GENIUS FORUMS

sue hindmarsh wrote:Dan wrote:

Oh, well, I found Kevin's contributions to this discussion mostly absurd and ad hoc, frankly. You can't in one post state that you don't believe anything you see or read in the media and then in other posts express opinions that cannot be based on anything other than that in which one has expressed in principle disbelief.

The issue is not whether militant Islam is idiotic and a threat, but rather how and why is it thus. Ordinarily I could care less about politics and mid-east matters, but the current state of affairs is such that it warrants analysis, and that analysis demands more than trite, simplistic observations about the evils of a particular religion.

So what exactly do you want Dan – an apology from the West for being part of this mess? Will that right the situation?

-
Sue

Ah, no, I don't see how an empty apology will solve anything. Things are too complicated and entrenched for that to possibly mean anything. And apologies are nonsense anyway. What I want is a balanced and reasoned analysis of the situation. Politically what I'd like is irrelevant because I'm never going to get it. It'll just be more of the same - from all sides - lies, deception, exaggeration, hyperbole, hidden agendas. The usual stuff basically. I'd like to hear no more nonsense about al Quaeda existing as a real organisation, or having sophisticated bunkers in the hills of Afghanistan, or that sleeper cells have been unearthed in the US and plots foiled. I'd like to see a cessation of inculcated propaganda about bin Laden and Iraq. In short, I'd like to see some sanity. That hope is no doubt forelorn, but it does spring eternal, as they say.

The west is doing itself no favours at all by getting caught up in the any of this bullcrap. There is an attitude amongst many young Muslims that is what constitutes the real danger. Instead of trying to nurture the significant secular movements in countries like Iran, we have instead sought to inflame that attitude for reasons that I am finding increasingly difficult to fathom. Whatever they are, they are full of unhelpful hubris.

But, in truth, all opportunity has been lost. We are now at the mercy of a US that is unashamedly intent on world control and the violence that will come in the form of resistence to that control. And it's not even that part of it that particularly concerns me. It's the attendant erosion of liberty that is the real issue here. It's a highly disturbing trend, in part because it is self-evidently not commensurate with the threat the west is actually facing. As is so often the case, the greater enermy is not without, but within...


Dan Rowden

That is news to me about the US looking for world control. From the inside, let me tell you a little about the US.

Most of the idiots who listened to the rightwing lies about Al Queda and Iraq have an appropriate level of shame and humilty right about now. But there is a significant number of Kool Aid tasters still, because Bush still has approval ratings in the mid to high 30% range. You know how most people refuse to give up Their Precious. They will stick their fingers in their ears and sing LA LA LA before they do.

America's middle class can no longer purchase housing without mortgaging their lives up to their gills. And in most major cities, it ABSOLUTELY requires a solid 2 income family to stay afloat, much less get ahead. A friend of mine, who makes about 10% less than I do, married well monetarily speaking, and they bought a half million dollar house. Now they have to drive an hour to work, have no furniture, and have a whopping $3000/month bill. Even his cushy job at Boeing as an Aerospace Engineer doesn't eleviate the pain of that marriage. Pure bondage.

American corporations like the idea of hiring people, who often get free or state sponsored educations from their native countries, for half the cost of an American. Ask your typical American what the Pythagorean Theorem is and they will probably say something like "I don't speak French." So they hire Chinese and Indians, and rightly so, I say.

Many people in the world won't believe this, but America has large tracts of impoverished citizens. The disparity between the top 5% and the lower 95% is outrageous and shameful. And there is no better organized mouthpiece than the American rightwing to keep it exactly this way. They march out the "hard work" and business acumen and "a little old American luck" lines and the sheep drop their heads and shut their mouths. It never hurts to parade out a "success story" or two. It keeps the lower 95% compliant apparently. I gave up caring long ago.

Failing schools, failing dreams, failing futures...but we do have clean water, mostly. America is not going to be taking over anything anytime soon. Iraq was the last hurrah of the disconnected rich boy club.

"Freedom." What an ironic joke.

An interesting sidenote to the hypocrisy of the American system. If you pose the scenario of removing the "tax incentives" from the corporations, the pundits would scream bloody murder and warn that it will only make MORE companies locate offshore, where tax environments are more friendly.

