquiesce in their use as hostages.
It's precisely because of incidences like that, however, that we fall into the trap of not regarding them as quite human. They become "the Natives" to us, just as they've become "the Masses" the their exploiters. I haven't spent any time among this particular set of "natives," but I've lived in pretty close proximity to other cultures. There are a lot of differences between Laotians, various hill or woods tribesman and Vietnamese (where my own hands-on experience lies) on the one hand and Paks on the other. But on the human level they do in fact laugh, cry, and even love (if sometimes in funny ways).
If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.
There's much wrong with the Wonderful World of Islam, but the problem isn't with everybody. It's with the turban and automatic weapons set, the holy warriors who're determined to make the rest of the world just as nasty as they've made their own part of it.
They teach us in MBA school to break problems down into manageable chunks. The bad guyz should be the manageable chunk of the Islamic problem we're concentrating on. The old lady in the burka and the little kid who's going to grow up to do what the nawab tells him to do should get sympathy rather than derision, and we should be trying hard not to engage in total war against them.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/17/2011 16:52 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Isn't this already the law?
Not clear. The Amish, for instance, have a religious exemption from having to send their kids to high school.
Beyond that, I doubt whether there is a moderate Islam, or ever can be.
You may be right. I suspect you are, although the Sufis would disagree. I don't care one way or the other - it's their choice whether they can interpret / reinterpret / reform Islam to adhere to this principle or whether they leave / stay out of our society built on it. What I propose we not tolerate is their having it both ways here.
This is getting tiresome.
g(r)omgoru, you went from one country with state-imposed religion under the Tsars (followed by State as Religion under the commissars) to another country specifically founded on religious and ethnic identity.
#13
g(r)omgoru, most of the native Americans who died did so from epidemics rather than warfare or intentional genocide - although there certainly were exceptions to that. And IIRC, Besoeker has made it plain that he did not start out here in the US, but in a place with somewhat different legal and governmental principles.
In any case, we have to make decisions at this time under this system.
And - no sanctimony intended re: Israel, which I support strongly. Just a note that our Constitution and system are different, living as we do at this other place and under other conditions than your state, and with a governmental system that is somewhat older and somewhat different than that of the modern state of Israel.
My Israeli friends are grateful - and so am I - that their parents or grandparents were able to flee to a place where their Jewish identify was confirmed. My maternal ancestors OTOH fled the Calvinist equivalent of imposed shari'ah to settle here and fight in the Revolution so as never again to have to live under any government dedicated to a single identity or religion - not even the one they themselves held to strongly.
#14
CYNIC, n.
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision
#15
What specifically do you see in this principle that fails to take into account how things really are?
I fully admit that it is quite likely that few and will stipulate that it is possible that no Muslims would be willing to live under this principle and these guidelines.
Assuming we did indeed follow them, what is unrealistic about them?
By the way, I can suggest a couple potential objections, or at least questions, in response to what I've proposed above.
1. What would the impact of this be on, say, Catholic hospitals that did not want to perform abortions but that accept Medicaid or Medicare payments for other procedures? Can we differentiate between government funding of some things and government imposition of policies in oppposition to one group's religious beliefs as a result of that funding?
2. I included what should be a controversial clause, for discussion. What exactly are the rights - and the boundaries of those rights - of native born Muslim citizens re: agitating for changes to the Constitution? Or other groups, for that matter? Where do we draw the line? CAN we draw a line?
#16
Assuming we did, indeed, follow them, what is unrealistic about them?
Where do I start? Perhaps the difference between reciprocal cooperation and kin selection would be a good place. Once you have through understanding of the differences between the two, try to imagine society/system of ethics based on pure kin selection.
I'm familiar with Axelrod's work and I understand the basics of kin selection. In what specific way do these address the principle I offer - not whether Muslims would choose to modify their behavior or beliefs, but the principle itself and its interpretation in the guidelines that I propose we might adopt?
How to enforce this or any other principle is a related but separate question. And again, I have no particular investment in which choice, among those offered, any given Muslim, or most Muslims, or all Muslims, or for that matter members of the "Christian Patriot" milita might make in response.
The question on the table here is
what principle shall the Right and Right/Libertarians in the United States advance with regard to OTOH the deep constitutional principle of freedom of religion and OTOH the threat to that constitution and principle by e.g. militant Islam and soft as well as hard jihad.
