Fucking 'dogooders' are going to ruin the world.

[GusNSpot]

Can this have even a glimmer of reality? Any truth hiding in this? A sliver of what is to come? Is it that important?

Are we, the people so fucking stupid that we won't even seriously consider what this says?

With permission, I quote..

----------------
This was e-mailed to me by a friend and is maybe one of the best forwards I have ever received. Remember, "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."



JEM





A HISTORY LESSON



SOME OF YOU ARE NOT OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER THAT NEARLY EVERY FAMILY IN AMERICA WAS GROSSLY AFFECTED BY WW II . MOST OF YOU DON'T REMEMBER THE RATIONING OF MEAT, SHOES, GASOLINE, AND SUGAR. NO TIRES FOR OUR AUTOMOBILES, AND A SPEED LIMIT OF 35 MILES AN HOUR ON THE ROAD, NOT TO MENTION, NO NEW AUTOMOBILES. READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT HOW WE WOULD REACT TO BEING TAKEN OVER BY FOREIGNERS IN 2007. This is an EXCELLENT essay. Well thought out and presented. Historical Significance.





Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat. The Nazis had sunk more than 400 British ships in their convoys between England and America taking food and war materials. At that time the US was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most Americans wanted nothing to do with the European or the Asian war. Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan , and the following day on Germany, who had not yet attacked us. It was a dicey thing. We had few allies . France was not an ally, as the Vichy government of France quickly aligned itself with its German occupiers. Germany was certainly not an ally, as Hitler was intent on setting up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally, as it was well on its way to owning and controlling all of Asia.





Together, Japan and Germany had long-range plans of invading Canada and Mexico, as launching pads to get into the United States over our northern and southern borders, after they finished gaining control of Asia and Europe.





America's only allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia. That was about it All of Europe, from Norway to Italy (except Russia in the East) was already under the Nazi heel. The US was certainly not prepared for war. The US had drastically downgraded most of its military forces after WW I because of the depression, so that at the outbreak of WW II, Army units were training with broomsticks because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn't have real tanks. A huge chunk of our Navy had just been sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor. Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England (that was actually the property of Belgium ) given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler (a little known fact). Actually, Belgium surrendered on one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the! Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day just to prove they could.





Britain had already been holding out for two years in the face of staggering losses and the near decimation of its Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later. Hitler, first turned his attention to Russia, in the late summer of 1940 at a time when England was on the verge of collapse.





Ironically, Russia saved America's butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years, until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany.





Russia lost something like 24,000,000 people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow alone . . . 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a 1,000,000 soldiers. Had Russia surrendered, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire war effort against the Brits, then America. If that had happened, the Nazis could possibly have won the war.





All of this has been brought out to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. Now, we find ourselves at another one of those key moments in history.





There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants, and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world . The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs -- they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world. To them, all who do not bow to their will of thinking should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, and purge the world of Jews. This is their mantra. (goal)





There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East -- for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation, but it is not yet known which side will win -- the Inquisitors, or the Reformationists. If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, the OPEC oil, and the US , European, and Asian economies.





The techno-industrial economies will be at the mercy of OPEC -- not an OPEC dominated by the educated, rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis. Do you want gas in your car? Do you want heating oil next winter? Do you want the dollar to be worth anything? You had better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.





If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away. A moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge. We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda and the Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. We can't do it everywhere at once. We have created a focal point for the battle at a time and place of our choosing . . . . . . . . in Iraq . Not in New York , not in London , or Paris or Berlin , but in Iraq, where we are doing two important things.





(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 terrorist attack or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist! Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, responsible for the deaths of probably more than a

1,000,000 Iraqis and 2,000,000 Iranians.





(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad people, and the ones we get there we won't have to get here. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.





WW II, the war with the Japanese and German Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years before the US joined it. It officially ended in 1945 -- a 17 year war -- and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again . . a 27 year war.





WW II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP -- adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars. WW II cost America more than 400,000 soldiers killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action. The Iraq war has, so far, cost the United States about $160,000,000,000, which is roughly what the 9/11 terrorist attack cost New York. It has also cost about

3,000 American lives, which is roughly equivilant to lives that the Jihad killed (within the United States) in the 9/11 terrorist attack .





The cost of not fighting and winning WW II would have been unimaginably greater -- a world dominated by Japanese Imperialism and German Nazism . This is not a 60-Minutes TV show, or a 2-hour movie in which everything comes out okay . The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. It always has been, and probably always will be.





The bottom line is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away if we ignore it .





If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an ally, like England , in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates to conquer the world.





The Iraq War is merely another battle in this ancient and never ending war. Now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless somebody prevents them from getting them. We have four options:





1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.





2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).





3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East now; in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.





OR





4. We can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and possibly most of the rest of Europe. It will, of course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier. If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today. The history of the world is the history of civilization clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win. Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win . The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them . Remember, perspective is every thing, and America's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.





The Cold War lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989; forty-two years!





Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany!





World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan. World War II resulted in the death of more than 50,000,000 people, maybe more than

100,000,000 people, depending on which estimates you accept.



The US has taken more than 3,000 killed in action in Iraq.. The US took more than 4,000 killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944 , the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism.





In WW II the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week -- for four years. Most of the individual battles of WW II lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.





The stakes are at least as high . . A world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law). It's difficult to understand why the average American does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis.





"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate here in America , where it's safe.





Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Spain, North Korea, in the places that really need peace activism the most? I'll tell you why! They would be killed! The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy!





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Raymond S . Kraft is a writer living in Northern California that has studied the Middle Eastern culture and religion

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please consider passing along copies of this article to students in high school, college and university as it contains information about the American past that is very meaningful today -- history about America that very likely is completely unknown by them (and their instructors, too). By being denied the facts of our history, they are at a decided disadvantage when it comes to reasoning and thinking through the issues of today. They are prime targets for misinformation campaigns beamed at enlisting them in causes and beliefs that are special interest agenda driven.

-------------

This fuckin shite scares me..... Total bunk, ... right????

[Q.E.D.]

Ok, but what the hell is a dog ooder?