Now understand, these are some of the most profitable organizations in the history of the world, American born, whose relatively low percentage tax contributions can still fund a $500 billion yearly military expenditure. Yet it is these same people who reverse course and promote "the system" when the unfairness argument is presented. ("unfairness" referring to economies of scale and historical momentum combined with inheritance in a competitive marketplace.) They argue it was the system that made it possible, so don't change the system. How can you change what works?

And who gets the lowest percentage? Corporations. Who gets the sweetest deals on everything else? Corporations. And who offshores, outsources, and essentially controls the purse strings of our lovely corrupt politicians? Corporations. The workers get whatever crumbs inadvertently drop from the table. Of course, that is an inefficiency that should and will be accounted for more thoroughly going forward.

The reason, as you can probably guess, that I bring up the corporate governmental slant is that it is the corporations and their leaders who run America (as well as its Middle Eastern policies), not the 300 million people who generally aren't sophisticated enough to know when they are being lied to, especially when the liar is smiling, declares mightily that he loves Jesus, and bells and whistles are ringing.

America invented and perfected the used car salesman. Enough said.

Playing the devil's advocate for a moment:

Americans have the highest wages in the world, and these wages are paid by the corporations.

Along with high wages go high taxes. So the corporations are actually paying taxes indirectly through the wages they pay their employees. For example, perhaps forty percent of everything they pay their employees goes straight to the government.

They also pay for the creation of jobs, which would otherwise be a cost to the government.

. . . At least, that's the way the government would see it.

From my perspective, it's a complicated problem to get the balance right.

Tharan wrote:Many people in the world won't believe this, but America has large tracts of impoverished citizens. The disparity between the top 5% and the lower 95% is outrageous and shameful. And there is no better organized mouthpiece than the American rightwing to keep it exactly this way. They march out the "hard work" and business acumen and "a little old American luck" lines and the sheep drop their heads and shut their mouths. It never hurts to parade out a "success story" or two. It keeps the lower 95% compliant apparently. I gave up caring long ago.

Failing schools, failing dreams, failing futures...but we do have clean water, mostly. America is not going to be taking over anything anytime soon. Iraq was the last hurrah of the disconnected rich boy club.

"Freedom." What an ironic joke.

Living in Metro-Detroit you can see a perfect example of the disparity. All within the same metropolis, you have one of the richest areas in America, then you drive down the street and you're in one of the most poor and violent areas in America. America was built on the backs of slaves, and it continues to do so. The only freedom we have is the freedom to choose which type of slave we are to become.

Kevin Solway wrote:Playing the devil's advocate for a moment:

Americans have the highest wages in the world, and these wages are paid by the corporations.

Along with high wages go high taxes. So the corporations are actually paying taxes indirectly through the wages they pay their employees. For example, perhaps forty percent of everything they pay their employees goes straight to the government.

They also pay for the creation of jobs, which would otherwise be a cost to the government.

. . . At least, that's the way the government would see it.

From my perspective, it's a complicated problem to get the balance right.

Not so complicated. "High Wages" is a relative phrase. When you must pay $300-400 per car, $1500 for mortgage, $60 for a phone, $80 for the TV to work, $300 in food every month (milk is $6/gallon in Seattle), and god forbid you may be stupid enough to have credit card bills, then the high wages Americans get every month are generally gone after the first round of bill paying.

Nearly any major city along either coast requires 2 incomes if you intend to own anything, based on average wages paid by corporations. The median income in America is about $46,000/year or $3800/month minus 17-24% taxes. Corporations aren't charged for paying us, that would be double taxation. We get to pay it.

Compare the tax rate to a small businesses profit margin. Wouldn't that be nice? It is commonplace for the largest American corporations. Throughout the 80's and 90's, many many corporations paid zero taxes. Only now, have a few of the loopholes been closed, only to leave more yet to be discovered but purposely placed. It is a conspiracy in every sense of the word.

Tharan wrote:"High Wages" is a relative phrase. When you must pay $300-400 per car, $1500 for mortgage, $60 for a phone, $80 for the TV to work, $300 in food every month (milk is $6/gallon in Seattle), and god forbid you may be stupid enough to have credit card bill

Point taken. It is comical.

Also, public transport systems have been ignored, or allowed to run down, so people are reliant on driving long distances in cars from their humble half-million dollar homes on the outskirts of the city. And now the price of petrol is climbing.

The situation is identical here in Australia.