In other words, can the Right and the Right/Libertarians articulate a principled response to those who say the Constitution should be interpreted to allow such things as shari'ah courts that are sanctioned to operate instead of secular law?
I'm honestly interested in your thoughts on this and those of others here. Does your objection really come down to a question of practicality (Muslims won't abide by these guidelines, will lie about it etc.) or is it aimed at the principle itself?
What I am aiming at here has to do with our Constitition, not the likelihood (or lack thereof) that people from a tribal culture cloaked in rigid and aggressive religious doctrine would happily become constitional supporters. I'm challenging those who believe that e.g. Islam represents an existential threat to our way of life to articulate a clear principle consistent with the Constitution on the basis of which to respond to that threat.
Or must we say that there is no Constitutional basis on which to address this? What then?
#19
- they recognize that, in the event they abrogate these priciples (for instance, by advocating shari'ah courts or funding groups that seek to attack and destroy this country using whatever means) then this society and this country will take the necessary actions to expel the invading foreign attack from our midst.
I think that needs to be expanded to supporting any group, anywhere, that works to institute shari'ah law, whether by hard or soft jihad. We cannot countenance a Muslim version of Boston Irish funding the IRA.
#21
Disregarding lefties' opinions... Is Communism a threat o the Constitution and the way of life?
Yewbetcha.
What is Communism?? A political ideology.
It has even its trinity, Marx, Engels, Lenin, with some additional saint added here and there. It has aspects of a religion, or a cult may be a better context.
What is Islam? A political ideology with more pronounced religious aspect. In my view, there i very little difference between the two.
A simplification? Maybe. But if Islam is reclassified to what it is, not what it appears to be, then formulating the principles and rules may be a tad easier.
#22
From National Affairs.
And yes, it is tiresome. Brain drain moslem crap on top of the government crap democrat sandwich we are already eating.
It's a whole ball of crap sane people should not be subjected to.
#24
Phil, objection. Mohammed thought first it was a devil (sheitan), while his wife, for whatever reason, convinced him it was god, some kinda. Mohammed did not argue, it's far easier to justify ones' action by referring to authority of god than devil.
#25
I'm honestly interested in your thoughts on this and those of others here. Does your objection really come down to a question of practicality (Muslims won't abide by these guidelines, will lie about it etc.) or is it aimed at the principle itself?
(a) It's not practical.
(b) Islam is already unconstitutional under 1st, 14th, and 19th amendments.
#26
Freedom of religion? Do you think it should apply to the Aztecs? That it should allow to burn widows?
The Founding Fathers were thinking in branches of Christianism and it can be extended to non-Christian religions who, more or less, abide by the following principles: "That all men are created equal and should get the same treatement by the law" (Islam does not recognize equaliry between Muslims and non-Muslims), who are not in a perpetual war agaisnt othjer religions (fundamental in Islam, it is in the Koran a book G.d himself cannot change), who, more or less abide to "to Caesar what is from Caesar" ie who recognize the independence of the State and society (Islam regulates even how to clean yourself).
The Founding Fathers weren't thinking in Islam or the Aztec religion when they wrote the First Amendment.
#27
I don't disagree, JFM. So then the question becomes, what is the best way to deal with this that is most consistent with the other deep principles on which the US was founded?
In the United States (but not necessarily everwhere else), office holders, military etc. swear allegiance to the Constitution, not to any current government.
In the United States (but not necessarily everywhere else) you are accountable for what you do, not where you came from or what you believe.
There are two Pakistani families on my block. In one the daughters go trick or treating, wear clothes just like the other kids in their class and the mom has no problem with them joining me in my kitchen to bake and eat cookies or tentatively petting my dog. (He's cute and friendly, which helps.)
In the other familiy, the mother and young daughter wear headscarves, they attend a mosque regularly, the kids get after-school religious training once a week and the oldest boy joined the Air Force when he graduated from high school. The middle boy, who's 17, helps his dad wash and do maintenance on the several cars that belong to his dad's small limousine business, for which his mom takes the reservations and sends out the dispatches. They're up to 6 or 7 other drivers now - a classic American story of immigrate, work hard, build a better life for your kids, who turn up at the homeowners association work days and who shovelled the walks for us after a blizzard last winter,
We don't outlaw conservative Judaism in which women shave their heads and wear wigs or scarves in public. On what basis should we outlaw my neighbors? What, specifically, have they done that threatens our survival?