[Czarcasm]

I think he meant dogo odor. (http://www.dogo.org/)

[Giraffe]

GusNSpot, apparently your quoted text was too much for the quote tags to handle, resulting in a blank post, so I replaced the tags with dashes to indicate the start and end of the quoted section.

[Giraffe]

And as for your retardo OP, I knew I was in for a treat when I saw it started with:
This was e-mailed to me by a friend and is maybe one of the best forwards I have ever received. Remember, "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."And those who try to approach incredibly complex and unique situations with bad analogies and simplistic mottos are doomed to do very stupid things. Egad.

[Jackmannii]

Can this have even a glimmer of reality?I was struck by the volume of errors and exaggerations in the WWII history before I even got to current times. "...at the outbreak of WW II, Army units were training with broomsticks because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn't have real tanks."

The U.S. armed forces were short of munitions (actually, all parties including the Germans didn't have enough to meet the demands of war - ever check out the flimsy force of U-boats with which the Nazis initially expected to rule the North Atlantic?) but it's incorrect that it didn't have guns or tanks. From this site (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/tank-history3.htm):

"When Germany invaded western Europe in 1940, the US Army had only 28 new tanks- 18 medium and 10 light- and these were soon to become obsolete, along with some 900 older models on hand. The Army had no heavy tanks and no immediate plans for any. Even more serious than the shortage of tanks was industry's lack of experience in tank manufacture and limited production facilities. Furthermore, the United States was committed to helping supply its allies. By 1942 American tank production had soared to just under 25,000, almost doubling the combined British and German output for that year. And in 1943, the peak tank production year, the total was 29,497. All in all, from 1940 through 1945, US tank production totaled 88,410."

So we had a tank force - just not a very good one - and made up for our deficiencies rapidly.

"Britain had already been holding out for two years in the face of staggering losses and the near decimation of its Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later. Hitler, first turned his attention to Russia, in the late summer of 1940 at a time when England was on the verge of collapse."

Wrong. Britain had hung heavy losses on the Luftwaffe in the air war. Shipping losses in the Atlantic were serious but major steps had been taken to reduce the menace (the Germans' "Happy Time" for U-boats was in 1940, long before the U.S. entered the war) and the Germans had no viable plan for invading Britain. Hitler turned his attention to Russia largely because he was obsessed with wiping out the evil Slav Commies and establishing "lebensraum".

"Ironically, Russia saved America's butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years, until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany."

Germany had way less chance of inflicting any serious damage on the U.S. during that period than it did of conquering Britain.

"Russia lost something like 24,000,000 people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow alone . . . 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a 1,000,000 soldiers. Had Russia surrendered, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire war effort against the Brits, then America. If that had happened, the Nazis could possibly have won the war."

And if your mom had wheels, she'd be a teacart.

"All of this has been brought out to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. Now, we find ourselves at another one of those key moments in history."

And if we can't understand history any better than this spewer of glurge does, things won't turn out as well as WWII.

[tremorviolet]

I cannot recall a case where "tl;dr" has ever been more appropriate.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Whoever wrote that thing is a fucking retard. The answer to your question is no, there is no truth hiding in that ludicrous, race baiting, paranoid screed. A few thousand, radical extremist nutjobs (which are like .001% of all Muslims) are not going to take over America. Relax. You're going to be fine. The real threat of Islamic extremism tends to be fantastically exaggerated by the US media. The kind of ridiculous, all or nothing, alarmist hysteria exemplified in that inane forward is much more of a threat than a handful of fanatics on the other side of the world.

[Elenfair]

1) We take over the world
2) We round up the idiots
3) We set the idiots on fire
4) We have the a nice huge bonfire
5) Smores!
6) Maximum enjoyment!

[Frostillicus]

Please consider passing along copies of this article to students in high school, college and university as it contains information about the American past that is very meaningful today -- history about America that very likely is completely unknown by them (and their instructors, too). By being denied the facts of our history, they are at a decided disadvantage when it comes to reasoning and thinking through the issues of today. They are prime targets for misinformation campaigns beamed at enlisting them in causes and beliefs that are special interest agenda driven.

Please don't. I have enough trouble as it is.

[Q.E.D.]

1) We take over the world
2) We round up the idiots
3) We set the idiots on fire
4) We have the a nice huge bonfire
5) Smores!
6) Maximum enjoyment!
Nah, flaming idiots ruin the taste of s'mores.

[silenus]

Please consider passing along copies of this article to students in high school, college and university as it contains information about the American past that is very meaningful today -- history about America that very likely is completely unknown by them (and their instructors, too). By being denied the facts of our history, they are at a decided disadvantage when it comes to reasoning and thinking through the issues of today. They are prime targets for misinformation campaigns beamed at enlisting them in causes and beliefs that are special interest agenda driven.

Like I don't have enough trouble teaching them the truth, without adding this into the mix?

[susan]

1) We take over the world
2) We round up the idiots
3) We set the idiots on fire
4) We have the a nice huge bonfire
5) Smores!
6) Maximum enjoyment!It's all good until someone decides they're "we" and you're "the idiot."

[dnooman]

I cannot recall a case where "tl;dr" has ever been more appropriate.
You took the words right out of my mouth.

[saoirse]

This is their mantra. (goal)

This one is my favorite. You know, if you can send glurge, you can look words up in an online dictionary.

We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).

Funny thing about that. Since we invaded Iraq, we suddenly got a whole laundry list of things we need Iran to do. Also, our president has kind of called them "evil" and suggested that if he had his way, we'd invade them, too. So Iran is kind of disinclined to trust us right now, and very inclined to come up with a really good reason for us not to invade them. The best thing for Iran's nuclear program was our invasion.

Oh and the other difference between WWII and now? The 95% top marginal tax rate. That's how you know the country's in danger.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

This is their mantra. (goal)
This one is my favorite. You know, if you can send glurge, you can look words up in an online dictionary.
That one is pretty funny. Not only is their definition wrong, they don't even have the right religion.

[fessie]

Oh and the other difference between WWII and now? The 95% top marginal tax rate. That's how you know the country's in danger.