A person I know here recently found out they were paying $70 a month in bank fees, and they weren't even in debt. The banks here have a license to change the rules and increase fees whenever they feel like it.

America's middle class can no longer purchase housing without mortgaging their lives up to their gills.

And this is occurring after 15 years of solid growth, one of the longest runs ever, less one small blip in 2000.

Those in power ensure that the extra wages given through labour demands as a result of increased productivity, get used up in increased housing prices and costs. It is a conspiracy all right - governments do absolutely nothing to prevent price increases due to irrational exhuberant speculation whether it be the market or housing, nor do they ensure that the disposable income of the wealthy is reduced by additional taxes - which means there is more money around for the same investment properties, so prices go up - AND THE POOR HAVE TO PAY HIGHER PRICES.

I've never seen business practices that we see nowadays - the reigns have been loosened and they do what they like. Customer service has virtually been removed, and so has responsibility to do the right thing for one's community. Wealthy owners lead the way in the Me Me Me Stakes, and this trickles down all the way through the organsiation and then on to others.

Tharan wrote:That is news to me about the US looking for world control.

Their attempts at control have been somewhat piecemeal but nevertheless obvious since WW11. Ideological wars, leader assissinations, false flag terror events, coups - the list is long and impressive.

From the inside, let me tell you a little about the US.

Most of the idiots who listened to the rightwing lies about Al Queda and Iraq have an appropriate level of shame and humilty right about now. But there is a significant number of Kool Aid tasters still, because Bush still has approval ratings in the mid to high 30% range.

That's analogous to Australia as well. Trading in fear and jingoism is pretty lucrative politically. People will buy into lies if you promise them security, even when the only reason they feel insecure to the extent they do is because of those same lies.

America's middle class can no longer purchase housing without mortgaging their lives up to their gills. And in most major cities, it ABSOLUTELY requires a solid 2 income family to stay afloat, much less get ahead.

As Kevin noted, the situation is identical here. There is a middle class poor in this country. After paying the mortgage, car and insurance payments, servicing debt etc they are left with no disposable income with which to have a life. It's funny how you can have so much and yet so little at the same time.

A friend of mine, who makes about 10% less than I do, married well monetarily speaking, and they bought a half million dollar house. Now they have to drive an hour to work, have no furniture, and have a whopping $3000/month bill. Even his cushy job at Boeing as an Aerospace Engineer doesn't eleviate the pain of that marriage. Pure bondage.

That's sounds like a fairly typical story. It's a combination of factors, including but not limited to the seeming desire of modern types to "have it all" right away, no matter how much debt they incur getting it, and a financial sector that is more than happy for them to incur it. Again, As Kevin pointed out, the banks here have become incredibly mercenary in their dealings with people, mostly because the government will not exercise any constraining power over them. One could reasonably argue that banks have entered the property market by proxy, because they don't really care if people are able to service their debt.

American corporations like the idea of hiring people, who often get free or state sponsored educations from their native countries, for half the cost of an American. Ask your typical American what the Pythagorean Theorem is and they will probably say something like "I don't speak French." So they hire Chinese and Indians, and rightly so, I say.

I can see the economic sense in that but I also have no idea how people on the minimum wage there manage to survive.

Many people in the world won't believe this, but America has large tracts of impoverished citizens.

That's easy to believe. America also has a startling level of homelessness.

The disparity between the top 5% and the lower 95% is outrageous and shameful. And there is no better organized mouthpiece than the American rightwing to keep it exactly this way. They march out the "hard work" and business acumen and "a little old American luck" lines and the sheep drop their heads and shut their mouths. It never hurts to parade out a "success story" or two. It keeps the lower 95% compliant apparently. I gave up caring long ago.

I can understand that. When a population buys into lies and propaganda and moral manipulation, it's hard to have to much sympathy for their suffering.

Failing schools, failing dreams, failing futures...but we do have clean water, mostly. America is not going to be taking over anything anytime soon. Iraq was the last hurrah of the disconnected rich boy club.

I hope you're right, but I kind of doubt it. But hey, how could anyone go wrong with buying shares in Haliburton? That would have to be the closest thing to a guaranteed income one could imagine.

"Freedom." What an ironic joke.

And the punchline is "democracy"... By all means let's foist our misery and social incompetence onto those terrible towel-heads. After-all, it is "civilisation"!