Or my co-worker with the PhD in a technical field who says, and I think believes, that Islam is all about keeping yourself on a strict discipline to avoid doing wrong things, who dismisses the hard jihadi people as a fringe and who doesn't really want to deal with the whole issue of Salafism? who is reading the works of Sufism now that he's in his 50s?
g(r)omgoru, you are wrong about the constitutionality of Islam IMO. It's a critical issue - in the United States we do not outlaw beliefs.
But we damned well had better be very clear about what actions - including open incitement to violent overthrow of the government - we will punish severely.
If some idiot wants to go bare chested with a feather headress and proclaim the wonders of the Aztec gods, go for it. If he starts sounding like he might have followers, it's prudent to keep an eye on him. The first time he organizes an attempt to snatch a kid and do the tear-out-the-heart bit, it's ton o' bricks time.
The Constitution is a social compact - an agreement we make with each other. It wasn't handed down from on high, like so many legal systems based on the Napoleonic Code (in the west) or other authorities. If Muslims, or anyone else, are willing and able to abide by the compact on what basis should they be outlawed?
Note that I am not talking about multiculturalism. I am talking about clearly articulating what we will defend in this culture, what others must accept in order to be here.
#29
Lotp, that is nice but muslim schools from the _moderate_ variety have told to that boy in tyhe Air Forcde that his loyalty is to Islam and fellow muslims _first_ and that he is allowed to take false oaths. IMHO this boy from an integrist family in the Air Fotrce is a security risk.
Also we are not talking about Muslims but about Islam, the ideology.
#30
I don't disagree about the risk. I argue that the response should be proportional.
To quote a former US President that many here admire:
Trust - but verify.
We knew perfectly well the Soviets might try to cheat on SALT, so we put monitoring systems in the treaty. As a result, SALT pretty much achieved its goals. Most of the time the Soviets complied, and when they didn't we caught them at it.
We know that some Muslims may take false oaths. Trust but verify.
Oh - and that young neighbor who enlisted chose the Air Force because OTOH it is a classic way to join the middle class and OTOH he felt that unlike the Army it would not bring him into the moral quandry of killing other Muslims in Muslim countries.
Most Muslims who move to the US do so to gain for themselves and their kids what they see us having: political and religious freedom, a better standard of living, a better educational system (I know, I know ....) etc. Many of them, like my co-worker, will avoid the radical path so long as they aren't forced to come to grips with the contradictions between our society and the teachings of their inherited religion.
That's fine with me. My co-worker complains that his teenaged son has adopted Amerian attitudes towards music, sex etc. That's even finer with me (and I'm no fan of much of our popular culture). And he cannot get a security clearance which seems right to me too, given his close family and emotional ties to Islamabad, including the fact that he carries a Pakistani as well as US passport.
What I want to do is to draw the clear line that indicates when they've crossed a line and may not participate in the benefits of this society. And I want to do it based on Constitutional principles.
That way, we know when to act and we know why we are justified in acting.
#31
Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. One of the main purposes of a state is to protect personal liberty. Personal liberty, however, is limited by the state. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre, when there is none. You also cannot play loud music at 2A.M if it is going to annoy neighbours.
Freedom of religion is also a personal freedom as is freedom from religion. Religion is then as constrained by the state as is personal freedom.
Singapore is one of the states that truly understand this concept. It managed religions just as much as it manages individuals.
They appoint umbrella organisations which manage different religions. Taoist for the Chinese, Muslim for the Malays etc. Their main job is to foster harmony. They do this by civilising those who have come in from the village or tribe. The Taoist are not allowed to sacrifice animals like they do in their home village, back in China.
Muslims are not allowed to preach extremism. In fact all Friday sermons must be submitted to Government. Anyone who preaches extremism is jailed immediately or kicked out of the country, never to return.
All that said, until Islam can learn to handle the concept of Dar al-Harb vs. Dar al-Islam in a civilised manner it needs to be kept under parole and under close supervision.
#32
g(r)omgoru, you are wrong about the constitutionality of Islam IMO
I think I need to reword that. It certainly is the case that Islam in nearly all interpretations makes claims and demands that are not in the spirit of our Constitution. The question is, how do individual Muslims interpret and act on them?
In Chritianity, this was addressed early on: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's."
Nonetheless, there was serious concern among some when John F. Kennedy ran for office that his loyalty would be to the Pope before the US, his service in WWII notwithstanding. We don't worry about that now.
