*chuckle* http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/
[I was surprised at how many of you believe that nothing the United States does in terms of foreign policy would make any difference to the average non-terrorist Muslim that is supporting the terrorists. You believe that their objections to U.S. foreign policy are a smokescreen and that they just want to destroy all non-Muslims. I reiterate my belief that all humans can be persuaded to do just about any damned thing. The existence of suicide bombers is good evidence of that, not to mention the plethora of religions that can't all be true at the same time. Most of the world is brainwashed most of the time. I also believe that with the exception of the hardcore terrorists that will die if they fail to conquer the world, all normal humans can be reprogrammed from whatever dumbass thing they believe to some other dumbass thing. But logic and reason will rarely be a factor in the conversion. You'd need to replace one form of irrational motivation with another. We have the know-how to do just that, though not the will. As a practical matter, I doubt the U.S. has the right kind of leadership to ever change opinions in the Muslim world. This is more of a hypothetical discussion. By definition, you're a racist if you believe that ordinary Muslims are incapable of acting rationally, unless you believe exactly the same thing about yourself and everyone else. In that case you just have a low opinion of people in general, and that's socially acceptable. The optimistic thing about my view that opinions can be changed is that it allows me to think the war on terror can be solved. We just need to find some way to whittle away at the public support in the Muslim world until it becomes obvious that fighting the U.S. is a dumb way to grow your economy and feed your kids and pray to your God. I think it would help the war on terror to have more allies and fewer terror-helpers. Some of you asked for examples of when it made any difference to terrorists whether they had public support or not. You noted that they are good at intimidating people into staying quiet and they don't need that much public support anyway. All good points. Analogies are necessarily imperfect, but one that springs to mind is the plot to kill Hitler. Some of his generals tried to kill him because they changed their mind about supporting his nutty, Germany-destroying ways. The plot almost worked. I'm reasonably certain that the U.S. public's view at the time was that all Nazi generals were insane bastards oblivious to reason. It turns out that a few of them changed their minds when the facts changed (Germany started losing). It happens. That's my only point. But let's say you racists believe that Muslim opinions of the U.S. can never change no matter what we do. I wonder what policy you would favor for ending the war on terror? Surely no one believes we can win the war on terror by doing more of whatever we're already doing. The terrorists are breeding faster than we are killing them. And it's only a matter of time before they get some WMD or flood the U.S. with suicide bombers. So I ask this question of the people who believe the U.S. foreign policy has no impact on terrorism. Which policy do you favor for battling terror? 1. More of what we are doing plus wishful thinking that it will work. 2. Eliminate Islam Am I missing any racist options?] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:207300 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