Care to expand on that? I don't understand what you mean (although Google did find a thesis from Harvard that might be fun to read).

[El_Kabong]

Yep, when I want to know the correct way to go on a given subject, I wait for an unattributed, unreferenced anonymous E-mail to drop into my inbox. It's so much easier than, you know, actually thinking about it.

[El_Kabong]

Whoops, guess I can't say 'unattributed', since the quoted message mentions it to be the work of one Raymond S. Kraft. After a quick search it appears that he is an attorney, in addition to his writing and Middle Eastern Scholar gigs, and the quoted text, which appears to date back to at least sometime in 2006, is all over dozens of right-wing blogs.

As to the OP's question, well, there certainly are plenty of Americans who seem to be convinced that militant jihadists represent the 'true' face of Islam, that said jihadists are all completely insane by definition, that Iran would instantly use a nuclear weapon on a Western target if it had one, and that only overwhelming military force, up to genocide, if necessary, can withstand the terrifying onslaught of these few thousand muslim extremists. With that in mind, Mr. Kraft's piece is probably a more or less accurate expression of the thoughts of a significant minority in this country. Whether the text's being included in yet another glurgetastic E-mail forward will sway any large number of people to the anti-muslim Jihad is another question. I tend to doubt it.

[thirdname]

Did the Axis really have plans to invade Canada and Mexico? That seems farfetched, unless they were really long-term hopes, for years after they had won the war and established their respective empires. Does it have any basis in fact?

My other big problem is the assertion that Saddam Hussein was a "terrorist" because he used chemical weapons, when that had nothing to do with support of the Islamic extremists we're talking about here. The whole thing pretty much falls apart when it gets to Saddam and Iraq.

[42fish]

Actually, Belgium surrendered on one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day just to prove they could.


Actually, Belgium was imvaded on May 10 and surrendered on the 28th. As far as the Germans bombing Brussels into rubble the next day, to quote Wikipedia, "Beginning on May 10, 1940, Brussels was bombed by the German army; however, most of the war damage to the city took place in 1944–1945."


Please consider passing along copies of this article to students in high school, college and university as it contains information about the American past that is very meaningful today -- history about America that very likely is completely unknown by them (and their instructors, too). By being denied the facts of our history, they are at a decided disadvantage when it comes to reasoning and thinking through the issues of today. They are prime targets for misinformation campaigns beamed at enlisting them in causes and beliefs that are special interest agenda driven.


Because if there's one thing our students desperately need, it's Spam that, judging from that brief excerpt, commits one factual error per sentence.

[Revenant Threshold]

If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an ally, like England , in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. An ally like England? Curses! The damn yanks have seen through the dastardly Scottish/Welsh plan to destroy their nation! Och, and it was so close to completion, boyos!*

Oh, and the RAF won the Battle of Britain, but I see the flaws with that particular part have already been brought up.

*Sterotypes provided by the Royal Stereotyping Academy of Oxford.

[elucidator]

He is entirely correct on that point, Belgium did, in fact, surrender "on one day". Such dreary formal occasions seldom involve prolonged festivities.

[olivesmarch4th]

I finally understand what the :rolleyes: is for.

[dropzone]

1) We take over the world
2) We round up the idiots
3) We set the idiots on fire
4) We have the a nice huge bonfire
5) Smores!
6) Maximum enjoyment!I like s'mores as much as the next guy, but where do Opal and Profit! enter into the equation? The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them. (patting my body) Nope, fat but alive. Next? Remember, perspective is everything... Yes, and the author needs more. ...and America's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.As an amateur historian, like Mr Kraft, I agree. Unfortunately for Mr Kraft, what comes from more knowledge of history, especially military history, is the realization of just how wrong he is on everything else. Dude should study more. He's embarassing himself.

[Revenant Threshold]

Does she include the 3,287 other email addresses with it also? The way I got one person to quit was to send a *snarky* and full of total silly stuff, to the tune of about 3 pages worth, to 'Reply to all' that I really appreciated (my relatives email address) FWDing all this stuff to me.

They had a fun few days with their email.

I also had one I just never opened his email again and one time he asked why I never reply anymore and I told him that I had asked him to learn how to clean up / strip the part he wanted me to see which he refused to do so I had no choice but to delete his all the time.

If it is not worth the time and effort to strip and redo, it is not worth my time to see it. (Usually the same thing that has been going around for the last 3 years.)

You might go at her with the idea of showing her how to do it right and how to be a good 'internet' person. She may not get offended that way. All the extra work will kill off most of her enthusiasm for that stuff in a week or so.

Or just do not open anything that has 'FWD' in the subject line.

If your email must be downloaded to see the subject line ( bad email client IMO ) you might splain to her that your mail is being clogged up and you can't accept so much from her.

Or just block her until she listens to reason.

If a nice relative can't splain to her without her melting down, she is in for a rough ride on the net. IMO

YMMV

Good luck. I think friend Gus should have taken his own advice (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=414812) on this one.

[BrainGlutton]

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad people, and the ones we get there we won't have to get here. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

Jeez, I don't think even W believes this shit any more!

[Weirddave]

There are a couple of good core points there, but the history is so shoddy and inaccurate that they're not obvious but must be separated like wheat from chaff.

Oh and Diogenes? There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, and I think that classifying only one one hundredth of a percent of them as fanatical is way, way, wayyyy low. 1% of any group of any size is batshit crazy, when you're talking about religion (any religion) I'd venture that 5-10% is much more realistic. In any event, there are a not insignificant number of fanatical Muslims who DO fit the profile painted by the glurge in the OP, something which should not be poo-pooed away because it inconveniently disagrees with your ideology.

[Ale]

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad people, and the ones we get there we won't have to get here. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

:rolleyes:


:rolleyes:


:rolleyes:


Now, this would be easier or at least more satisfying if I could grab you by the collar and shake you up untill making you understand that there´s zero possibility of having a vicious war and stablishing a happyla-la-land on the same space/time coordintes.

Geez!, what´s up with people that peddle that crap of an argument? Do you actually think at all?

Man, I´m pissed.

