Ernie: We can and have learned to "live with Fascists" in the past. Not that US relations with Franco were ideal, but there was no war and few people were ever killed. Possibly this is how it all might have worked out with Italy except for Hitler. Alas, there was Hitler and it is possible to argue that Fascism ultimately "requires" a Hitler . Its philosophy sets the stage and the actor eventually appears The point is that Fascism , with power, requires war --it does so internally, so to speak, by its own initiative, and opposition in a do or die sense on the part of democracies seeking survival. Franco , after WWII was essentially powerless externally no matter how much he controlled Spain internally. Maybe the Cold War is a better analogy in terms of tactics, however, and this is basically what is being recommended. Not war per se, with guns and bombs, but war with words, with communications media, and war with competing educations systems and values. Such a war allows for trade and diplomacy. It allows for exchange of such things as books and movies. It allows for conferences and summits and debates. But it is a form of war, nonetheless, and requires mobilization of resources and money as well as recruitment of the best people to be its "foot soldiers" and "generals." We never compromised ( or not all that much ) with Communism and through it all we were clear that Communism was the enemy despite some undeniable similarities about a limited number of things We did not simply try to be nice to the Commies, we stood up to them and let the world know we regarded Communism as essentially wrong. The idea is to take a similar posture with respect to Islam. What is the alternative ? Business as usual or an appeal for love fests ? I don't see any alternative, If you do, please let me know what it could possibly consist of. Billy
Hi Billy, Sent from my iPhone On Jul 19, 2009, at 11:18, [email protected] wrote: > Sure, many Muslims, maybe even a majority, are uninterested > in killing Christians, But a large percentage is dedicated > to eliminating all rivals to Islam and they are the ones who > make the difference, LETHAL difference. Okay, that much we agree on. The question is tactics. I am arguing that the best solution is de-normalize the lethal Muslims by coopting the "uninterested majority". I agree it isn't a perfect solution, but I think it is viable, and even partial success has many benefits. What is your alternative? I don't know that you've ever spelled it out in full detail, except the somewhat contradictory statement of utterly eliminating Islam through non-violent non-coercive means... > _______________________________________________ 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/
