Thursday November 27, 2008, 6:16 am
"I thought the rest of the world was going to love us if we elected B. Hussein Obama! Somebody better tell the Indian Muslims. As everyone but President-elect B. Hussein Obama's base knows, many of the Guantanamo detainees cannot be sent to their home countries, cannot be released and cannot be tried. They need to be held in some form of extra-legal limbo the rest of their lives, sort of like Phil Spector. Or Ozzy Osmond?

And now they're Obama's problem.

If Obama wants his detention of Islamic terrorists to be dramatically different from Bush's Guantanamo, my suggestion is that he cut off – so to speak – the expensive prosthetic limb procedures now being granted the detained terrorists...And not you?...

Far from being sodomized and tortured by U.S. forces – as Obama's base has wailed for the past seven years – the innocent scholars and philanthropists being held at Guantanamo have been given expensive, high-tech medical procedures at taxpayer expense. If we're not careful, multitudes of Muslims will be going to fight Americans in Afghanistan just so they can go to Guantanamo and get proper treatment for attention deficit disorder and erectile dysfunction.

After being captured fighting with Taliban forces against Americans in 2001, Abdullah Massoud was sent to Guantanamo, where the one-legged terrorist was fitted with a special prosthetic leg, at a cost of $50,000-$75,000 to the U.S. taxpayer. Under the Americans With Disabilities Act, Massoud would now be able to park his car bomb in a handicapped parking space!

No, you didn't read that wrong, because the VA won't pay for your new glasses. I said $75,000. I would have gone with hanging at sunrise, but what do I know?

Upon his release in March 2004, Massoud hippity-hopped back to Afghanistan and quickly resumed his war against the U.S. Aided by his new artificial leg, just months later, in October 2004, Massoud masterminded the kidnapping of two Chinese engineers in Pakistan working on the Gomal Zam Dam project.

This proved, to me at least, that people with disabilities can do ANYTHING! they put their minds to. Way to go, you plucky extremist...

How say you?...You without healthcare?...Have an unexploded bomb?...Where would you drop it? :)

Thursday November 27, 2008, 7:13 am
Barfo-rama ! If I thought I was going to have endure the half-truths of the sometimes clever, mean-spirited Coulter, I would have passed on this. What to say ? Anyone reading anything by this hate-monger had better check the facts. She's too filled with venom to strike me as funny. Gee, thanks, David. I'm going back to my cooking....

Thursday November 27, 2008, 7:14 am
Yes, i am one of the millions or is it billions?, of the uninsured. and YES! this DOES kind of piss me off... i am all for the humane treatment of war prisoners, civil liberties and rights...BUT! in this type of scenario, i'm not so sure...My husband, as of right now needs 2 surgeries, but is unable to get the operations needed because we are uninsured, maybe i should give him some instruction on how he can acquire decent medical care free of charge...?
geeeez...

Thursday November 27, 2008, 7:20 am
ugh David...Anne Coulter? Even with her mouth wired shut she wont shut up and stop spewing her hatred towards liberals...is conservative a dirty word now? i say yes.
i question this piece of news now knowing where it came from...didnt look at the picture above the article...my bad, REAL bad.
sorry David.

Thursday November 27, 2008, 7:45 am
Somehow I can't reconcile "humane treatment of war prisoners..." with providing artifial limbs for them - unless we could somehow figure out to provide them with new artificial brains....

Thursday November 27, 2008, 7:50 am
Not a problrem Amy (nothing is)...Eyes wired shut...Should your husband require immediate surgery, have you considered going offshore?...Many years ago I needed instant surgery...It was, then, cheaper for me to fly back to NZ, go 'private', have the op and fly back to Oz...A thought?

Thursday November 27, 2008, 8:29 am
So Ann wants us up in arms (legs too..sorry for the sick pun) over a possible liberal soft hearted addresss on medical needs for an ugh ! UN- american....Excuse me this is the same self serving, venom spewing "I get paid to write the words who cares who I hurt" cobra. I tolerated her enough to read her words earlier...always helps to know what other's are thinking...however when the families and mainly widows from 9-11 called for investigations she said they were just going for the glory of media attention. Thank goodness she has no off spring or this Thanksgiving she might have her own on the menu....TY David for posting..just reminds us of other changes we need..maybe her on the unemployment lines..I'm with you Pamylle back to cooking something that will be more easily disgested them her crapolla ala king.

Thursday November 27, 2008, 8:54 am
I tend not to trust the words of any radical fundamentalist - and Coulter fits that description perfectly.

If true, this shouldn't be happening. It's one thing to provide necessary and essential basic medical care. It's quite another to spend tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars on a high-tech prosthetic leg.

Under the circumstance, I think that a pair of crutches would suffice.

Thursday November 27, 2008, 9:33 am
noted happy thanksgiving

Thursday November 27, 2008, 10:57 am
Lord David - Anything Ann Coulter says needs to taken not with a grain of salt, but needs to be buried under a ton of salt. She is one of the most hateful, reactionary, bigoted people on the planet.

This one I will ignore.

Thursday November 27, 2008, 1:00 pm
Hi David :o)
Peace love and laughter,
Warm regards to everyone,

Thursday November 27, 2008, 1:39 pm
David, now you've done it. I have to read your News posts! Bad Boy

Thursday November 27, 2008, 4:03 pm
Nope, don't care!!! I despise Ann Coulter, if she had a sliver of a brain, she would be dangerous.

Friday November 28, 2008, 1:38 am
Oh I'm sure someone will say he is a double agent or some such bull and so they gave him the leg. I hope they close and burn Gitmo. There are so many there that did nothing wrong but can't be released for their own safety. Now I have heard it all. Those monks have been there 7 years and Bush keeps them locked up for their own safety and they were about to be released when Bush had his backpocket DOJ stop it. No reason these guys can't live in America but...I had forgotten Coulter as I stopped reading anything about her many months ago so had to do a double take on the article. Was hoping they sent her on a moon mission for good. I spent many years with kids and no insurance of any kind and ended up in the hospital almost dead. Pretty costly but unpaid. couldn't pay it and support 2 kids on five hundred a month, lost my house, lost everything. I don't begrudge anyone medical treatment and stopped asking why Bush does anything as I put him over in the crazy catagory and just leave him there. Cheney is in the evil catagory and I ignore he is living. I worked with amputees so I just can't get upset about a leg being replace. Even that isn't easy to live with and it causes secondary problems with heart and blood flow depending on where it is amputated...above or below the knee. I just know they have some excuse for it so I don't worry. However, I do get flat pissed when our OWN VETERANS,can't get a leg after a war wound. That leg could have gone to one of ours. No I don't blame anyone but Bush/Cheney as they are in control.
I am going in for a turkey sandwich and wish this all goes away.