[Zoe]

The original piece is about three years old. It described pre-Pearl Harbor America and refers to that period as "sixty-three years ago." At some point someone updated the number of troops who have been killed, but it is over 3700 now, not 3,000. We passed the 9-11 total long ago.

And that doesn't include the unspeakable number of other troops and Iraqi citizens and other human beings slaughtered.

As I read the first paragraph about the sacrifices that were made on the homefront during World War II, I couldn't help but wonder why this President hadn't taken advantage of the spirit of unity that this country felt after 9-11. It would have been very understandable if he had called upon us to conserve gasoline and oil in every way possible. We on the homefront were wanting to do something. The moment passed.

The "voice" of the author changes considerable during the piece. At the beginning he sounds a little like Walter Cronkite or Lowell Thomas. But that begins to break down and eventually a trembling Barney Phife shows up.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

There are a couple of good core points there
No there aren't. The Nazis were a real threat to the US, radical Islam is not.
Oh and Diogenes? There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, and I think that classifying only one one hundredth of a percent of them as fanatical is way, way, wayyyy low. 1% of any group of any size is batshit crazy, when you're talking about religion (any religion) I'd venture that 5-10% is much more realistic. In any event, there are a not insignificant number of fanatical Muslims who DO fit the profile painted by the glurge in the OP, something which should not be poo-pooed away because it inconveniently disagrees with your ideology.
I actually said a thousandth of one percent, not a hundred. There are only a few thousand Muslims who could catually be classified as violent terrorists. There may be a lot more fundy, fanatical assholes than that but most of them are not terrorists. There is a lot of space in between just being an intolerant asshole and being an intolerant asshole with a bomb strapped to your back. Not everybody that bashes the queers or pickets an abortion clinic is going to go on a bombing spree like eric Rudolph.

The percentage of Muslims who are irrationally and suicidally violent is not significant enough to warrant anything close to the Chicken Little rhetoric quoted by the OP.

ETA, what "ideology" do you imagine I'm defending?

[GreedySmurf]

I couldn't even get into the meat of this "article". I gave up about 4 paragraphs in

Completely apart from the numerous factual errors in those paragraphs, the person who wrote this has the temerity to call himself a writer?

"Raymond S . Kraft is a writer living in Northern California"

This tripe is, At Best, high school level writing. The sentence construction, word usage, grammar, etc, etc, is dreadful.

If this is an example of his work how the hell does he make a living from writing?

[Eolbo]

Can this have even a glimmer of reality? Any truth hiding in this? A sliver of what is to come? Is it that important?


This fuckin shite scares me..... Total bunk, ... right????

Where do you start. Its appalling gibberish, riddled with so many historical inaccuracies I almost want to weep.

The most intelligent comment was at the start "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." The author obviously failed to learn his history and certainly should be made to repeat the subject!

WW2 did not start in 1928. It did not last 17 years. The Russians did not lose 24 million people at Moscow and Stalingrad alone. Belgium did not surrender in a day. Brussels was not bombed into rubble. Britain did not narrowly escape invasion. "Europe" did not spend 50 years fighting Napoleon. Peace activists are not killed in Spain (sheesh!)

The rest is a hysterical rant.

[dropzone]

No, what we call "WWI" began before 1914 and extended past today. Among others, Kraft assumes it ended. We have enough to straighten out in what is assumed to be "Europe"--and I consider the Americas an extension of Europe--to give two shits about what is happening in Mesopotamia. It wasn't our fight and we shouldn't have involved ourselves in it.

[BrainGlutton]

No, what we call "WWI" began before 1914 and extended past today. Among others, Kraft assumes it ended. We have enough to straighten out in what is assumed to be "Europe"--and I consider the Americas an extension of Europe--to give two shits about what is happening in Mesopotamia. It wasn't our fight and we shouldn't have involved ourselves in it.

Come to think of it, the existence of Iraq as a multinational, multiconfessional state is a direct result of WWI. One more mess that still hasn't been straightened out (and won't be in my lifetime or yours).

[dropzone]

Come to think of it, the existence of Iraq as a multinational, multiconfessional state is a direct result of WWI. One more mess that still hasn't been straightened out (and won't be in my lifetime or yours).No, it's not likely it will.

(edited to add) We forget how recent WWI was. I've known participants and, for them, it was extremely recent history. Their children view it as just happening, especially if it affected their birthrights. It is completely here-and-now for many people.

[saoirse]

Care to expand on that? I don't understand what you mean (although Google did find a thesis from Harvard that might be fun to read).

I think you're referring to Michael Trotter's Daily Report (http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:tuoxaNSh600J:www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/corporate_governance/MediaMentions/02-13-07_DailyReport.pdf+tax+rate+world+war+two&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us)
During the war years, the top marginal rate ranged from 88 percent to 94 percent on taxable income in excess of $200,000 (the equivalent of $2,241,000 in 2006). The TMR declined to a range of 87 percent to 84 percent in the years after World War II, but returned to the 91 percent level for the Korean War and remained at that level through 1963.

I take our failure to actually pay for the war as an indication of how seriously we take its consequences.

[matt_mcl]

Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Spain, North Korea, in the places that really need peace activism the most?

Wait, what?

SPAIN?

Generalisimo Francisco Franco is still dead. Spain is a first-world liberal democratic constitutional monarchy which is a member of the European Union -- and as it happens, some of the largest peace protests in history took place there, with upwards of a million people protesting in Barcelona against the Iraq war in 2003.

[anyrose]

y'all jumping on Gus as tho he believes the quoted text - did you miss his last sentance? ... Total bunk, ... right????Seems to me he just wants confirmation that it is, indeed, hogwash (which you all have done, thank you) but he does not subscribe to it, nor is he advocating it be passed along.
Unfortunately, when Giraffe recoded the OP, it became unclear what was quoted and what was Gus' own statement.

[Lemur866]

Not to mention including Ireland as one of our allies in WWII.

Dude, Ireland was neutral during WWII. They were sympathetic to the Allied side, but Ireland as a country stayed out of the war. Of course, plenty of Irish citizens fought for the allies.

