"We can't exactly be the country of freedom, free ideas, the free market and free press if we are going to advocate bombing the press just because we don't like what they say."

Why not? How does that apply? It's not even our press and not in the USA.

'IF' (I'm not confirming because I don't know) Al Jazeera is reaching out to many borderline potential terrorists (keep in mind these Dudes don't think logically and are easily swayed by the fundamentalist theme) and influencing them to step over that line ... And what besides recruitment, if Al Jazeera was aiding terrorist cells in some way or other by acting as a communications vehicle for them .......

Hey, bombs away!

Leading by example gets in the way of our goals so we shouldn't hesitate to stoop lower than our enemies?

This kind of thinking is why so many parents are failures.

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

"Leading by example gets in the way of our goals so we shouldn't hesitate to stoop lower than our enemies?"

Nobody is stooping lower than our enemies. If we had their mentality and stooped as low as them the Muslim populations would be greatly reduced by now and the fundamentalists would have no way out and no way in. We don't do any of the things they do. Even the interrogation techniques that's becoming the latest topic of controvery ... do you really think we interrogate like they do, ending in beheading irregardless of guilt or innocence?

"This kind of thinking is why so many parents are failures."

So many parents are failures in the USA because they subscribe to these equal democratic rights for all including the kids. They are just too plain liberal with the children who then have no idea of their boundaries and have little respect from parents who don't demand for any. Adolescents do not have the minds matured enough to make all their own decisions. They do have the right to depend on their parents to protect and provide them from infancy to their formative years and their parents have the right to demand respect and a certain level of obedience from their chidren.

Notice how families more steeped in their stricter ethnic culture generally have better parent to child / child to parent relationships. I'm not suggesting ruling over children without allowing them to develop their own ideas and make their own choices to an extent, but there has to be strict limits for the obvious reasons.

I think people need to get their thinking straight about what kind of struggle we're in, and who (or what) is supporting our enemies against us.

From the New York Sun (courtesy, Powerline):

Daniel Johnson has one of the must-read columns of the day in this morning's New York Sun:"Should Bush and Blair bomb Al-Jazeera?" Johnson's closing paragraphs address the demand for information related to the secret document that gives rise to the controversy and coincidentally add an exclamation point to Leo McKinstry's article below:

Actually, we have no right to know the contents of secret conversations between presidents and prime ministers. Now that this particular cat is out of the bag, it may make sense for British authorities to put the record straight. But, in general, no government is obliged to reveal anything at all about operational decisions in wartime.



Wartime? Aye, there's the rub. Most Americans believe they are fighting a war against terror. Most Europeans don't. Most Americans are determined to win this war. Most Europeans have already given up.

Do you want proof? It was reported yesterday that a successful production of Christopher Marlowe's "Tamburlaine the Great" at the Barbican Theater in London deliberately censored the play in order not to offend Muslims. Passages in which Shakespeare's rival depicts his hero burning the Koran and insulting the Prophet Mohammed were cut because "it would have unnecessarily raised the hackles of a significant proportion of one of the world's great religions."

So it is okay to bowdlerise our literature to protect putative Islamic sensibilities but scandalous to suggest, even frivolously, that broadcasts inciting Muslims in our midst to become suicide bombers should be silenced. Marlowe made his Tamburlaine declare that Nature "doth teach us all to have aspiring minds." It seems his countrymen of today prefer appeasing minds.



T.

"Wartime? Aye, there's the rub. Most Americans believe they are fighting a war against terror. Most Europeans don't. Most Americans are determined to win this war. Most Europeans have already given up. "
------------------------------------------------------------

I wouldn't say given up, I would say that from past experience (eg the IRA) that Europeans think this is the wrong way to approach the problem.

------------------------------------------------------------
"It was reported yesterday that a successful production of Christopher Marlowe's "Tamburlaine the Great" at the Barbican Theater in London deliberately censored the play in order not to offend Muslims."
------------------------------------------------------------

Have a read of what the Director of the play says: http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/comment/story/0,,1650659,00.html
"It is complete nonsense to suggest, as the Times did yesterday, that my decision to alter the burning-of-the-books scene in Tamburlaine was based on a desire to appease Islamic opinion. As I made clear, my decision to adapt the text was purely artistic"

"The attack would have led to a massacre of innocents on the territory of a key ally, enraged the Middle East and almost certainly have sparked bloody retaliation."

Aren't a couple hundred innocent Iraqi civilians a month killed by terrorists (i.e. not by the US)? Apparently the Middle East is enraged when Westerners massacre innocents but not when fellow Middle Easterners are the bombers.

Just an observation.