Friday November 28, 2008, 4:46 am

In France, where we are reputed to have an excellent health care system, but where in actual fact the system reimburses less and less of what people actually pay for heath care, only the most basic of prosthetic legs are decently covered and so poor and low-income people (am i supposed to say 'economically challenged'?)cannot afford the best types.

Be that as it may, I won't comment on anything that b___h says.

Friday November 28, 2008, 8:18 am
I'm with Pamylle...I have better things to do than read the warped thoughts of Coulter. Fortunately her mouth is wired. Unfortunately she can still write.

This photo sums up my thoughts on Coulter...

Friday November 28, 2008, 9:41 am
Has anybody confirmed whether this actually happened? It seems to me that if:
a) we paid for his prosthetic
b) we released him
c) he went right back to attacking innocent people
then:
a) he is, in fact, a dangerous enemy combatant
b) guantanamo is a good idea
c) releasing dangerous enemy combatants leads to verifiable innocent casualties

I'm not a troll, these are serious questions. I'm not looking to fight, just for discussion.

Friday November 28, 2008, 11:22 am
Marion - how do you post a link in a comment on a news item? I've tried before, and I don't have a clue....thanks

Elizabeth

Friday November 28, 2008, 1:49 pm
Here you go, Elizabeth...

How to create Hot-Links to other Web sites:

1. Type:
4. Type: a name for the link (this can be any name you choose).
5. Type:

Note: Do not add spaces between any of the above syntax instructions, except between "A href"

http://www.care2.com/cards/writeups/html.html#hotlink

Friday November 28, 2008, 1:51 pm
Elizabeth...The instructions aren't appearing in my post for HTML. Please visit the link to read them. I'm also sending you a message with better instructions.

Friday November 28, 2008, 2:24 pm
And quite good questions, Bob.

No question that some of the Guantanamo detainees will be found to be guilty. And that their incarceration did, in fact, save American and Iraqi lives.

Friday November 28, 2008, 2:32 pm
thank you, lindsey. I'm new to this site, and I have a lot of questions.

Friday November 28, 2008, 3:51 pm
OMG - Guantanamo is a travesty of justice. Holding people with no charges, no access to attorneys, no limit on sentences, torture - this is an absolute abrogation of human rights, a violation of habeus corpus..

Have people forgotten what were the founding principles of the US?

Friday November 28, 2008, 3:55 pm
But they aren't American citizens and are not being held on U.S. soil.

And, of course, I'm certain the Iraqi insurgents and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan treat all captured enemies with full regard for their Constitutional rights and the principles of the Geneva Convention.

Don't they?

Friday November 28, 2008, 4:02 pm
Whether they are US citizens or not is not the issue. Remember that when people are jailed, they are suspected of crimes - not proven guilty.

The other issue is that we have a standard under which we are supposed to behave. How can we call ourselves different if we treat people in a manner that is the same as violent dictatorships and extremist groups? Are we then not the same in part?

The US was known around the world for years for fairness and decency in at least certain arenas. We have lost our way, our reputations and our moral compass.

Friday November 28, 2008, 4:32 pm
People that take other peoples lives are selfish,self centered asses that really don't care about themselves so therefore they don.t feel any remorse these terroists have there own agendas and will not be givin 18 virgin wives IN HEAVEN instead they'll be sent to hell as any god does not beleive in taking a life for a life by all means if they want to blow themselves up let them but why should they take innocent people.s lives.i truly believe that whoever takes a life therefore shall burn in hell for all eternity.please stop hurting innocent people as there is no rewards for doing so and you may be a mater for a day or a week then something new comes along and there forgotten.try and remember the family.s+freinds and the devastation that gets left in there aftermath.we can do without people like this in our society kill yourself if you really want to put a message across but don't take innocent lives i believe that they want another war why not try to reason instead of taking such drastic actions thanks 4 reading this it.s only my point of view everyone has the right to GET THERE MESSAGE ACROSS.bye for now.

Friday November 28, 2008, 5:16 pm
Coulter is on my bottom 10 list, also. But, in my opinion, something should be done about Guantanamo, because some of those people are going to have to be permanently incarcerated, and others could possibly be freed. Michael Moore brought a lot of attention to the fact that the prisoners there receive excellent medical care in his film about health insurance, so that shouldn't be news to anyone. The question seems to be: who decides who gets freed and who gets locked up? I would think possibly a panel of expert military lawyers should do this work, since it seems Guantanamo is such a huge "black eye" for the US in the eyes of the world...thanks, David.

Friday November 28, 2008, 5:24 pm
SC - I don't think that anyone here believes that the taking of innocent lives is okay. It's horrible, no matter who does it.

Friday November 28, 2008, 7:04 pm
I don't know where she gets her figures from but 50 - 75,000 for a prosthetic limb needs to be clarified. What is he getting? A six million dollar man make over? Prosthetic legs do not cost that much 7- 14,000 generally. Unless it is a sports leg.

Friday November 28, 2008, 7:19 pm
I don't much trust Coulter on anything. When I first read this piece I tried to find confirmation out on the Net from more reliable sources, but didn't find anything.

But if true it's an outrage. And if false just another bit of propoganda so popular among extremists of all stripes.

Friday November 28, 2008, 7:44 pm
Sue ~ Thanks for catching this. According to wikipedia.org...

"Transradial and transtibial prostheses typically cost between US $6,000 and $8,000. Transfemoral and transhumeral prosthetics cost approximately twice as much with a range of $10,000 to $15,000 and can sometimes reach costs of $35,000."

Coulter and her crew not only spin, manipulate and exaggerate, but they lie with the facts. That's why it is useless to listen to these media shills. You have to dig for the truth in what they say. May as well do the research yourself.

Friday November 28, 2008, 7:47 pm
Sorry David, but nothing that comes from Ann Coulter is news, nor fact, trash can only spew trash! Not noted!

Saturday November 29, 2008, 8:02 am
to Elizebeth N: I would agree with you if we were talking about criminal offenses, but we're not. We're talking about acts of war. Guantanamo is essentially a prisoner-of-war camp. POW camps do not have sentences or trials, one is just held until paroled or until the war is over. While the facts in this particular case seem to be in question, I do believe that the prisoners in gitmo are dangerous and could not be trusted to respect a parole offered to them. We are definitely not treating them the same as "violent dictatorships and extremist groups". Remember Daniel Pearl? THAT was poor treatment at the hands of an extremist group.