[GusNSpot]

y'all jumping on Gus as tho he believes the quoted text - did you miss his last sentance? Seems to me he just wants confirmation that it is, indeed, hogwash (which you all have done, thank you) but he does not subscribe to it, nor is he advocating it be passed along.
Unfortunately, when Giraffe recoded the OP, it became unclear what was quoted and what was Gus' own statement.
LOL, Thanks anyrose, I fully expected that to happen. In the interest of fighting ignorance, a lot of stuff sorta goes by the wayside. That's why I put it in the pit. I knew I would be called names and that way no one had to move it. They do kill a lot of messengers at the SDMB. :D I am just glad mod. Giraffe found why it would not appear... Thanks Sir: I'll try to remember that in the future.

[Trunk]

y'all jumping on Gus as tho he believes the quoted text - did you miss his last sentance? Seems to me he just wants confirmation that it is, indeed, hogwash (which you all have done, thank you) but he does not subscribe to it, nor is he advocating it be passed along.
Unfortunately, when Giraffe recoded the OP, it became unclear what was quoted and what was Gus' own statement.
It seemed to me like Gus just wanted a way to get that load of crap onto the SDMB without really being accountable for posting it or believing it.

I don't buy the "this can't really be accurate. . .can it?" act.

[fessie]

I think you're referring to Michael Trotter's Daily Report (http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:tuoxaNSh600J:www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/corporate_governance/MediaMentions/02-13-07_DailyReport.pdf+tax+rate+world+war+two&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us)


I take our failure to actually pay for the war as an indication of how seriously we take its consequences.

Holy crap! You mean rich folks paid out 94% of their (adjusted) income in taxes during WWII? I had no idea.

Certainly does say a lot about their sense of civic duty.

[Giraffe]

I knew I would be called names and that way no one had to move it. They do kill a lot of messengers at the SDMB. :DIf you don't want to be associated with the opinions of a breathtakingly moronic bit of fear-mongering propaganda, then don't post it. The fact that you apparently lack the critical thinking skills to form an opinion on something so starkly stupid beyond "OMG maybe it's true?!?!" is not exactly a shield of excellence for you to hide behind. Suck it up and drop the martyr schtick, you fucking baby.
I am just glad mod. Giraffe found why it would not appear... Thanks Sir: I'll try to remember that in the future.No problem, glad I could help.

[Colophon]

Wait, what?

SPAIN?

Generalisimo Francisco Franco is still dead. Spain is a first-world liberal democratic constitutional monarchy which is a member of the European Union -- and as it happens, some of the largest peace protests in history took place there, with upwards of a million people protesting in Barcelona against the Iraq war in 2003.

Woah, I'd missed that part.

Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Spain, North Korea

One of these countries is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike the others. Can you guess which one?

[tomndebb]

Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Spain, North Korea

One of these countries is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike the others. Can you guess which one?Clearly!
North Korea has two words in the name!

[Freddy the Pig]

Wait, what? SPAIN?The author must have taken this Onion article (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27961) about an invasion of Spain seriously.
Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon . . . Those wacky Europeans, still fighting a guy 29 years after he was dead and 35 years after he was out of power. Maybe they need more peace activists after all!

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Am I the only one who keeps thing of John From Cincinnat every time I see this thread title?

"....fucking towel heads are going to get themselves eradicated."

[kingpengvin]

North Korea becuase it doesn't start with an I or S.... :D

[jjimm]

I want to know how the whole of Northern California managed to enrol itself in an educational establishment.

[Weirddave]

No there aren't. The Nazis were a real threat to the US, radical Islam is not.

Actually, you've got that exactly backwards. Radical Islam has the potential to kill far, far more innocent Americans (I'm not counting soldiers; when you send people out to fight, many of them are going to die) and disrupt our economy on a scale unthinkable to the Nazis. WWII era Germany and Japan didn't have the industry, population or technology to mount any kind of remotely credible threat to mainland America. A relatively few number of people can do that today, ain't technology wonderful?

I actually said a thousandth of one percent, not a hundred.

So you did. My mistake. So lets use your numbers (even though I think they are low). At 1/100th of a percent, that's still 1.2 million committed, fanatical terrorists that need to be dealt with. That makes me feel so much safer.

There are only a few thousand Muslims who could catually be classified as violent terrorists.

We're fighting more than that in Afghanistan alone. Throw in Iraq and your attempt to minimize what actually faces the west becomes laughable. Oh, what happened to the 1.2 million terrorists you were just talking about?

There may be a lot more fundy, fanatical assholes than that but most of them are not terrorists. There is a lot of space in between just being an intolerant asshole and being an intolerant asshole with a bomb strapped to your back. Not everybody that bashes the queers or pickets an abortion clinic is going to go on a bombing spree like eric Rudolph.

Nope, but each madman with a bomb has a logistics tail of several hundred if not thousand people behind him providing training, support, money and a place to conceal himself. These people are actively participating in terrorist attacks, even if they don't blow themselves to bits. they are part of the problem that needs to be dealt with too.

The percentage of Muslims who are irrationally and suicidally violent is not significant enough to warrant anything close to the Chicken Little rhetoric quoted by the OP.

I said that the OP was overblown, but that doesn't change the core truth of the letter. It does obscure realistic discussion and hinder real attempts to resolve the issue by polarizing the issue into black and white extremes who spend all their time screaming at each other, drowning out rational voices in the middle where the solution will be found.



ETA, what "ideology" do you imagine I'm defending?

Well, if we use your term for the letter in the OP and call that the "chicken little" faction, I'd have to classify your ideology as the "ostrich" people. You will do everything you can to deny the fact that the west is involved in a generational confrontation with radical, fundamentalist Islam.

[Guinastasia]

Actually, you've got that exactly backwards. Radical Islam has the potential to kill far, far more innocent Americans (I'm not counting soldiers; when you send people out to fight, many of them are going to die) and disrupt our economy on a scale unthinkable to the Nazis.

Very true, but then why the hell didn't we go after Bin Laden, who is far more of a threat and responsible than Saddam than Iraq?