I don't know if Islam can, or will, find ways to live peacefully in non-Islamic countries in this century, with air travel, international banking and biotech labs that can fit into a garage and genetically modify lethal organisms. I do think that our response should be based on some thoughtful consideration of what policies would best serve us overall, not only to protect against threats but also to preserve this grand Constitutional experiment.
#33
Oh - and that young neighbor who enlisted chose the Air Force because OTOH it is a classic way to join the middle class and OTOH he felt that unlike the Army it would not bring him into the moral quandry of killing other Muslims in Muslim countries.
He hasn't thought this through. First, if he ends up in aircraft maintenance, for instance, he will at some point be supporting those who are killing other Muslims in Muslim countries; second, Predators; third, and most important, once you take the oath of service, you cannot choose which wars you will fight and which you won't. Athough I suppose if he goes for military policing, he might get to guard Muslim prisoners instead of killing or supporting the killing of jihadis somewhere in the world,
#35
In other words, can the Right and the Right/Libertarians articulate a principled response to those who say the Constitution should be interpreted to allow such things as shari'ah courts that are sanctioned to operate instead of secular law?
Of course there is, and its already in there, with no amendments needed. Just enforcement of Article VI:
>This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The key, of course, is "should be interpreted": the plain text is plain enough, so to get anything else out of it requires "interpretation". In the end, principles guide "interpretation", which puts applying the Constitution on the same level as applying Scriptures. Take a strict interpretation based on the meaning of the words as they existed at the time the text was written, and you're a "fundamentalist".
#36
Oh - and that young neighbor who enlisted chose the Air Force because OTOH it is a classic way to join the middle class and OTOH he felt that unlike the Army it would not bring him into the moral quandry of killing other Muslims in Muslim countries.
I find myself wondering when the last time someone in the Taliban, or the Pakistani army, or the Revolutionary Guard, or Hezbollah, or any of hundreds of other organizations, felt such a quandry.
But not every maintenance technician gets near them.
This young man works a desk job, paperwork for buying supplies etc. IIUC.
And yes - I suspect he hasn't thought this through fully. But that may or may not matter, if he keeps the cognitive dissonance at bay, as my co-worker seems to do.
#38
"Moslems shouldn't fight other Moslems" is basically a propaganda line designed by the aristocrats that rule the Islamic world meant to deny us things like interpreters so that we'll be forced to choose between bleeding to death and the more ruthless courses of action that are being argued against here.
#41
so that we'll be forced to choose between bleeding to death and the more ruthless courses of action that are being argued against here.
Not arguing against more ruthless courses of action, but suggesting rather strongly that for our own sakes we'd better be clear about the principles we stand for and the guidelines they suggest.
Snowy, as is often the case you get to the nub of it. I've been waiting for someone in this discussion to ask whether we aren't facing existential threat from the financial burden of fighting a constrained war against barbarian raiders.
There's IMO a good argument to be made along those lines. But - again IMO - I think it's important to make that argument as a basis for those more ruthless actions, for our own sakes and for our descendents to understand that we did so after consideration and after restraint did not suffice.
#43
What exactly are the rights - and the boundaries of those rights - of native born Muslim citizens re: agitating for changes to the Constitution? Or other groups, for that matter? Where do we draw the line? CAN we draw a line?
What about those Amish?
Both of these are the problems I have. As long as they are obeying the law, do we really need or want a law to further restrain Muslims? And how would we enforce it, especially against second generation adolescents?
I do think one thing we need to do is get rid of dual citizenship. If you are an American, that's what you are. That's my objection to all the hyphenated Americans. If you are an American you have absolutely and entirely renounced and abjured all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty.
This also gets to the problem with the extra-judicial execution of Alawaki. He should have been found to have shown allegiance to a foreign prince, etc. by due process of law, stripped of his citizenship and then hunted down.
As for the Amish, in the article I submitted that did not make it to the 'burg it is clear that a mob of them is assaulting those who fail to faithfully follow the tenets of the order in eastern Ohio. They should not be deported to Germany, but they should be tried for assault and, if found guilty, sent to the hoosgow. Our existing laws are sufficient.
As for the founders, I think Washington would have found his words to the Truro synagogue as applicable to Musselmen as to Jews:
absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen
#44
Boy, I even previewed and didn't catch the bad paste. What Washington said was:
The Citizens of the United States of America
have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the
indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.
#46
Muslims are taught from a young age Islam is a divine guide from God on how to live and it is Gods Law/word whilst US law is man made and therefore corrupted!
They put their religion before nationality.