Saturday November 29, 2008, 8:14 am
to Marion Y: Thanks for looking up the figures. In this context I think that your upper range of $35,000 and Coulter's $50,000 to $75,000 aren't that far apart. I can easily see allocating the cost of the prosthetic, the cost of the doctor, the extra security, etc adding up to her $$ range. I'm also still interested in knowing if the basic facts are true. Did the basic story happen (irrespective of $$ involved)?

Saturday November 29, 2008, 8:16 am
I wasn't able to find confirmation of it on the web, Bob. But, then - after the first couple of pages I simply stopped trying.

Saturday November 29, 2008, 8:44 am
Thanks, Lindsey. I'll keep looking.

Saturday November 29, 2008, 9:32 am
Some confirmation

Saturday November 29, 2008, 9:41 am
Thanks for the link, Bob. At least some of Coulter's facts seem to be accurate.

Saturday November 29, 2008, 12:00 pm
Well - Jerry C. - I don't agree with you. If you think that torture is okay, and that holding anyone without charges is okay, then so be it.

You don't have to tell me about Daniel Pearl or anyone else. I think what the terrorists do is hideous and horrible. That doesn't mean that the United States is right. There are a lot of people who agree with me. President-elect Obama is planning on closing down Guantanamo - so I am not alone in my thinking.

Saturday November 29, 2008, 12:29 pm
Elizabeth - thanks for responding. It's pretty clear that we disagree on the idea of holding prisoners of war without charges, although that has always been the practice in warfare. I can't understand what else we could do with them. For the most part they were fighting for the taliban and that war continues. If we release them they will just go back to fighting against us again, or killing innocent people, like Massoud. We can't have a prisoner exchange because they torture and kill all their prisoners (if they bother taking any). My understanding is that anything we were engaged in that could be called "torture" has ended. I appreciate your opinion and I am enjoying having this exchange. I don't want to antagonize you or anybody else.

Saturday November 29, 2008, 1:17 pm
I guess, Jerry - if this was the normal way of doing things, even for the US - then there wouldn't be so many people up in arms about it - including people in the military.

The way that everything has been handled in Gitmo and other US "secret" prisons has been wrong - even Amnesty INternational and other Human Rights groups are calling the US on it.

We used to lead the charge on decency - now we are at the end of the line. I hate what the terrorists do just as much as the next person, but that doesn't excuse the US behavior, either.

You aren't antagonizing me - I just feel passionately about this stuff.

Saturday November 29, 2008, 3:28 pm
I understand your point, Elizabeth. I would say that the reason people are up in arms about gitmo is that they have been misled about the "normal way of doing things". For example, all WW2 POWs were held without charges until the war was over. Many died in captivity from poor treatment and lack of medical services. Almost all of those who died were Allied troops. Much like this conflict, our enemies then saw little need to expend medical supplies and food on enemy combatants. The Japanese were especially horrible in their treatment of prisoners. I can give you references if you like.

In WW2 the gitmo prisoners probably would have been executed, by either side. Soldiers in uniform were afforded POW status. These men are not soldiers in the service of any country. At best, they were armed strongmen in the employ of petty warlords and, as such, have no legal claim to POW treatment. The worst of them are nothing but terrorists.

I agree that they have a right as human beings to receive humane treatment, but I guarantee that I (and probably you as well) would prefer to spend a year suffering the worst gitmo ever offered rather than one week as a taliban or al-qaeda prisoner. A few years back AQ put out a torture manual for their affiliates. I've seen it. Gitmo ANY day over that! Gitmo featured sleep deprivation, being menaced by dogs, maybe a little waterboarding at the worst. At least I'd go home with all the body parts I showed up with.

And no, we aren't even NEAR "the end of the line". We've used somewhat harsh tactics to gather intelligence from people who are incredibly brutal.

I think that it is wonderful that you, and people like you, feel so passionately about this subject. And, after we have won this war, I hope that we don't have any need to be harsh to prisoners for a very long time.

Saturday November 29, 2008, 3:33 pm
IF we win this war, Jerry. I'm not entirely sure about our President-Elect's commitment to seeing this through to the end. I hope he will. Unfinished business leaves a very messy trail.

Saturday November 29, 2008, 3:42 pm
I don't think our opponents will give us the choice of walking away, Lindsey. Even if we end the engagements in Iraq & Afghanistan, the attacks against us will continue and worsen. It will be a MUCH bloodier war, but we will be forced to continue fighting it.

You are right, however, that we might lose.

Saturday November 29, 2008, 7:34 pm
Sorry Jerry, but I don't think that you know more about this than the people at Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International or the people in the military who have objected to Gitmo.

We all know that the Japanese treated prisoners horribly. We also know that the US government rounded up Japanese American citizens - and placed them in internment camps.

Jerry - you and I are obviously coming from very different places about this subject. It's not because I am naive and have been misled. It's because I believe differently...

We don't have to agree....

Saturday November 29, 2008, 8:43 pm
Elizabeth, you are exactly right. We don't have to agree...but we do have to be able to discuss the situation calmly and rationally. Which, it seems, we have done.

When I found this site a day or two ago it seemed to me that many of the people here were "coming from a different place". I hoped that I would be able to come here and discuss with people with different points of view and not end up being flamed. Thanks for being willing to discuss without fighting.

I like the Chomsky quote on your page:

"If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for
people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all."

I believe that although you probably despise my opinions, you would be willing to fight for my right to express them (misguided as they may be). That's just about the highest praise I know how to give.

If I came across as implying that you personally are naive or misled, please forgive me. I do believe that many people who will read this thread have never even considered this war in the context of WW2 or other great conflicts.

With regards the Japanese Americans in internment camps...maybe another time.

Sunday November 30, 2008, 11:19 am
'Strewth, who invaded who? Just what have Afghani people or Iraqi people ever done to the US? Has the US been bombed into the Stone Age? Has US society been destroyed? You destroy peoples' countries and then criticise them if they fight back against you? Who have been the terrorists? If you say this is a war and not an invasion, why don't you treat people under the rules of the Geneva Convention? Or do these rules get in your way? I can't imagine anyone in Guantanamo being anywhere near as much a terrorist as Bush and Blair. And you probably haven't even got the folk who were quite rightly fighting against you. You probably have people like the British lads who spent years under torture in Guantanamo. They just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. There was no evidence of anything against them. And how many of the inmates of Guantanamo have been sold to the US by Pakistani thugs? Let's get it all out in court. Not secret courts. Open court. What has been done and what is being done still in Afghanistan and Iraq is unforgivable. I wish there were a hell for the perpetrators to be consigned to.

Monday December 1, 2008, 6:27 am
Eleanor, I'm not trying to be confrontational, but, no, the protections of the Geneva Conventions do not apply. The Geneva Conventions apply specifically to uniformed soldiers. They were written with this very situation in mind.