Dan Rowden

This is something that was posted on Dave Sim's weblog recently which seems relevant to this thread:

"Remember thy seruants, Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, looke not vnto the stubburnnesse of this people, nor to their wickedness, nor to their sinne: Lest the land whence thou broughtest vs out, say, Because the YHWH was not able to bring them into the land which hee promised them, and because hee hated them, hee hath brought them out, to slay them in the wildernesse."

Deuteronomy 9:27-28



With the "Scripture at the Registry Theatre" readings on their Ramadan hiatus through to November 12, I thought this might be a good time to print an excerpt from a letter I wrote to David Birdsong about a month ago when he sent me a form letter that had been circulating on the Internet that asked "Can a Good Muslim be a Good American?" which, purportedly, had been written by an American who had spent a number of years living in Saudi Arabia. David had been appalled by it. I certainly disagreed with most of it, but I did think it raised some interesting points that were worth, in most cases, refuting and in other cases addressing in greater depth. The original points are in italic.


Theologically – no because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia

That's a bit of a stretch. If the God of the Koran is the God of the Torah and the God of the Gospels (which I assume He is) and He is called Allah in Arabic (as He is called Dieu in French) then that puts him on a much loftier plateau than a "moon god". To even refer to Allah as a "moon god" would be to violate a central tenet of Islam: you must not join gods to God. "Moon god" smacks of animism which is just another form of idolatry and strictly forbidden in Islam. Actually "In God We Trust" is very Islamic and Koranic in tone and certainly calls the Koran to mind more than it does the Torah or Gospels and there's no better instance of America at her best than "In God We Trust".



Religiously – no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran 2:256)


It depends on how you interpret the term Islam which literally means submission to the will of God (a Muslim is "one who submits"). The Koran certainly deplores most Christians and most Jews of Muhammad's time and locale (the Arab Peninsula) but I think it's a stretch to suggest that that means only Islam is accepted by God (I don't believe the name Allah should be used unless you are writing in Arabic). On the contrary in many places the Koran explicitly states that there are good Christians and good Jews and says that it is an unforgivable crime to kill a believer. "You to your religion and me to mine". It also tells us that all the disputes between monotheists will be explained by God on Judgement Day. I think it would be a stretch to infer that all the resolutions will favour Islam. There are definitely Muslims who believe that. It seems to be endemic to monotheistic religions in their adolescence and seems particularly virulent in Muslim ranks, I suspect, because theirs is the most recent revelation. It's hard not to infer from that "disregard all previous memos" as it is hard for Jews not to believe that they have the "true gen" because the Torah was the first and that Christianity and Islam are just weird offshoot cults that can't even get basic quotes from the Torah correct. Myself, I infer that if God says that the disputes won't be settled until Judgement Day then it's kind of pointless to waste time disputing. Do what you think is best, I'll do what I think is best and we'll see who "wins" when we get there.



Geographically – no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.



His allegiance isn't to Mecca. To declare allegiance to a city would be another form of idolatry. The direction you face when you pray is called a "kebla". The point of bowing in the direction of Mecca is submission to God's will who instructed that believers should do so. The point isn't Mecca or allegiance to a city.



Geographically there IS a dichotomy in that Orthodox Muslims believe that anyone who doesn't live in a Muslim country under Shariah Law is an infidel. Until a few hundred years ago it was unheard of for a Muslim to do so. This is the more salient recurrent point: what do extreme Orthodox Muslims believe and what are they willing to commit murder over? And the answer in both cases is: quite a bit.



Socially – no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.



Actually the Sura in question forbids being friends with infidels and idolators and suggests that most Christians and Jews are either one or both. Again, I think this had more to do with the Christians and Jews that Muhammad encountered in Mecca and Medina in the seventh century who were mostly of a very corrupt aspect and a long way from home (in more ways than one).



Politically – no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America, the great Satan.