---

king of the road says you move too slow
KING OF THE ROAD SAYS YOU MOVE TOO SLOW

big kahuna,

I see where you are coming from. Not only are we fighting a war but fighting a threat very different from a conventional war which requires much broader policies and strategies.

" It was reported yesterday that a successful production of Christopher Marlowe's "Tamburlaine the Great" at the Barbican Theater in London deliberately censored the play in order not to offend Muslims. Passages in which Shakespeare's rival depicts his hero burning the Koran and insulting the Prophet Mohammed were cut because "it would have unnecessarily raised the hackles of a significant proportion of one of the world's great religions."

Typical that these Muslims get their panties bunched up over their sacred Koran being defiled which hardly ever happens but hardly bat an eyelid whenever their brothers go on a killing spree on civillians, which happens so often.

If we had their sentimentalities it would be so easy wouldn't it? All we would need to do is to just burn some Korans publicly. Wait for the protesters to march the streets, like they did with the alleged Guantanamo Bay Koran flushing down the toilet incident, then shoot them down or blow them up. Savage? Hey, still better than habits such as blowing up people's weddings and sttacking pre-schools where the victims are totally uninvolved.

In many aspects the religion has declared war on us. It's the religion that leads these people to this mentallity they have. Most people feel uncomfortable to admit this because of the socially conditioned reflex to treat religions with sacred consideration. Too bad them Muslims don't reciprocate likewise.

Because this religion is embraced by such a large proportion of our world's population, it's pragmatically and morally bad for us to declare war back. However if they become WMD capable this priority may shift for certain situations. Their own prominent Muslim intellectuals; those well educated all rounders (not just educated in Islam) holding key positions have echoed this concern themselves.

That's a senseless argument. That's like saying we shouldn't get too worked up about 9/11 because we kill 15000 of our own citizens every year just by ourselves. Or that the Japanese only killed a few people at Pearl Harbor, what are we getting so excited about? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that history books and current observations hold these attacks in greater focus than our run of the mill murder rate.

An attack on AJ would undoubtedly be held as, and certainly be, an act of foreign aggression against the Arab world. There is no morally justifiable way to explain it. It only makes sense if you hold an extremely narcissistic view of the world, where whatever benefits you is by definition morally right, and that your lives are infinitely more valuable than those of others, innocent or not. If this is the case, I don't think we could or should be pretending to be the beacons of freedom and liberty in the world if our only real philosophy is "looking out for Number One."

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"

"We can't exactly be the country of freedom, free ideas, the free market and free press if we are going to advocate bombing the press just because we don't like what they say"

Does Al Jazeera qualify as "the Press" or is it propaganda? We certainly have tried to take out propaganda in past wars. I'm not surprised at all to hear that the President would consider, or even be in favor of taking out Al Jazeera. I'd be disappointed if the option hadn't been discussed. I think there are probably better ways to practice information warfare than bombing a TV network, but I would certainly have thrown that option in the mix if I had been in the planning meetings.



As for Murtha, I'm curious about his plan. If we are having a tough time now with the troop levels we currently have in country, how is his plan of withdrawing to a safe perimeter, and establishing a small strike force for the region going to help us at all? Instead of large numbers, we are going to pull out, wait for the shit to hit the fan in the form of a civil war, and then go back in with a significantly reduced capability? I'm not sure that's such a fantastic idea.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

As far as I know, Al Jazeera is the press, as it is a commercially viable TV station, and not the explicit state-run propaganda arm of any government that I'm aware of. I believe the Emir of Qatar provided the initial seed funding, but it is otherwise an editorially independent station. Arguing that it's propaganda simply because we don't agree with what we consider its bias, is like suggesting Fox News is propaganda, and therefore fair game. This isn't Pravda or Nazi radio we're talking about here. Not to mention the fact that it resides in one of our allies, would have tremendous collateral damage, and would inflame the sensitivities of even moderate Arabs were we to decide to unilaterally silence its voice. And of course, the ethical considerations I outlined above.

As for Murtha, I have no idea whether his plan is the right one or not. I do think it's time to consider the possibility that our presence in Iraq is in fact fueling the insurgency and preventing a political solution from taking place. Given that we cannot police the entire country and clamp down on it with any conceivable troop level, it strikes me that we may potentially be painting ourselves into a corner here. The Atlantic Monthly has a terrific article this month on the training of Iraqi soldiers and the situation there overall. It suggests that current troop levels do not allow us to both train Iraqi soldiers satisfactorily and provide security at the same time. Allocating more forces for training creates a more dangerous security situation to let the newly trained Iraqi forces into. As for the civil war, I think it is already taking place, and is now an internal question for the Sunnis, Shia and Kurds to resolve. I have no idea whether a perimeter strike force makes sense other than it lets them work it out for themselves, as bloody as that may be. That may the best of a series of bad options, as it appears that our limited understanding of the region and its players may be making us more of an obstacle to Iraq's future than a benevolent guiding hand.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"

Aren't a couple hundred innocent Iraqi civilians a month killed by terrorists (i.e. not by the US)? Apparently the Middle East is enraged when Westerners massacre innocents but not when fellow Middle Easterners are the bombers.

