My gracious I missed a lot. Going way back, I just want to touch on your points here:

1. No. Your proposal/argument is not ridiculous. I want to clarify that right now. I think it's hopeful at best, and not inadequate given a best case scenario of whom you will apply these ideas to...

2. ...however, you must remember with Muslims - there are various - for lack of a better definition - strains of Muslims. Fundamentalist, not-so fundamentalist, etc.

3. Regardless, however, of what sort of Muslim with whom you deal, whether fundamentalist or secular, all have had, it's been reported, some dealings with terrorism. So even if terrorists are not physically at the table, they will have, to an extent, a place in any peace talks involving the U.S.

Now, attacking a small country: if you're talking about Iraq - no - attacking Iraq in my opinion is something other than a war on terrorism. But that should be academic to anyone at this stage in the so-called war on terror. I do wonder, however, how it can be concluded that more individuals are signing onto programs of terrorism. What information is there that substantiates that fact?

Add to that the fact that many Islamic-based medias have actively condemned the ongoing beheadings, bombings, etc. Countless editorials were written in disgust of the London bombings alone. As well, the Islamic public is turning against the various fatwahs via demonstrations and elections. So, in a sense, the P.R. campaign is already in swing. But so far, that hasn't stemmed the bombings and killing.

So what do you do if the Muslims themselves cannot stop the killing? With whom do you then sit down at the table with in hopes of negotiation?

Is this an oxymoron? Define "consider." In one manner, consider is to recognize. And one in the center or "moderate" has to recognize portions of the left and right arguments in order to consider themselves as such. Consider does not necessarily mean one has to support or like one or the other side's argument, or take a little bit from here and there ("here" meaning left, "there" meaning right) to form an adequately moderate voting position.

As for the rest of your claim - it seems very subjective.

Interestingly enough....almost anything I post...no matter how seeming a universal truth.....is attacked by liberal posters. Usually they end up calling names...for lack of argument. For example....today I posted an article titled "Our Enemy is Stupid" and got several pages of argument...mostly about how the author was not too well qualified to write an opinion piece...The author had graduated with honors and recieved a law degree...both from Ivy league schools.....was syndicated in over 200 papers, and was a judge for the Pulitzer Prize....And had accomplished a great deal more. In this thread..and several others...they try to redefine terms I use. I submit that most liberals here are exactly what they accuse me of being. Unwilling to even consider another point of view.

I think while "reactionary" is a key word for some "puppeteered" definitely defines many others...

I guess what I meant is that, except in the unlikely case where someone has 100% centre views (does this even exist?) that people who are near the centre are there because there are some areas in which they are somewhat undecided as to whether to be left/liberal or right/conservative (whichever is opposite to their dominant tendency).

I meant your first definition of consider - to recognise or think about - some people discard (ie, don't consider) the ideas without even thinking (as you or I would do to that dude Alfred's posts about racial superiority).

If I'm losing some pedantic battle here, fine. I can't figure out what it was that I said which you think is subjective, other perhaps than saying I'd never seen Fint say something positive about a liberal and against a conservative (which I am happy to stand by).

Fint:

A couple of things jump out at me from this post.

The first - you post those articles to get a reaction. You appear to like arguing ;)

The second - I initially reacted to the fawning over Charen resume. She's also obviously extremely biased and therefore, while I might not be able to pick out any untruths in there, I have to be mighty suspicious of the everything she neglects to cover. She isn't gonna write anything balanced, and the article should, IMHO, be treated as such.

Her article felt (yes, an emotive word) like a thinly dressed up slur against all Islamic people and their (impliedly) inferior culture. IMHO, people like Charen are playing their part of the problem in fostering Muslim anger towards those in the West.

Ironically, she (clearly) views with contempt someone like me, a person who believes that in time the militant Islamic problem can be sorted out peacefully.

So I react to her contempt.