The prisoners in gitmo were never soldiers and they were never uniformed. They were enemy combatants and terrorists. If they wished to be assured of the protections of the GC, they should have become soldiers and worn uniforms. That doesn't mean that we can't CHOOSE to treat them humanely, just that we aren't required to. Applying the GC strictly, we COULD just execute them and be done with it. And yes, that has happened before.

One reason we don't do that, of course, is because there is some question of which ones are terrorists and which are just enemy combatants.

I agree about your hell statement. The people who caused the suffering in Iraq and Afghanistan, (and throughout the islamic fundamentalist world) should be consigned to the deepest hell. We just disagree as to who it is that caused the suffering.

Monday December 1, 2008, 7:20 am
Eleanor - while I agree with some of what you say, my friend, terrorist attacks are not just someone fighting back against the US. While I feel that the US had no right to ever had entered Afghanistan and Iraq, that does not justify the suicide bombings or anything else done by any extremists.

I also feel that the US government has turned into an imperialist machine, and I understand why we are so disliked around the world.

Jerry - whatever the Geneva conventions are for, what we hve done in Guantanamo is simply unacceptable. The fact is that plenty of people in Gitmo have been incarcerated on suspicion, period. This situation does not compare to WWII. I have seen the ethnic profiling up close and personal as I was married to someone from that region who was a doctor, period. Not an extremist, not a fundamentalist, not a particularly religious person - but profiled just because of his name. And it didn't stop when he became a US citizen.

Guantanamo is a blight on the face of the US as are the secret prisons.

The following is Article 4 from PART 1, the General Provisions of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War:

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

NOTE:

#2 ABOVE - although one could argue that not all of the conditions are met by enemy combatants, not all of those conditions are met my the US forces either.

#2 would be the reason that so many people are arguing that the Convention also applies to all prisoners of war, not simply those in uniform.

In addition, those held in Gitmo and other such places are not proven to be enemy combatants.

There are many who agree with me, and many who would agree with Jerry. I just a balanced picture of both sides shown. There are plenty of people in both the US government and the military who agree with me - including President-elect Obama.

Monday December 1, 2008, 7:49 am
Terrorism is "fashionable" amongst radical young people who "breeze" hate against occident and occidental culture and also amongst the muslims taught to hate and kill christians in the name of "Alah". Unfortunatly many "well minded" people do not see the danger. Until terrorists have life sentences or death one's depending on the damages(and the corpses buried inside a pig's skin if they are muslims), terrorism will grow(now India)all over.

Monday December 1, 2008, 7:56 am
Most Muslims are not taught to hate Christians -

AND

Muslims do not bury their dead wrapped in pig skin. Where did you ever get that idea?

I wish that people would stop lumping all Muslims together. Most Muslims are moderate, peace-loving people. The extremists are a different story. That is small minority of Muslims.

Monday December 1, 2008, 8:29 am
Thank you, Elizabeth. It is a pleasure to disagree with you!

With regards to the suicide bombings, I will point out a difference between attacking military forces by suicide bomb and attacking civilians by suicide bomb. I see no dishonor in attacking US or any other forces by suicide bomb. That is a legitimate attack on a legitimate military target. In some cases innocent civilians nearby may be hurt or killed. Horrible, unfortunate, but a legitimate military exercise.

Suicide attacks targeted against civilians, like all other attacks targeted against civilians, are despicable.

Of course that makes no difference to the dead civilians in either case, but it should matter to us as we decide how to deal with the organizations and individuals involved.

With regards to ethnic profiling...when white (or black for that matter) grandmothers named "Johnson" start regularly blowing up airplanes I'll agree that is has lost its usefulness. Until then, the middle-eastern looking, youngish guy named "Abdullah" is gonna get strip searched a lot more often. I'm not saying it's fair, and I agree that it must be extremely frustrating, but reality is.

If I go into a nearby ethnic neighborhood in the middle of the night, I'm gonna get stopped and questioned by the police. Why? Because, in general, white guys in late-model cars go to that neighborhood in the middle of the night to buy sex or drugs. Frustrating for me, but practical for the police. (not that I would be buying...I mean I was just making...oh, never mind!)

Monday December 1, 2008, 8:39 am
Elizabeth, I think Enric was saying that terrorists ought to be buried wrapped in pig skins as a punishment, since pigs are unclean in Islam. Supposedly, MacArthur (maybe?) did this in the Philippines and it stopped a muslim uprising. Apocryphal story at best.

Monday December 1, 2008, 8:42 am
General Pershing. Not MacArthur. I don't think it really happened.

Monday December 1, 2008, 9:23 am
Thank you Lindsey..."I don't much trust Coulter on anything. When I first read this piece I tried to find confirmation out on the Net from more reliable sources, but didn't find anything."...

Neither did I...This piece would not have been posted otherwise!...Ann Coulter?...The story, not the singer...But do consider...If incorrect You live in a society addicted to sueing folks to the max...Is Ann stupid?...I think not.

Monday December 1, 2008, 9:53 am
We did find confirmation of some of the facts in a BBC story. Not about the money, though. Search in this page for "Some Confirmation"

Monday December 1, 2008, 9:56 am
Jerry - you'll excuse anything the gov't does :D

Ethnic profiling is wrong.

I don't know why you even mentioned suicide attacks on military forces...

Monday December 1, 2008, 10:11 am
Profiling is often a valuable investigative tool.

When a serial killer strikes, killing white women, the FBI does not first look among black suspects or female suspects - they will utilize the knowledge they've gained over the years about serial killers and will certainly begin looking for a white male, probably aged 25 to 50 (or something similar). Although there is always the outside chance that someone other than a white male committed the crimes, it is much more likely than not that their profile will be accurate. Because it is based upon overwhelming statistical evidence.

In the same way, a terrorist is likely (not always, of course) to be Muslim, probably young, and male. Again, based on statistical likelihood.

If we have another 9/11, the government would be foolish indeed to start immediately looking at 80-year-old white Episcopalian females from Georgia.

Monday December 1, 2008, 10:17 am
Elizabeth,

I won't excuse the gov't raising my taxes! ;^)

I do see and concede your point. I tend to be pro-gov't, at least for about a month more...

I mentioned "suicide attacks on military forces" because I know some people, probably not you, seem to think that people like me lump all attacks against the US into the term "terrorism". I wanted to be sure to state that there is a difference between opposing the US and committing acts of terror.

Monday December 1, 2008, 11:16 am
You're exactly right, Lindsey. I can understand why people don't like it, but it is very useful.