[Weirddave]

Very true, but then why the hell didn't we go after Bin Laden, who is far more of a threat and responsible than Saddam than Iraq?
I dunno. I don't set policy. I am just talking about the world as it is right now. The rights and wrongs of US foreign policy over the last 6 years are beyond what I was talking about, but I have a sneaking suspicion that you might find one or two people willing to venture an opinion on the matter over in GD. ;)

[Guinastasia]

I dunno. I don't set policy. I am just talking about the world as it is right now. The rights and wrongs of US foreign policy over the last 6 years are beyond what I was talking about, but I have a sneaking suspicion that you might find one or two people willing to venture an opinion on the matter over in GD. ;)

Well, I wasn't asking you, just making a general comment.

(Gee, you don't say!)

:p

[TokyoBayer]

I had to check that the author is this piece of garbage wasn't written by my right-wing-from-hell brother-in-law.

When I was visiting him a couple of years back, his big thing was a "fact" (true or not, I had no idea) that the economic impact of the 9-11 attack was greater than that of Pear Harbor, and the criticism of people who didn't support the war.

It's an exercise in futility to argue with him, so normally I don't, but I could let that go. As I countered with the questions of what does 9-11 have to do with Iraq, he got all irate and started spouting off more and more, as Giraffe so well puts it, "breathtakingly moronic bit of fear-mongering propaganda."

We were headed for heated works when my sister called us in the other room to watch the breaking news of the tsunami.

I'm with the others here. If the OP wants to post this, then own it or denounce it.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Actually, you've got that exactly backwards. Radical Islam has the potential to kill far, far more innocent Americans (I'm not counting soldiers; when you send people out to fight, many of them are going to die) and disrupt our economy on a scale unthinkable to the Nazis. WWII era Germany and Japan didn't have the industry, population or technology to mount any kind of remotely credible threat to mainland America. A relatively few number of people can do that today, ain't technology wonderful?
Actuually, you've got this exactly backwards. The Nazis had a little thing called an air force. They also had other stuff like an army and tanks. "Radical Islam" doesn't have shit and poses no threat whatsoever to the US and never will. It's a totally made up, imaginary threat. The Muslims are not going to get you. You can relax and crawl out from under your bed. It's like the "Red Menace" bullshit all over again, except with even less foundation.
So you did. My mistake. So lets use your numbers (even though I think they are low). At 1/100th of a percent, that's still 1.2 million committed, fanatical terrorists that need to be dealt with. That makes me feel so much safer.
I said 1/1000th, not 1/100th. It's like ten thousand terrorists, tops.
We're fighting more than that in Afghanistan alone
No we aren't.
Throw in Iraq and your attempt to minimize what actually faces the west becomes laughable. Oh, what happened to the 1.2 million terrorists you were just talking about?
Throwing in Iraq is imbecilic because we are the aggressors there and because most of the insurgency are not affiliated with any "terrorists' groups but are motivated by sectarian feuds that have nothing to do with the US or really with religion at all.
Nope, but each madman with a bomb has a logistics tail of several hundred if not thousand people behind him providing training, support, money and a place to conceal himself.
Cite?
I said that the OP was overblown, but that doesn't change the core truth of the letter. It does obscure realistic discussion and hinder real attempts to resolve the issue by polarizing the issue into black and white extremes who spend all their time screaming at each other, drowning out rational voices in the middle where the solution will be found.
There is no core truth to the letter. The Islamic boogeyman is grossly exaggerated myth contrived to scare retards into voting Republican and supporting the agendas of oil companies. You're a fucking moron if you believe any of it.
Well, if we use your term for the letter in the OP and call that the "chicken little" faction, I'd have to classify your ideology as the "ostrich" people. You will do everything you can to deny the fact that the west is involved in a generational confrontation with radical, fundamentalist Islam.
A few thousand crazies with no resources, no miltary and no country are not going to take over America. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but you've been had. It's all bullshit. You're going to be pefectly fine. It's Global Warming you should be worrying about.

Christ, I thought liberals were supposed to be the chickenshits, but it's the conservatives who get blubbering, snot running scared whenever some scary Muslim on TV makes a face at them. Crawl out from under the kitchen table and man up, you spineless fucking paranoid pussies. You're disgracing yourselves. Just go about your lives. You're going to be A-OK. You can even tote your guns around with you if that makes you feel better.

[Annie]

It's like being sprayed with bullshit. Kudos to those of you who made your way past the second para.

[Weirddave]

Actuually, you've got this exactly backwards. The Nazis had a little thing called an air force. They also had other stuff like an army and tanks. "Radical Islam" doesn't have shit and poses no threat whatsoever to the US and never will. It's a totally made up, imaginary threat. The Muslims are not going to get you. You can relax and crawl out from under your bed. It's like the "Red Menace" bullshit all over again, except with even less foundation.

Jesus Christ, you're a fucking idiot. The Nazis had an air force. Please tell me which plane in that air force had the range to bomb the continental U.S. The Nazis had an army and tanks. Please tell me exactly what navy they had capable of landing those forces on U.S. soil (or were they going to drop them from their magical air force). Do you even listen to yourself?

I said 1/1000th, not 1/100th. It's like ten thousand terrorists, tops.

Gee, I forgot a zero again. That really was a stupid mistake on my part(seriously). However, the figure of 1.2 million holds, using your own 1/1000 percentage. That's a long way from "ten thousand". Wanna back up on what you said some more?

No we aren't.

We're fighting less than "several thousand" people in Afghanistan? I'm sure the troops on the ground there will be relieved to know that. Why don't you go tell them that, I breathlessly await what their response will be.

Throwing in Iraq is imbecilic because we are the aggressors there and because most of the insurgency are not affiliated with any "terrorists' groups but are motivated by sectarian feuds that have nothing to do with the US or really with religion at all.

Of course. It's all sectarian violence. Just a little internal matter that we should run away from and leave leave to the natives. Who cares how many people die, they're all just brown skinned savages, right? It's an internal matter, nothing to concern us, nothing at all. Jesus fuck, you're like Pol Pot's wet dream.

Cite?

That a terrorist can't act alone, he needs support? Are you kidding?