No, he must submit to the will of God as a Muslim. If as a Muslim he believes that that entails submitting to the teachings and directions of mullahs who counsel the destruction of believers (taking it as a given that there are believers in Israel and America which I think any thinking Muslim has to do), well, he is obligated to do so. I find it inadvisable as I would find it inadvisable to ask a priest or a minister or a rabbi what I should or shouldn't believe and how I should or shouldn't conduct my religious observance. If following their instructions let me off the hook in some way when it came to either reward or punishment in the next world, then fine, I would just pick someone arbitrarily, do what he told me and then use the Nuremburg defence: "I was just following orders". But I sincerely believe that will no more "wash" on Judgement Day than it did at Nuremburg. Most folks choose to follow a religious authority and ignore all others without ever looking at their own specific beliefs and how they might be at variance with that authority. It's a choice, a choice I personally choose not to make and I will derive the benefit or suffer the consequences. "You to your religion and me to mine." This is the crux of the debate: whether God desires submission to His will by any and all means possible (like the kidnapped Fox News reporter and cameraman who were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint) or if He is only interested in submission to His will as a free choice. I think the Great Democracies favour the latter view (as do I) and Muslim extremists favour the former view. Which is the reason that much of the Arab world was (and is) in favour of or coming to be in favour of the disarming and (if necessary) the eradication of Hezbollah. It seems to me a large step in the right direction.



Domestically – no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34)



He is allowed to marry up to four women if he can provide for them and treat them equally. Which even Muhammad proved incapable of doing. It is universally agreed in Islam that Aisha was his favourite wife and that directly contradicts the spirit of the law (although Muhammad was also given special dispensation to have as many wives as he cared to have). A Muslim is instructed by the Koran to take physical action against a wife only if she is demonstrably guilty of harlotry. Scourging so far as I know is limited to whores and whoremongers. There are a wide variety of interpretations of what constitutes a harlot and what constitutes a whore and what constitutes a good wife and that is a core element of the debate between the West and Islam. The vast majority of girls and women in North America would certainly qualify as harlots and whores in Muslim frames of reference. One of the reasons that Muslim girls and women choose to wear the hijab or other form of cover is to sharply draw that distinction: to consciously choose to be a good wife instead of a harlot or a whore. They are not flaunting their beauty, their hair or their flesh. They are modest and believe modesty in attitude, attire and conduct is an attribute of a believing woman. Anything that deviates from that leads to harlotry and whoredom which is defiance of God or fitnah or haram or various other negative states of being. But a key element is choice, again. Choosing to dress modestly is different from being forced to dress modestly. The Koran also tells us "good women for good men, bad women for bad men". If you want to be a harlot or a whore or marry a harlot or a whore that should be your business and no one else's, as far as I can see. You're only harming yourself in doing so. Madonna spends every night of her current tour pretending to be nailed to a cross with a crown of thorns. I wouldn't pay to see it and I sure wouldn't want to try explaining it to God on Judgement Day, but, "You to your religion and me to mine."



Intellectually – no Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.


Again, this is an issue between extremist and non-extremist Muslims. Most extremist Muslims would believe that no law has validity unless it is Shariah Law and is based on one of the handful of approved schools of Islamic Law which are founded in the Koran. It's the reason that Saddam Hussein refuses to countenance the court that's trying him because he sees it as being based on American or International Law and not on Shariah Law. The American constitution isn't based on Biblical Principles that I'm aware of. It's a document which protects choice, person and property. If you are a Muslim and believe that those protections are divinely inspired (as I do) then you can certainly be a good Muslim and a Good American. You make your choices based on what you believe and let others make their choices based on what they believe. "You to your religion and me to mine." The vast majority of Muslims would believe that I'm damned to eternal hellfire for my beliefs and my advocacy. I really couldn't care less what the vast majority of Muslims believe about my beliefs. The only opinion I care about is God's and I'll find that out on Judgement Day and live with whatever it ends up being.



Philosophically – no. Because Islam, Muhammad and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist.



So far as I read in the Koran, it does allow for freedom of religion and expression. It counsels moderation, as do the Torah and the Gospels. It specifically prohibits, as an example, targeting churches and monasteries in wartime. It has very little patience with shoddy religion and I think much of North American Christianity and Judaism would have to be described as shoddy religion insofar as the momentum is in the direction of allowing everything and judging nothing unfavourably. I don't believe in judging others, but I do believe in judging myself and quite harshly, too. I think that's the only way you can improve. I got rid of all my electronic media, CD player, tape player, television, etc. That's harsh self-judgement on a Taliban-style level for a Westerner. "Dave you don't need this crap and you're getting rid of it. No ifs ands or buts." But I have no interest in banning electronic media in general or advocating that. I do advocate that individuals choose to throw away their electronic media. "You to your religion and me to mine." I'm perfectly aware that 99% of North Americans worship pop music to an extent that overwhelms any sense of God that they might have. That's their problem. I co-exist with that universal viewpoint and am untroubled by it. As long as you don't pass a law that I have to listen to pop music in my own home or I have to have a television, I'm perfectly amenable to being bombarded by the stuff when I go into any public place.