Just an observation. - sc3826[/reply]





1) "That's a senseless argument."

sc3826 makes a lot of sense to me. Muslims in general get rheir panties in a bunch even if there is a hint that US forces kill any of their civillians even if it's just collateral damage. Often times their terrorists deliberately target their own Muslim civillians women and children included and hardly a murmur is heard.

2) "That's like saying we shouldn't get too worked up about 9/11 because we kill 15000 of our own citizens every year just by ourselves."

You want to see a senseless argument, just look at your own above. You mean we've got groups of people ie government endorsed terror cells in the USA who carry out killings, deliberately targeting everyday citizens of up to 15000 every year???

3) "Or that the Japanese only killed a few people at Pearl Harbor, what are we getting so excited about? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that history books and current observations hold these attacks in greater focus than our run of the mill murder rate."

What are you talking about? Are you comparing murder crime rates against terrorism and potential attacks from other countries such as Pearl Harbour on home soil? Just on the idiot level explaination... when was the last time we had a murder case which killed more people than the co-ordinated attacks of 9/11? There is a long list that comes after but some arguments do become a little more profound. Do I even need to elaborate further why that comparison is so irrellevant?

In your same vain you might as well compare death from traffic accidents. The figures would be even more impressive.

4) "There is no morally justifiable way to explain it. It only makes sense if you hold an extremely narcissistic view of the world, where whatever benefits you is by definition morally right, and that your lives are infinitely more valuable than those of others, innocent or not."

Everybody looks out for Number One. If the Administration was not looking out for Number One ie the country and the people, there would indeed be a big disparity and fundamental problem. Good thing about the USA is that besides looking out for number one, international policy includes looking out for allies as well in security and economic issues.

Let's talk about what is morally right specific to this topic. Do you think morally right is having a policy ..."All Infidels, Crusaders and even Muslims who co-mingle with them need to be cleansed from this world through Jihad. Age and background provide no exception to this." ?? This is THE FUNDAMENTAL principle of the extremists. However, a follow up itemization of the barbaric attitudes and actions that prevail would list long indeed.

So defining immoral specifically to this topic here .... the best way is by relative comparison. In what way is the USA or it's allies so immoral by virtue of policies and actions when dealing with this battle against the terrorist threat compared to the above ??? What can be more immoral than targeting, conspiring to and then putting into action, killing everyday people?

5) "If this is the case, I don't think we could or should be pretending to be the beacons of freedom and liberty in the world if our only real philosophy is "looking out for Number One."

You're either one helluva cynical critic or you're an individual whose commenting from a stance of the other side. Either way in your own words, "senseless argument."

"Whatever benefits you is by definition morally right, and that your lives are infinitely more valuable than those of others, innocent or not."

Well, yeah. Of course. You don't feel the same way? ;)

"An attack on AJ would undoubtedly be held as, and certainly be, an act of foreign aggression against the Arab world. There is no morally justifiable way to explain it."

I agree, it would be an unjustified act of agression-- against Dubai or Qutar or wherever the attack would have taken place. Not against the Arab world. Lots of things are talked about by governments all over the world. Just because Bush supposedly discussed it, I couldn't care less.

"That's a senseless argument"

I disagree. Where's the outrage in the Middle East over the slaughter of hundreds and hundreds of innocent Iraqis by terrorists each month? There doesn't seem to be any. But if some dim-witted privates pile a bunch of naked prisoners on top each other (then are dumb enough to pose for pictures), then Holy Crap, that's ATROCIOUS!!!

Of course 15000 citizens killed in the US isn't OK. But it's not the same as car bombs going off in crowded marketplaces.

Why is this so hard for people to comprehend: "It only makes sense if you hold an extremely narcissistic view of the world, where whatever benefits you is by definition morally right, and that your lives are infinitely more valuable than those of others, innocent or not. If this is the case, I don't think ___ could or should be pretending to be the beacons of ___ and ___ in the world if our only real philosophy is "looking out for Number One." "

---

king of the road says you move too slow
KING OF THE ROAD SAYS YOU MOVE TOO SLOW