Please remember they are muslim first British/American/Canadian second!This will not change as they call each muslim brother or sister.
Non muslims are looked down upon.They have abandoned the true path.Muslims are the chosen ones as they follow Allah to the letter of the Law/Koran/Gods words.
Posted by: Paul D ||
10/18/2011 15:18 Comments ||
Top||
#47
I agree that our existing laws should be sufficient. I posted the 'Burg's original link to those Amish terrorists a few weeks ago. Some of them have indeed been sent to the hoosegow & Ohio laws are slowly grinding out their fates. Just as existing laws have not been enforced against financial miscreants, other laws have not been enforced against Islamists living in the US & working against its constitutional principles, not to mention laws against undocumented Democrats illegal immigration.
(1) Intentional mass killing of noncombatants is morally wrong, but may be the least wrong course of action available to us. Specifically, it may be the least wrong action when our survival - rather than our convenience or risk - is truly at stake.
(2) Our goal in this fight should be to defend not only our physical survival but, as much as possible, our liberties and our unique Constitutionally-based way of life. This requires that we carefully think about and articulate the principles we are defending and establish clear guidelines for action on our part in response to actions on the part of others.
Has the financial burden of attempting to fight restrained military actions against terror / Islamicist groups now become an existential threat to us? How can we measure that?
Would your answer change if instead of current actions against terror / Islamicist groups we were involved in similar actions against narco terror groups? In skirmishes with China?
In other words, can we lay out a principle and guidelines that establish the degree of economic impact that is sufficiently a threat to justify intentional attacks on non-combatants in Afghanistan or elsewhere?
g(r)omgoru suggests the Golden Rule, i.e. proportional response. Can that work for us fighting abroad, vs. Israel in Gaza? *Is* it working for Israel now?
Or should we just come home? Would doing so make us any safer?
ADDED: Or are we actually achieving many of our goals in the WOT? Will the current food shortages, the immense economic and social impact of the Arab Spring on those countrys's own citizens, the political turmoil in Pakistan and the potential economic correction to China's economy solve some of this for us?
We have a $12 trillion plus GDP. We're throwing away gobbets of money on stupid stuff (I'm being polite). The WoT for places like Somalia, Uganda, etc is a pittance, and if it allows us to further our goals, knock down terrorists and terrorist organizations, and (at the very least) keep our SF sharp, no problem, we can afford that for the next hundred years.
We could afford another Iraq if we needed to, though it would be better if we didn't have to.
We can't afford the Obama-Occupy-socialist welfare state, but that's a different argument.
But the WoT? We can do that all day.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/18/2011 14:38 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The USA is its own existential financial threat, due to the dominance of its governmental operations by the Free Lunch Party - which includes many GOP and Dems, and partly due to outsourcing of key US production capacity in pursuit of globalization.
Another key element is the US's dependence on oil purchased from countries which hate it. Virtually nothing has been done to lessen this dependence. The WOT would look entirely different without this dependence.
#5
Practically speaking, North America and Europe could inexpensively restrain Islamicism in two ways.
1) Prohibit Muslim immigration entirely, and deport those Muslims who are not naturalized citizens. Visitation only under very strict rules, with severe criminal penalties for overstaying visas. Commerce with Muslim countries only via corporations that act as international neutral third parties and certify all cargo in either direction. And an end to any form of financial aid to any Muslim nation.
2) Create a policy of Assured Destruction, based on the aggressive use of nuclear capable missiles or nuclear weapons against an ally of the US or Europe.
It does not matter if the missile is successful, or if it had a nuclear weapon in it. On launch and detected aggressive trajectory, or use, the US may use neutron weapons to annihilate all life in the aggressor nation, and give that nation to the victim nation as reparations.
If done in a covert manner, this may be done against the most likely candidate nation, so denials are useless.
#6
Like all great empires, our only real existential threat is internal.
Keeping the barbarians at the gate is no problem while we are confident, industrious and wealthy. But these things don't last forever, especially in a country where an inglorious clown like Bammo can be elected president.
#7
Anonymoose, I'm assuming you would also undertake some sort of energy independence before cutting off trade with the muslim oil producers - or having them do so based on expulsion/restriction of muslims.
What, if anything, would you anticipate as a rise in radicalism among native-born or naturalized muslims as a result of that policy?
#8
I appreciate y'all's discussions on this new thread, but I'm suddenly dealing with family issues again and don't have time to participate. Have a nice day.