Monday December 1, 2008, 11:19 am
The profiling done by the FBI is not the same thing as the ethnic profiling done by the government, which includes automatically TREATING people with Arabic or Muslim sounding names suspiciously -

When the FBI does their profiling - they don't go about taking every white male into custody and questioning them.

My husband was stopped before every flight, searched before every flight - solely because he had a Muslim/Pakistani surname. This occurs when nothing has taken place on our soil - not only after an act has been committed.

Jerry - I can see that we aren't going to agree about much of anything :D

Monday December 1, 2008, 11:58 am
Jerry, how do you know anything about the prisoners in Guantanamo? Was Moazzam Begg an enemy combatant? No. He had gone to Afghanistan, perhaps mistakenly, to live in an Islamist country. He was not a terrorist and this can be borne out. Was Sami Al-Haj an enemy combatant? No, he was a journalist. How many prisoners in Guantanamo were sold by the Pakistanis to the US. Blood money received. How can justice be done in a situation like that. Until people go to court and they and their lawyers are presented with the evidence, and I say it again, the evidence against them, they have no chance of defending themselves. This is my point. If you are not prepared to allow people to see the evidence against them, not prepared to take them to court and present that evidence to a jury, you cannot say that these people are terrorists. When people have been invaded, in a country where they have been fighting for their independence firstly recently from the Russians and from others before that -and these remember are the very people armed and financed by the US to fight against the Russians - it is understandable that they fight for the freedoms enjoyed by the citizens of the US. Afghanistan unfortunately is of strategic importance to the US. Maybe we should tell the Afghanis to don a uniform so as to be protected. But please remember that many of the prisoners in your Guantanamo were not even involved in the struggle against your country's invasion. What gives you the right to invade other countries. I remember in 1967 the invasion of the Dominican Republic by the US. A brutal repression. Nothing has changed. Look back at your history and see the overt and covert intrusions into other peoples by the US. If you were being invaded you would sing another tune. Don't give me terrorism. The US has used terrorism since the end of the second so-called world war. Korea. Vietnam. Dominican Republic. Chile - destabilised by the CIA and its democratically elected leader murdered. Jamaica's democracy destabilised. The list goes on. Not protected by the Geneva Convention? Let's get another convention that protects people from the US. And the UK. I feel nothing but shame about the involvement of the UK in any invasion or bombing of another country.

Monday December 1, 2008, 11:59 am
Not to nitpick, but isn't the FBI related to the government in some way...? 80)

No, we won't agree, but that's OK by me.

Monday December 1, 2008, 12:07 pm
If the US ever invades Scotland to protect its massive nuclear arsenal here, I hope to God I will have the courage to be 'an enemy combatant'. Put me in Guantanamo or any secret prison you have organised - but I will damn well wish to see my country free. Don't you understand that people don't want to be invaded?

Monday December 1, 2008, 12:08 pm
And there is an extremely simple solution for all of that, Eleanor.

Write your congressman and tell him you want the U.S. to stay out of foreign affairs. Completely, except when we are ourselves threatened. No foreign wars. No foreign aid of any kind whatsoever. No police actions. No humanitarian missions. If the world community wants the situation in Darfur straightened out they can handle it themselves - without the assistance of the dreaded United States. End our involvement with the United Nations and kick the lot of them back to Europe where they belong.

That will solve the problem. And I have strongly urged my own congressman to support those measures.

Monday December 1, 2008, 12:10 pm
Sorry. Didn't notice you were Scottish. Then I suppose you should write the U.S. Ambassador and the State Department to explain how America should remove itself from world affairs.

Monday December 1, 2008, 1:07 pm
The fundamental disconnect between you and I, Eleanor, seems to be these three letters.
P-O-W. Gitmo is a POW camp, not a prison for common criminals. Is it possible that some of the people there are not guilty? Sure it is.

I researched the first two on your list (Moazzam Begg and Sami Al-Haj) and they both claim to be innocent. I've talked to plenty of prisoners in jails and have heard the same story. If you go by the stories from the inmates, every jail in the world is full of innocent people.

Based on the evidence, these two appear to me to be fringe players. On the edges of al-qaeda and the taliban, but perhaps never taking the plunge. Looking at the stories of these two, I agree that there probably isn't enough evidence to convict them in an American court. (Of course, there wasn't enough evidence to convict OJ Simpson or Michael Jackson in an American court either.)

Luckily, in armed conflict, the military doesn't have to meet the standards of proof that are required of the court system. If they did, there'd be bombs going off all over the place because nobody would ever be detained. Again, Eleanor, POW camp, not judicial system. Different rules, different standards of proof. In fact, these two managed to obtain their release, so what's the complaint? They played with fire, got caught, but managed to walk away without being killed in combat or permanently imprisoned for being terrorists. (I know, several years of their lives gone, yes, I get your point.) War is about taking away the enemy's will to fight. One way to do this is to kill them, another is to demonstrate how unpleasant it is to be even a fringe player for the other side.

I truly do appreciate your opinion, Eleanor. If you ever are an "enemy combatant", I'll be happy to write to you in your POW camp. In which camp you will stay until the conflict is over, however long that may take.

Terrorism is the intentional attack against civilians. Islamic fundamentalists do this as a matter of course, the US does not. Nor does the UK. If you want to accuse the governments of imperialism, military adventurism or something along those lines, I'll be willing to discuss that with you. The charge of terrorism is silly in the sense that you would not call the police and tell them that you were a victim of arson if somebody robbed you at gunpoint. Using the wrong description simply confuses the issue.

Of course I understand the people don't want to be invaded. I'm not a complete idiot (I can hear what you're thinking!), I even understand your anger. Afghanistan is probably the poorer choice for you to defend, however. There is no question that the Taliban supported and protected al-qaeda before, during and after the 911 attacks. Our invasion of Afghanistan is unassailable. I'm sure they don't like it, but it was perfectly legal.

Monday December 1, 2008, 1:27 pm
Slight, slander. Is all that is...It's a beautifull day (Here)...Nothing positive?...

Monday December 1, 2008, 1:32 pm
Hello Eleanor.

No, we don't have the right to invade anyone we feel like invading Jerry and Lindsey. That has nothing to do with stopping genocide or humanitarian efforts.

I'm so out of this thread.

Monday December 1, 2008, 1:35 pm
David, thanks for the reminder. Thanks for starting this thread.

Eleanor, I am having a lovely time in this discussion with you and I hope you are too. I am learning from you and I appreciate your contributions. My wife assures me that I am too aggressive when I discuss (ok, I argue), so tell me to back off if you feel that way.

Ditto to Lindsey and Elizabeth!