There is no core truth to the letter. The Islamic boogeyman is grossly exaggerated myth contrived to scare retards into voting Republican and supporting the agendas of oil companies. You're a fucking moron if you believe any of it.

And you're a fucking moron if you discount all of it. Scratch that, I think you're just a fucking moron regardless. I'm not supporting a particular political party or some imagined corporate agenda, I'm talking about the way things are. Politics doesn't play into it. It's a crime that you attempt desperately to spin the state of the world for whatever axe you're trying to grind, just the same as it's a crime when the neo-cons do it. Y'all are two sides of the same coin.

A few thousand crazies with no resources, no miltary and no country are not going to take over America. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but you've been had. It's all bullshit. You're going to be pefectly fine. It's Global Warming you should be worrying about.
I never said anyone was going to "take over America". The fact is that radical Islamic terrorists can hurt America badly. I fully expect that there will be a terrorist attack, using nuclear weapons, on a western city (probably an American city) within my lifetime. Maybe that will wake people up, but if experience is any guide there will still be legions of people yammering on about how we "provoked" them, about how "mean" and "unfair" and "imperialistic" America is, and how the proper response is more concession, more compromise, more retreat, and you'll be one of them. It's going to happen. Our response to that, or even the way to prevent it, is open to debate, but categorizing the threat as a "couple thousand" people with assault rifles is short sighted, moronic and ultimately disastrous. Global warming? HA! Global warming is the threat the left uses to scare people into submission the same way the right uses terrorism. You're gleefully engaging in the exact same behavior that you condemn so heartily. H.L Mencken said it best: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. " It's as true for the left as it is for the right.

Christ, I thought liberals were supposed to be the chickenshits, but it's the conservatives who get blubbering, snot running scared whenever some scary Muslim on TV makes a face at them. Crawl out from under the kitchen table and man up, you spineless fucking paranoid pussies. You're disgracing yourselves. Just go about your lives. You're going to be A-OK. You can even tote your guns around with you if that makes you feel better.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Same old shit. Find a new schtick, wouldja? This one is getting old.

[Measure for Measure]

I never said anyone was going to "take over America". The fact is that radical Islamic terrorists can hurt America badly. I fully expect that there will be a terrorist attack, using nuclear weapons, on a western city (probably an American city) within my lifetime. Maybe that will wake people up, but if experience is any guide there will still be legions of people yammering on about how we "provoked" them, about how "mean" and "unfair" and "imperialistic" America is, and how the proper response is more concession, more compromise, more retreat, and you'll be one of them. It's going to happen. Our response to that, or even the way to prevent it, is open to debate, but categorizing the threat as a "couple thousand" people with assault rifles is short sighted, moronic and ultimately disastrous. Yeah, I heard the same hysterical stuff during the Cold War: every Shmoe "knew" there was going to be a big nuclear war in their lifetime.

This isn't a calm, deliberate assessment. It's a statement of fear.

Fact is people don't like uncertainty. They prefer to "believe" in definite disaster over possible disaster.

Hey Dave, got your fallout shelter planned yet? I mean a nuclear attack is certain, right? Those Islamo-suffixes will just order up an H-Bomb at Amazon, right?

The US faces security challenges, Russian loose nukes among them. They should be addressed with a serious fact based methodology, well directed appropriations and careful analysis. We have sufficient screaming school children, however. Global warming? HA! Global warming is the threat the left uses to scare people into submission the same way the right uses terrorism. Hilarious. Some of the most extreme environmentalists are calling for the equivalent of ... a one dollar hike on US gasoline. That would still give us cheaper gas than Europe. And this is Greenpeace talking. Count on the right wingers to provide unsubstantiated claims of the nightmarish effects of such steps on "the economy".

Meanwhile the right wing wants us to check our liberties at the door and thumbs their nose at our allies because they don't love war enough. Divide and conquer or other fundamental strategies are discarded, because of insufficient emotive appeal. Sorry, bub, there's no comparison: the frightened schoolgirls are all on the Republican side of the aisle.

[Lust4Life]

He says that Ireland was allied to the U.S. in WW2 when in actual fact it stayed neutral throughout the war.

[MrJackboots]

Holy crap! You mean rich folks paid out 94% of their (adjusted) income in taxes during WWII? I had no idea.

Certainly does say a lot about their sense of civic duty.

No, nothing close to it. They paid 94% in marginal taxes. For example, suppose you make $250,000/year (this put you in the highest income tax bracket through WWII, though it was in the millions shortly before that). Income taxes are calculated in levels, so, creating a totally imaginary tax code, your first $10,000 could be untaxed, the next $20K at 20% ($4000), the next 20K after that at 25% ($5000), the next 50K after that at 40% ($20000), the next 50K after that at 70% ($35000), and everything over $200K at 90% ($45000).

In this scheme, you've paid $100000 on $250000 in income, so you have an effective tax rate of 40%, which is pretty high but nowhere near the 90% you would hear people bitching about (the tax laws were actually structured so that nobody had an effective tax rate higher than 77%).

This way, nobody is penalized for making more money and jumping to a higher tax bracket (the "make-one-dollar-lose-five-thousand" argument from people who don't understand math). It just gets slower-going the higher you get. You have the right to eat regularly, the logic goes, and government won't take food from your mouth, but you don't necessarily have the right to eat filet mignon regularly, and the government is going to make you work a lot harder for that.

I think I have the actual tables on another computer somewhere if you're really interested.

[fessie]

No, nothing close to it.

<snip>

I think I have the actual tables on another computer somewhere if you're really interested.


Oooohhh! Geez, thanks for taking the time to explain that. Big duh on me (yep, I'm one of those who doesn't understand math). :p Ignorance defeated, no more digging necessary.

[Martini Enfield]

Jesus Christ, you're a fucking idiot. The Nazis had an air force. Please tell me which plane in that air force had the range to bomb the continental U.S. The Nazis had an army and tanks. Please tell me exactly what navy they had capable of landing those forces on U.S. soil (or were they going to drop them from their magical air force). Do you even listen to yourself?