It's manageable/affordable if kept under a certain level.
I've long argued that assasination is the only effective way to deal with transnational terrorism and the drone has made that a cheap and effective response.
#10
It's manageable/affordable if kept under a certain level.
I've long argued that assasination is the only effective way to deal with transnational terrorism and the drone has made that a cheap and effective response.
Well, I have time for this:
We pay Pakistan exorbitantly for the privilege of killing, with ruinously expensive ammunition, the people they apparently consider to be expendable.
#11
We can keep fighting what amounts to the interest on Islamofascism's principle; half-wit splodeydopes, murder squads aka Beslan,and scuffles like in Iraq or Astan.
This is how Israel operates and why it's never going to end.
Or we can destroy the principle.
Which would cost less in the long run?
For one thing, if we destroy the principle, there will be no long run against which to compare it and our actions will forever be considered equivalent to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Umm. I can live with that.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey ||
10/18/2011 19:39 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Addressing the broader issue, I suspect the "war on terror," or more accurately the terrorist war against the US, is merely one component of a multi-faceted economic war against the US, and a rather effective way of bleeding the US economy.
In addition, the war was a contributing factor in the 2008 election, where war-weariness helped propel an economically and industrially destructive administration to power in the US.
#13
TFSM, I'd buy that to a great extent. We have the economic muscle to fight the WoT but we don't have the psychological will to sustain it for all that long. That shows up as 'war-weariness' in elections, as you point out.
If we had elected the grumpy old man as our president our economy might be tottering along a little better, and we'd have $600 instead of $1600 billion deficits. Perhaps that would let us sustain a little better the economic burden in the fight against Islamicism. But the political fight would likely be just as nasty.
It always comes down to will.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/18/2011 20:50 Comments ||
Top||
#14
One thing that can help develop and focus psychological will is to have a clear picture regarding where our boundaries are and what actions we will take if they are crossed.
People can live with a lot of uncertainty if they have clarity about where the bright lines are, and what they believe is justified response. That's why I've been suggesting we who hold convictions on the right and the right/libertarian side of things really need to talk through the questions we've been exploring here:
* in what situations are we justified in using overwhelming force against villages, countries, a whole people? under what conditions can we move out with such actions without reservations?
* what are the actions that sufficiently undermine our Constitution to the extent that they justify limiting a freedom we hold dear? How can we protect ourselves against the corrosion of soft jihad without undermining the best parts of who we are?
If we can answer these kinds of questions to our own satisfaction, with some degree of consensus, that fact alone can generate will, endurance and - when the time calls for it - effective, focused action on our part.
And - equally important - we can provide leadership to others who are losing will or who have moral uncertainties about how to defend ourselves against an enemy who wears no uniform.
#15
Or we can destroy the principle.
Which would cost less in the long run?
For one thing, if we destroy the principle
We take over over the principle assets of the region (guess what that is) and then continue fight using some of the $750 billion/year in windfall profits.
Dawn columnist concludes that Iran's Quds people are terribly competent, unlike that schlub the Americans picked up for planning to assassinate th Saudi ambassador, so it must be a Mossad plot.
#9
If the guy paid $100,000 and asked for a bombing at a place in the U.S., then let's put him in front of a Federal Judge and let him learn about U.S. prisons. Let's get them, one at a time, whether they are Quds, spuds, or stupids.
We trust all our gentle readers have had a merry Canadian Thanksgiving, and are now largely recovered from the unavoidable indulgence in turkey and pumpkin pie.
A substantial number will since have experienced guilt, associated with obesity. Campaigns against fat people are being conducted by numerous agencies of our Nanny State at present (David Cameron's government in England now leading the march). Junk-food eaters are the new smokers, a "crisis" has been created in which they star, and if you are a little on the plump side, from any cause, you are meant to feel very, very sorry. (And vote for the people who will put you on a diet.)
There is no crisis, incidentally. Contrary to public myth, which is often believed in the face of hard evidence, there are plenty of fat old people. Indeed, life expectancy continues to rise, even while the human biomass increases. Don't let them scare you. And besides, if you are going to be alive at all, you might as well be happy about it. For anything could kill you.
#1
Remember. Death is a zero sum game. No one gets out of life alive. In the great pie chart of life, if you reduce death due to 'x', it simply means the borders in the chart shift so that 'y' or 'z' will pick up the slack - and the nannyists will be on our ass for their cause and for our taxes to tell us so.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