I love the left wing touchy feely types who try to say this war is not about survival and therefore different than a legitimate was such as WWII. I hate to jostle their happy little world with some facts but when the religion of peace began there were many Jews & Christians living in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Turkey, Lybia, etc, etc. Where are they now? Eliminated, that's where! If you notice, arab names are all there is throughout the islamic world.

http://www.seanbryson.com/images/ukinfidels2.jpg

Everywhere they have been allowed to settle there is a pattern of behavior. Phase 1. This is while muslims are a very small minority and have no power within the community. "We are just humble practiciouners of the religion of peace and although our ways are different we just want to raise our families & live in peace." Phase 2. This begins when their is a large enough population to demand some concessions. Right now in Ann Arbor & Brooklyn they have gotten approval to broadcast the call to prayer from loudspeakers. Phase 3 comes with an increase in population & political power, like Britain, Holland & Sweden where the radicalization surfaces. In Holland rapes & murders at the hands of muslims are becoming a problem to the point where some are calling for prohibition on the practice of islam. Sweden has neighborhoods where non muslims can no longer go. Before the bombing a bill had been introduced in Parliment to eliminate emigration from muslim countries. Phase 4 is the implimentation of the sharia and claiming the land for allah. The muslim word for this process is called hudna.

At some point this game has to end.

I think you've posted that exact post before.

I'm still all touchy feely - I'd rather believe that the vast bulk of Muslims have no interest whatsoever in what you set out. Anyway, I think Indonesia is the largest Muslim country and it has nothing like what you say. Ditto South East Asian countries. Basically, you write "Muslim", but you mean "Arab".

To try and gain some perspective, think of Christianity several hundred years ago - an awful lot of terrible stuff was done in the name of God (eg, the Spanish conquering the world for the glory of God).

That multi-phase plan for taking over a country from the inside sure sounds familiar... Why is it that the radicals of any religion have a hard time being tolerant of other religions (or non-religions) and desire to merge with the government?

Reminds me of two baseball (or football) teams praying for a victory. There can only be one winner, so how does the losing team explain why God deserted them?

Religion, used for political purposes is a terrible thing.

That's one idea I wish our political forefathers had expressed better.

(said with a sense of humor)


Amen, Brother....

It is just a little thing, but important in a world of weasel words.

Detestable as the Taliban are- Can we legitimately call Afghanis fighting in Afghanistan against an occuppying foreign military "terrorists".

We called them Mujahdin Heroes in 80's and made Rambo movies about them kicking Russian arse.

Stuart

Jeez, Mule, are you reading fint's wacko magazines now?

Just take Iraq as an example. Today there are approximately one million Christians in a population of 26 million. I wouldn't call that 'eliminated' though maybe you would. Iran has maybe 300,000 Christians. It's true that in some parts of the middle east, Christians are starting to experience what the Jews went through in Germany in the late 30s.

Ironically, one reason there are so many Christians in Iraq is that Saddam aggressively protected them by keeping the citizens under control. In the new Iraq we've deconstructed, they are in increasing jeopardy.

Well, Stuart, doncha know, you're a terrorist yourself, if W decides to call you that, so rachet down the rhetoric or you risk getting slapped with a wiretap or thrown in jail without charges.

But its not about religion. Its about power and hegemony. Religion is simply a means to an end.

Ours and/or theirs.

Tech - have any links? I'd like to read more about that...

Of course.

Present conditions in Iraq:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/chancy3.html

http://www.assyrianchristians.com/commentary_japan_steps_up_june_28_05.htm

Historical:

http://www.byzantines.net/epiphany/chaldean.htm

Christians in Iran:

http://www.martinrothonline.com/GlobalChurch/IranChristians.htm

stuart, religion is being used as a tool by the "enemy", and more and more by "us". Given escalation over time, this can become very dangerous. During WWII, the US had a program of re-education of the German citizenry, trying to convince the German people that the outcome of the war was "Peace with the German people, Yes. Peace with Hitler, No"..

Our troops are doing their best to instill this kind of program, but it is difficult because of all the interruptions. It is more difficult due to the vast difference in culture, unlike Germany whose basic culture was modern western.

Sorry Cam, the tamil tigers are the Indonesian franchisee of the terrorist muslims. Do this, look back in history & point out for me where the muslims co-existed peacefully with anybody. I'll be looking for the list. And no I don't mean Arab. I mean muslim.

I get along pretty well with my Muslim friends. Does that count? Or are you talking about 100% of the Muslim world? If so, I challenge you to tell me a time when the Christians got along peacefully with anybody.