David is right, everyone please have a lovely day!

Monday December 1, 2008, 1:45 pm
Elizabeth, where on earth did you get the idea I said we had the right to invade anyone we felt like invading? That is a ridiculous statement and certainly was never said by me.

Monday December 1, 2008, 1:47 pm
I just can't discuss this any more. I'm plumb out of patience and I don't want to yell at anyone.

Linsey - your sarcasm is duly noted, but not particularly helpful.

Take care everyone.

Monday December 1, 2008, 2:05 pm
Jerry, neither Moazzam nor Sami were ever tried in court or found guilty. Fringe players? No, innocents. Moazzam happened to be living in Afghanistan and Sami was working there. These are but two innocents. How many others are there? You may not like to admit that your country has incarcerated innocent people on the back of invading another country. But maybe one day you will have to face the facts. These two people have been fortunate to be released. Others captured by the US have 'disappeared'. How many people in your country's war on terror have died? Have been tortured to death? Your country will be called to account hopefully one day. Muslim does not mean terrorist. I am willing to say that my country, my government was wrong. They have been complicit. But all I can say is shame on them, shame on them for the wrong they have done. The fact that they have brought shame on me and my country angers me. I cannot stand the thought of people being incarcerated without trial, that people have been tortured. This is against international law. If the US and the UK think they stand above the law, we have to fight against it. There is right and wrong. What both countries have done is wrong. Anyone can nit-pick and rationalise all they like. History will judge I believe.

Monday December 1, 2008, 2:06 pm
Lindsey - I never claimed that you said that. That was MY statement.

Eleanor said: Don't you understand that people don't want to be invaded?

Your response was:

And there is an extremely simple solution for all of that, Eleanor.

Write your congressman and tell him you want the U.S. to stay out of foreign affairs. Completely, except when we are ourselves threatened. No foreign wars. No foreign aid of any kind whatsoever. No police actions. No humanitarian missions. If the world community wants the situation in Darfur straightened out they can handle it themselves - without the assistance of the dreaded United States. End our involvement with the United Nations and kick the lot of them back to Europe where they belong.

That will solve the problem. And I have strongly urged my own congressman to support those measures.

My comment was in response to what you wrote to Eleanor. I never claimed that you said that.

Monday December 1, 2008, 2:11 pm
Eleanor - beautiful last comment.

Monday December 1, 2008, 2:14 pm
Jerry, how many civilians have died in Afghanistan and Iraq? Fact is, they don't even count the bodies. And when Americans bomb wedding parties, for example, are we supposed to believe that these people are not civilians? The US does not kill civilians? This is just not true. Imagine a wedding party being bombed in the US of A. What an outcry that would provoke. But in Afghanistan? Most people killed in Iraq have been civilians. Do you think bombs pick and choose?

Monday December 1, 2008, 2:17 pm
Thank you, Elizabeth. You are my kind of people. Keep up the struggle for what is right.

Monday December 1, 2008, 2:19 pm
You are correct, Eleanor. History will judge. Once enough time has passed most of the pieces of the puzzle will fall into place and we'll be able to see the whole picture.

Monday December 1, 2008, 2:34 pm
It's a pity, Lindsey, that the lessons of history are never learned. Maybe, if people sat down and read about the history of Afghanistan and Iraq they would not come to the quick conclusions they do. But foreign powers always seem to do what they please for their own benefit. Hopefully one day these people will overcome as they try to do each day. The one lesson I can see is that no matter how often foreign powers do try to intervene these peoples will always strive to be free, whether it is from the Soviet Union or the US of A. We will overcome some day in the words of one of the best Americans. My heart is with them in their struggle. The ordinary people of all countries everywhere in this world.

Monday December 1, 2008, 2:44 pm
Exactly. We shouldn't intervene. At all. Because even in a "humanitarian" effort the U.S. will be criticized. And I'm very tired of this country being the world's spitoon, especially when much of the criticism comes from nations which will gladly beg for our foreign aid. And then bite the hand that feeds them. So we need to simply leave the world alone and let them support themselves, defend themselves, and enjoy their freedom from American domination - and American dollars.

Monday December 1, 2008, 2:48 pm
Eleanor,

Taking your questions in order:
1. I admit that some innocents have been incarcerated. In fact I think I explicitly said that. I do think that Moazzam and Sami were fringe players, but that is my opinion looking at what has been said on the internet about them. As I admitted earlier, it would not be enough to convict them. In response to your statement, "You may not like to admit that your country has incarcerated innocent people on the back of invading another country", let me say, yes, I do admit it.

2. Many civilians have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. I never said that the US does not kill civilians. What I said was that US does not wage war on civilians. You may have noticed that I earlier drew a distinction between suicide attacks on military personnel and suicide attacks on civilians. One is a legitimate act of war and the other is terrorism. One MAY lead to civilian casualties, which are horrible, but do not shame the attacker or the organization the attacker represents. The other is INTENDED to lead to civilian casualties and is shameful and disgusting. This is the distinction I am drawing here.

Monday December 1, 2008, 3:03 pm
US and UK bombings were indiscriminate. The US and UK have waged war on civilians therefore. The situation of suicide bombings has been created by the invasion. These did not happen in Iraq before the invasion. Bombings of any kind are shameful and disgusting. Do you know how many people were killed by US or UK bombings? Do not tell me that the US and the UK did not know that civilians would be killed. How many people were killed in the bombing of Baghdad? Have they told you?

Monday December 1, 2008, 3:20 pm
No, I'm not saying that we didn't know that civilians would be killed. I understand and accept that you hate bombings of any kind. I agree with you that no bombing can be completely sanitary. I agree that the suicide bombings in Iraq are a response to the presence of our troops there.

I do not agree that the bombings were indiscriminate. I know something about the technology involved. The bombings in this war have been more precise than any in recorded history. Everything that could be done to avoid civilian casualties was done. But bombs were dropped and they did, unavoidably kill civilians. The only way to be more careful of civilian casualties would be to not bomb at all. Which would be your preference, I'm sure.

Monday December 1, 2008, 3:22 pm
Isn't it so all far away? Yet try just to imagine bombs coming down on your town or city. Would you not be terrified? It was a nightmare for the Iraqi people under Sadaam Hussain. But it was nothing compared to what they have gone through since. And the Kurdish people who died in their hundreds of thousands died because Hussain was supplied with helicopters and gas by the USA and its western allies. He was hanged before he could be tried for those atrocities. How convenient. I know one Kurdish man who survived as a child only because he was sent for milk. His whole family died. Tell me about terrorism!

Monday December 1, 2008, 3:24 pm
Eleanor - I don't quite agree with you that the US and UK are responsible for suicide bombings. They have been going on in a number of places.