Muhammad certainly expresses a number of opinions in the Hadith, the sayings of the prophet that aren't found in the Koran. I don't read the Hadith because I don't think it's divinely-inspired. It's just the opinions of the human being who was God's conduit for the imparting of the Koran to mankind. He may very well have been opposed to freedom of religion and freedom of expression. The Koran interests me greatly so Muhammad as God's last messenger interests me greatly. Muhammad the man doesn't at all.



Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.



Usually both, but founded in Sharia Law and in the handful of Islamic Law Schools based on the Koran. If you're saying that a good Muslim living in a Muslim country can't be a good American, I disagree. It would be profoundly difficult because you would have to stick to your guns that freedom of choice supersedes the imposition of faith which runs contrary to virtually all Muslim governments. But that just means that a good Muslim would have to be both a good American and an extremely brave American in a Muslim country—willing to courageously face imprisonment, torture and execution for the sake of his beliefs as an American. But, then, that's why America is called the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.



Spiritually – no Because when we declare [ourselves to be] "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is never referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called Love in the [Quran's] 99 excellent names.



Wow, that's quite a dog's breakfast of observations. Since the full declaration of the Pledge of Allegiance is "One nation under God with liberty and justice for all" I think that returns to my previous assertions that the debate is largely between freedom of choice (liberty and justice) and the imposition of faith. "Allah" is never referred to as heavenly father but then I tend to the view that the procreative function is a terrible thing to accuse God of. We are God's creations, not his offspring. But I also accept that people can in good conscience hold what I consider to be a blasphemous view. Whether God had a son or not or whether that son was the Synoptic or Johannine Jesus, God will let us know on Judgement Day. I can't picture any way for it to be settled before then. And the original concept of Christian Love as encompassed in the Greek term agape is far more on an intellectual plateau—profound respect and acknowledgement of stature—than it is about smarmy sentimentalism, in my view. [18 September update - coincidentally enough, last night I was reading Sura 19- "Mary" where verse 96—after discounting that God has a son—asserts "But love will the God of Mercy vouchsafe to those who believe and do the things that be right." So love is not an unknown commodity in God's dealings with his Muslim followers.] In all but one of the Suras of the Koran God is addressed as The Most Gracious, the Most Merciful and Muslims believe that no enterprise great or small should be embarked upon without that pre-eminent acknowledgement "In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful". I don't think, as a result, Muslims are lacking in proper reverence for God. How many Christians or Jews pray five times a day?



Therefore after much study and deliberation…perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you will it's still the truth.



I quite agree. I think until Muslims begin more universally to deplore extremist Islam and to denounce the excesses of extremist Islam and join the West en masse in the war on Terror and the eradication of those who advocate and practice the intentional eradication of civilians and functioning democracies that all Muslims and those with Muslim loyalties (like myself) should be viewed with suspicion. I think there are good signs that things are changing—the fact that much of the Arab world now supports the eradication of Hezbollah I would consider to be a good vital sign, the fact that much of the Arab world still thinks the "Palestinians" should get the West Bank seems to me a bad vital sign—but it's five years after 9/11 and those positive signs are still anecdotal and few and far between. As Ronald Reagan said, quoting a Russian proverb to Gorbachev, "Trust, but verify."



If you find yourself intellectually in agreement with the above statements, perhaps you will share this with your friends. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. Pass it on, Fellow Americans. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.



Again, I quite agree. I think it will take a while to sink in, but I think ultimately it will sink in that the war is between those who believe people have the right to choose their own behaviour and those who don't believe people have the right to choose their own behaviour. As an example, I don't think Iran can be reasoned with any more than Iraq could be reasoned with. I think Iran needs to be invaded and occupied until freedom of choice prevails over imposition of faith. I think as with Iraq that will probably take decades and thousands if not tens of thousands of lives but I think there could be no more worthwhile investment of resources and lives on the part of the Western Democracies if we are going to build a better future for the world.