Ernie : Your points are well taken -- from what I remember of world history prior to 900 A.D., I don't recall things being materially better. :-P
Muhammad died in about 632 AD. A hundred years later Muslim power stretched from the Mahgreb to the approaches to India. All of this was done through military force. True, in the wake of armies came Muslim missionaries of various kinds, but the point is that unlike Christianity or Buddhism and Judaism which once had this characteristic as did Hinduism for most of a millennium ( hence one-time Hindu states in SE Asia and Indonesia ), until the special case of the Malay Archipelago and more recently still, the southern Sahara region, there were no organized peaceful "movements" spreading Islam. Early on, for several centuries, it was strictly a military religion. But how might the world be different without Islam ? Answer : How different is the world without the Nazis or without quasi-Fascist militaristic Japan ? How different is it without militant Communism, for that matter ? That is the scenario. The result is far from perfect, but there is a fighting chance in Europe and the Orient now, and in the nations of the former USSR. ------------------------------------------------------- Isn't it just barely possible that there are *other* problems in our global political system at least as bad as Islam? One is worse, or maybe two, homosexuality --and abortion. But, yes, there also are a host of very meaningful problems besides these. Still, if the model is correct, that this is war --a war of ideas notwithstanding-- then everything else needs to be subsumed to the conflict until it is resolved. In WWII no-one forgot about business or science or academics, etc, all of that remained important. But the war took center stage, which is how it must be if you -anyone involved-- actually wants to win. Conversely, suppose that the Nazis and militarist Japanese had held on and basically fought the allies to a standstill ? Maybe they were too exhausted to continue after the West regained some lost territories. Detente was reached with the Nazis holding most of continental Europe and a slice of North Africa. --and with the Japanese holding on to parts of China and other areas even if their empire had to pull back. And the USSR still survived wit control of Central Asia still mostly intact. To me that is the situation which is analogous to Islam today which is the better scenario, a world without the Nazis, etc, or a world where Nazis and Soviets and militarist Japan still exist ? Is it difficult to answer ? Billy =================================================== In a message dated 4/28/2009 9:03:51 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Hi Billy, On Apr 28, 2009, at 7:20 PM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: Ernie : I'd say he is mostly right, maybe better than 90 % right. The solution to the overall problem ? Short of a massive change in values across Europe and elsewhere, blockade all Somali ports. Simple, effective, no casualties or very few, low risk, and essentially harmless. At least if there are no idiots who decide it makes sense to confront navy warships. There are only 4 ports of consequence to worry about. Maybe a dozen lesser port that could be quarantined with patrol boats. Use local navies, not only the USA, India, France, and GB, Make the blockade a regular part of training or other exercises. That's it . Piracy problem solved. in maybe 2 months, maybe 30 days. Why isn't this done ? One word : Islam. While you may be partly right, I think you vastly oversimplify the issue in your desire to blame Islam for everything. :-) Part of the problem is that Somalia is poor and African, as well as Muslim, and anything that smacks of imperialism will be a hard sell. Viz, the hue and cry that would result from blockade of a Muslim country. In other words, there are many, many problems in the world that will continue to defy solution as long a Islam exists. Get rid of Islam and we get a new world system. that has a halfway decent chance of success. Funny, from what I remember of world history prior to 900 A.D., I don't recall things being materially better. :-P Isn't it just barely possible that there are *other* problems in our global political system at least as bad as Islam? -- Ernie P. O no, we can't get rid of Islam, we can't DO that . Uh huh. That kind of logic should be called what it is, a death wish, appeasement, and suicidal. My thoughts on the subject Billy ============================================= In a message dated 4/28/2009 4:26:25 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) writes: Strange enough I suspect he may well be right... -- Ernie P. The bizarre case of pirates’ human rights from Amitai Etzioni Notes by Amitai Etzioni We are told that the reasons we have such a hard time stopping the pirates is that our forces have a very hard time locating them in the vast sea. An odd statement, given that the pirates have no trouble locating our ships in the same sea, and they have no drones, satellites, AWACS, and all the other means of modern technology. Moreover, we hardly need to look for them; they present themselves to us, quite regularly. Most recently they captured six ships with a few weeks. The main reason pirates roam freely is only whispered in the corridors of power, because it is very politically incorrect to openly state that pirates are protected by a radical interpretation of human rights. The various navies involved are operating (or more precisely, are not operating) because of one or more of the following points: • Do not capture the pirates because if you do, they will have to be brought to trial in some national court. There are no international courts in which they can be tried. To try them, you will need evidence that will hold up in such courts. Most ship hands do not have the kind of police training needed to collect evidence properly, observe the chain of evidence, and so on. • Once brought to your homeland, the pirates may seek—and possibly be granted—asylum. (In several European countries one can gain asylum by showing that he or she is coming from a part of the world in which there is a sufficient level of indiscriminant violence that one’s life would be in danger by remaining there. One need not show that he or she was specifically persecuted.) Thus, courts may let them walk and you would then have dozens of Somali marauders roaming free in your country. • You will be unable to ship them back to Somalia for trial because there they would likely be subject to torture or execution. • Piracy is a crime and crimes are a matter for the police to deal with, not armed forces. But national police forces have no jurisdiction, a high seas catch-22. • Pirates cannot be shot when they close in on your ship because they may be fishermen engaging in their peaceful business. The fact that they are armed cannot be used as evidence because in these parts of the world practically all men are armed. • If you fail to respect their rights, you may be hauled in front of one or more of your national courts, the European Court of Human Rights, condemned by United Nations, and excoriated by the parts of the media and by human rights activists. Ignored is the fact that human rights—which ought to be observed—must be balanced with concerns for the common good, as they are in the domestic courts of all free nations. No reasonable interpretation of rights allows them to trump all other considerations, especially gross violations of the safety of innocent people going about their business, business which, in the case of the Maersk Alabama, consisted of carrying humanitarian aid destined for Somalia! Thus, while even pirates, if captured, should not be tortured or held indefinitely without a hearing, a ship’s sovereignty should be extended to an area around it. Any armed party entering this zone, should be asked to leave or surrender; if they refuse and do not heed a warning shot, they should be treated as a hostile force. Civilian airlines have armed marshals. Our commercial ships and cruise ships may need some of those now, equipped with a 007 license. At least the way I see it, to treat human rights on the high seas the way we do at home is a much preferred alternative to the desperate suggestion—now increasingly mentioned—that we ought to invade Somalia, in order to get at the pirates’ bases. Such a land-based operation is surely going to involve killing many innocent Somalis, aside from inflicting a considerable number of casualties on our own troops. _______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) _http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com_ (http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com) Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/ _______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) _http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com_ (http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com) Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/ = _______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
_______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