I understand that some of them are in response to invasions, and I agree that a lot of US and UK bombings have been indiscriminate, and I abhor that, as well as abhoring the invasions, but the suicide bombings also are a method deicded upon by choice, as well as used by Sunni and Shia against one another, and used indiscriminately against civilians. They are as ugly as any violence perpetrated against anyone by the US and UK. They may not be an openly state-sanctioned violence, as are our bombings and invasions, but they are still violence more often than not visited upon innocent civilians.

The US drone bombings (might be the wrong terminology) in Pakistan/Afghanistan now are taking out way more civilians than any 'intended' targets. It's ghastly.

Monday December 1, 2008, 3:25 pm
Of course bombs should never be dropped anywhere. Would you like bombs dropped upon you or yours?

Monday December 1, 2008, 3:29 pm
Sanitary? Jerry - how do you use such a cold term when you are talking about human life? I also can't stand the term - 'collateral damage'.

I wish we could post pictures here. I have a photo of a little Iraqi infant whose face is so damaged from US bombs that I doubt she lived. It's too easy to use words like sanitary...

Monday December 1, 2008, 3:32 pm
I do have a hard time with this logic. We are responsible for taking out Hussein AND we're responsible for what he did.

Eleanor, I agree with you that war is horrible. I agree that civilian casualties are horrible. Of course I would be terrified. Never once have you seen me say that I am FOR war. My position is, and always has been, that I am for whatever makes the war shorter. As far as I can tell, the best predictor of civilian casualties is length of conflict.

The only redemption is that this conflict is being fought against islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Blaming the US and the UK for the ongoing war of terror against the west just doesn't make sense to me. this war is a response to that series of attacks.

gotta go to a meeting...will continue later if you're still speaking to me

Monday December 1, 2008, 3:33 pm
one quick response..."sanitary" is the best I could come up with. please suggest a better term if you can.

Monday December 1, 2008, 3:35 pm
But bombings are safer for our troops. Instead of having to go in on foot and risk their own lives in the area under attack, we are able to attack the enemy from a distance without placing our men and women in greater danger.

Which is the whole idea after all. Why would anyone advocate ending a method of warfare which helps spare American lives? Our soldiers' lives should always come first.

Monday December 1, 2008, 3:37 pm
Shia and Sunni have been set against each other, of course. You call it tactics or strategy. But the bottom line is - that would not be happening without the invasion. Why Iraq? There was no threat. Why not China? Why not North Korea? Why did the US invade Iraq? Can you tell me? Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq neither. Why this revenge? Why not Saudi Arabia? The Saudis preach fundamentalist Islam. They started that way back. They still do. They have poisoned Islam. Islam is peaceful but not for the Saudis. If the US wanted a crusade against the Muslims, why did they choose Afghanistan and Iraq? Not that they should have a crusade againt anyone. What gives them the right? But of course you can't say a thing about the Saudis because they are chums with Bush and the extreme right in America. It's an oil thing maybe. Osama Bin Laden? Because he went to Afghanistan the Afghani people had to pay? But there was never a connection between him and Iraq. So what's it all about? Oil? Iraqi oil and Afghani pipelines? And millions of people have to die! In your name and mine. Not in my name. I will protest as long as I breathe.

Monday December 1, 2008, 3:47 pm
Shia and Sunni have been fighting for hundreds of years.

I have been against the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq from the beginning.

Monday December 1, 2008, 3:49 pm
Jerry, Islamic fundamentalism was propagated by the Saudis, not the Iraqis or the Afghanis. It still is. What they propagate is against true Islam. If you want an Islamic enemy it is them. But, oops, they are friends of the US. How do you square that little circle? Islam is a religion of peace. But not for the Saudis. Look up the websites. Look see what the Saudi Imams say. It's there for all to see. I am not giving away any secrets here.

Monday December 1, 2008, 3:57 pm
No question that fundamentalism is against true Islam. Absolutely.

Anyone who knows anything about it knows that.

Monday December 1, 2008, 3:58 pm
Me too, Elizabeth. All I am saying is that the hatred between Sunni and Shia has been used effectively to totally destabilise Iraq, one playing off the other. Living in Scotland I know what hatred religious bigotry can engender. Look at the troubles in Ireland and think Christianity? Aye, right. It's the same with Muslims unfortunately.

Monday December 1, 2008, 4:00 pm
Eleanor, although Saudi Arabia certainly had more influence in promoting Islamic fundamentalism, Afghanistan was a monstrously fundamentalist nation under the Taliban. So fundamentalist, in fact, that a woman actually bled to death on the steps of a hospital because the all-male staff wasn't allowed to touch a woman, even to save her life. If you want to speak of a humanitarian mission, ridding that nation of the Taliban was humanitarian in the extreme.

Of course, Iraq wasn't fundamentalist to that extent. It was merely run by a brutal, insane, genocidal dictator who waged war against his own people.

Monday December 1, 2008, 6:59 pm
True that Afghanistan was incredibly fundamentalist under the Taliban. Cannot deny that.

I loathe any form of fundamentalism as much as I abhor violence. Whether Christian, Jewish, Islamic or any other sort. Fundamentalist attitudes are always a perversion of whichever doctrine they purport to embody.

Monday December 1, 2008, 7:02 pm
The US, however, did not invade Afghanistan or Iraq because it was worried about the citizenry and the effects of fundamentalism or of Hussein's dictatorship.

The US invaded because of its own agenda.

Monday December 1, 2008, 7:05 pm
Of course we did. There's never been any question about that.

Monday December 1, 2008, 8:41 pm
Sorry, I was out for several hours.

Eleanor, I don't think the Saudis are truly our friends. But they are nominally our friends. they haven't openly attacked us or openly protected al-qaeda.

I said the war was an outcome of islamic fundamentalist terrorism, not that the iraqis were guilty of islamic fundamentalism. They were among the most secular of the Arab countries.

We invaded Afghanistan because they supported and protected al-qaeda before, during and after the 911 attacks. Our invasion of Iraq was more complicated. It included reasons such as:

Iraq's central location
the POSSIBILITY of WMD
Hussein's actions gave us a legal right to do so

I agree that true islam is not necessarily violent. The wahabists are certainly responsible for the current outbreak of islamic fundamentalism and the associated terrorism.

Yes, bombing is MUCH safer for our troops and we'll continue to use it. It is also MUCH safer for civilians than ground attacks, Eleanor. You have to agree that urban warfare is incredibly brutal on civilians.

Elizabeth, while I agree with you that true fundamentalism is dangerous in all its forms, you have to admit the the islamic fundies have really gone the extra mile with it. I've never had to ask a Christian or Jewish fundie to explain the finer theological points of why you have to stone a 13-year old girl to death for the "crime" of being a rape victim. Or why you have to beat and rape any woman you find walking outside her home without a male "guardian". Or why fathers have to kill their daughters if they step out of line. The theology is just too deep for me, I guess.

And I would say that unless you are willing to kill someone for not believing exactly the same way you think they ought to, you're not truly a fundamentalist. So most people who identify themselves as Christian or Jewish fundies would not qualify by that definition.

Monday December 1, 2008, 8:55 pm
OK, it's official. MY NAME IS JERRY, and I am a Care2 addict!

Monday December 1, 2008, 8:57 pm
Poor Jerry....

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 9:09 am
Jerry - to say that true Islam is not NECESSARILY violent is not really conceding the point, is it? :D

Check out Ireland to see if the Christians can be violent. White Supremacist groups promote a Christian only view kill for it. The KKK. I'm Jewish - and my sister used to live in Israel. While she was living there, a little boy with an attack of appendicitis was living in an ultra, ultra-Orthodox area of Jerusalem. They called a doctor for the child, who made the mistake of showing up on a motorcycle. They stoned the doctor for breaking the "law" of using anything other than his own footpower to move around during the Sabbath. The doctor died and so did the little boy who received no treatment.

Don't talk to me about fundamentalism and say that it doesn't occur in Christianity and Judaism.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 9:25 am
You are very right, Elizabeth. Fundamentalist atrocities will occur in any society where religious law preempts secular law. Because religion doesn't necessarily concern itself with rights - only religious obligations. That's what secular law is for - to protect everyone's rights, including the doctor who chose to break a religious law in order to try and save a child.

What a terrible thing to have happened.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 10:05 am
Elizabeth, you correctly caught the undercurrent of my statement. There are many non-violent muslims, but I do think that islam is more prone to lead to violence than other religions.

I would never say that fundamentalism doesn't occur in other religions. Please don't put words in my mouth. There's barely enough room in there for the ones that are truly my own...

You are exactly right in the examples you gave. True fundamentalism, in any religion, is dangerous.

I really like what Lindsey said about religious law being about obligations, not rights. I think I'll adopt that one. I'll credit you, Lindsey.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 10:30 am
No need to credit me, Jerry! Consider it to be a gift from me to you!

Besides, it's hardly an original thought. It's just a recognition of reality. In religion, the adherent has no rights. At best they have only privileges granted them by their god(s). Which privileges can also be taken away at will since that god is the ultimate and perfect authority and must be obeyed in all things. Whereas any good secular law recognizes that humans have certain "inalienable" rights which must be respected. Rights which no secular authority should have the ability to infringe upon except under the most exceptional and limited circumstances.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 10:41 am
You know, Lindsey, I think I just might be a libertarian. Is there any diagnostic test?

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 10:42 am
Orthodox Judaism, however, is not the law in Israel. The legal system is not in any way, shape or form bound by any tenets in Orthodox Judaism. Most of the inhabitants of Israel are actually secular Jews.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 10:49 am
Ann Coulter: You live in a land which for some reason is unknown to me... enjoys suing people in doubt...Do you seriously think that Ann would put her life on the line and find herself subject to imprisonment?...The fool that I am cannot and do not accept this statement as 'fact'...Do you?

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 10:52 am
Jerry, if you're generally in favor of people doing as they please in this life so long as they aren't violating the rights of others in the process - you're an essential Libertarian!

For anyone who's interested, here's a link to the Libertarian Party's website and their platform. Although no one is going to agree with every idea promoted by any political party, perhaps you'll find you agree with more of them than you might have thought!

And I agree, Elizabeth, Israel is a secular state. For which I am profoundly grateful (since we need secular allies in that part of the world.)

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 11:03 am
David, I'm willing to admit that I might have taken one too many bong hits this morning, but I'm not sure I understand what your question is.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 12:19 pm
Jerry - you said:

And I would say that unless you are willing to kill someone for not believing exactly the same way you think they ought to, you're not truly a fundamentalist. So most people who identify themselves as Christian or Jewish fundies would not qualify by that definition.

True - you didn't say all - but you said most. I don't think someone has to be willing to kill for their cause to be a fundamentalist. They sure have to be extreme in their thinking, though.

Also - Lindsey:

You said:

Fundamentalist atrocities will occur in any society where religious law preempts secular law.

I say that fundamentalist atrocities take place in plenty of places where secular law is not preempted by religious law. It's just generally easier to get away with when religious law is the rule.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 12:47 pm
Elizabeth, you've probably figured out that I'm all about definitions. I know a lot of Christian people who identify themselves as "fundamentalist" but don't even come close to what we are talking about here. That's what I was talking about when I said "most". I try to get them to use the term "conservative" to describe themselves.

So where on the continuum do you go from "extreme conservative" (or "extreme liberal"?) to fundamentalist? For my money, "willing to kill for solely religious reasons" is a good place to draw the line. "Fundamentalist" has such a negative connotation I want to reserve it for the true wackjobs.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 12:58 pm
Hey, David, I think I understand your question now. I don't know if Ann Coulter would be willing to put her life on the line and risk going to a POW camp for her beliefs. I know I would. Eleanor has said she would, for the right cause ( I don't mean to misquote you, Eleanor, but I think I saw you say that).

One of the greatest disappointments of my life is that I was turned down for military service for medical reasons. That's probably the reason I'm such a wanton militarist wannabe (hah, I beat you to it! :D ) Pretty much anyone in the military has to accept the risk of capture and imprisonment.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 1:15 pm
Jerry - I was about to ask you when and where you served.

Yeah - I can tell you are about definitions :D

I guess, that in my mind, fundamentalism is more about taking religious books and laws literally, and along with that, believing that your way is the only right way. To me, it is more about taking everything that one's religion says on a literal basis - not understanding the allegorical nature of text and rituals, the symbolism, the 'rules' and 'regulations'

I guess I would, really, when I think about it, prefer the use of the word extremist to be applied to people who will kill others in the name of G-d or god. Those who commit acts of violence, terrorist acts - extremists.

On the other hand, some of my Muslim relatives, including doctors and scientists, take the stories in the Qu'ran literally, and yet live quite moderate lives. They are not dogmatic, so I cannot consider them to be fundamentalists, either.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 1:28 pm
OK, I'll buy that. When I'm talking to you I'll use the term"extremist fundamentalist dogmatic terrorist a-hole" to describe the the crazy people of whatever religion. :P You can just say "George Bush". We'll understand each other.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 1:57 pm
:D :D :D