The Focke-Wulf Fw200 Condor could fly from Berlin to Tokyo, which is a lot further than the distance from Dieppe to New York. Similarly, the Amerika Bomber project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika_Bomber) was designed and built by the Nazis specifically- as the name suggests- for bombing the US, and it's believed that on at least one occasion a Ju-390 was flown to within 20kms of New York, basically to prove that it could be done.

If they wanted to make it a one-way trip, then the Germans had several planes capable of bombing the continental US. The difficulties involved in having an aircraft which could bomb the US and then make a return to Axis territory were what prevented them from actually doing it; although having said that, by late 1944 they had the aircraft and the ability to do it, but had more pressing concerns than what amounted to extraordinarily expensive (and resource-intensive) Propaganda Stunts that would have been of limited use militarily.

[Ponder Stibbons]

Gee, I forgot a zero again. That really was a stupid mistake on my part(seriously). However, the figure of 1.2 million holds, using your own 1/1000 percentage. That's a long way from "ten thousand".After being called a second time on this, I would've thought you would've re-checked your figures. Damn, you suck at math.

If 1/1000 of 1% of all Muslims = 1.2 million, then reversing the math (1.2 million times 1000 times 100 (because that's what a percentage is)) gives us a total of 120 billion Muslims. You are off by many, many orders of magnitude.

Given an actual total of 1.2 billion Muslims in the world (I am correct in assuming that's the figure we're working with, right?), then 1/1000th of 1% = 12,000.

Regardless of how the rest of your argument goes, you can't argue with math. If you're going to argue, argue that the percentage is wrong or something.

[Baffle]

After being called a second time on this, I would've thought you would've re-checked your figures. Damn, you suck at math.

If 1/1000 of 1% of all Muslims = 1.2 million, then reversing the math (1.2 million times 1000 times 100 (because that's what a percentage is)) gives us a total of 120 billion Muslims. You are off by many, many orders of magnitude.

Given an actual total of 1.2 billion Muslims in the world (I am correct in assuming that's the figure we're working with, right?), then 1/1000th of 1% = 12,000.

Regardless of how the rest of your argument goes, you can't argue with math. If you're going to argue, argue that the percentage is wrong or something.
Thank you, sir. I was here to post this myself. Urgh.

[Miller]

Jesus Christ, you're a fucking idiot. The Nazis had an air force. Please tell me which plane in that air force had the range to bomb the continental U.S. The Nazis had an army and tanks. Please tell me exactly what navy they had capable of landing those forces on U.S. soil (or were they going to drop them from their magical air force). Do you even listen to yourself?

I like the logic here. The Nazi's didn't have the technology to bomb the US,* therefore they weren't a threat to us. On the other hand, terrorists do not have the technology to build a nuclear bomb, but it's a certainty that they will do so within your life time and use it on an American city. Because a bunch of ignorant fanatics living in caves are more likely to significantly advance their military tech base than the most technologically advanced, industrial nation in the world.

*Which is wrong, as Martini Enfield has pointed out, but I'm just talking about the logic of your post, here.

[Lemur866]

Look, arguing that we have nothing to fear from Islamic terrorists is just silly. Sure, there aren't that many terrorists relative to the Islamic population, and most of the people who would be willing to carry out terrorist attacks against the United States aren't in the United States, but rather stuck in some third world country.

But terrorism IS something to be concerned about. Sure, comparing Islamism to Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan isn't helpful, because the situations aren't parallel, and the world is different nowadays. But a couple of thousand people were killed by Islamic terrorists here in the US, and hundreds more have been killed in Spain, Bali, and the UK.

As for the contention that terrorists are ignorant fanatics living in caves, that's bullshit. Terrorists have been engineers and doctors. It isn't likely that any terrorist is going to mine the uranium, separate out the U-235, build a bomb, and fly it to New York from some cave in Afghanistan. But the hard part of building the bomb is getting that U-235, and there's a lot of U-235 floating around the world. And that bomb isn't likely to hit New York carried by a bomber or ICBM, but rather in a shipping container.

Thing is, all these terrorists they arrest look like bumbling losers and dreamers when they arrest them beforehand. But the fact that no terrorist has gotten hold of a nuclear bomb and successfully used it against New York doesn't mean that therefore the risk is zero.

Neither does this mean that acting as if it's 1941 all over again would be helpful. We're going to experience more terrorist attacks in the future, and even attacks on the scale of 9/11 aren't a truly fundamental threat. But look at the attacks in Britain, or the just arrested terrorists in Germany. These aren't ignorant fanatics living in caves on the far side of the world.

A comparison to the Virginia Tech shootings is helpful, I think. One guy with a gun can go nuts and kill lots of people, and it seems to me that imulses behind the Virginia Tech shootings and the Columbine shootings isn't too far removed from the impulse behind 9/11. Same sorts of people, just that one set had some help from a wealthy Saudi businessman who happens to be a fanatical Islamist, while the others worked alone.

[Weirddave]

The Focke-Wulf Fw200 Condor could fly from Berlin to Tokyo, which is a lot further than the distance from Dieppe to New York. Similarly, the Amerika Bomber project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika_Bomber) was designed and built by the Nazis specifically- as the name suggests- for bombing the US, and it's believed that on at least one occasion a Ju-390 was flown to within 20kms of New York, basically to prove that it could be done.

If they wanted to make it a one-way trip, then the Germans had several planes capable of bombing the continental US. The difficulties involved in having an aircraft which could bomb the US and then make a return to Axis territory were what prevented them from actually doing it; although having said that, by late 1944 they had the aircraft and the ability to do it, but had more pressing concerns than what amounted to extraordinarily expensive (and resource-intensive) Propaganda Stunts that would have been of limited use militarily.
Yes, I know all about the FW200. The Germans made somewhere between 2-300 of them. The fact that the plane had the range to make it to NY is immaterial. I'll concede that the Germans might have been able to pull a Doolittle on New York, but that's a long way from saying that they were a credible "threat" to the U.S.


As for the math, I freely admit that I'm a dolt when it comes to math, but DtC said that 1/1000 of all Muslims were "radical extremist nutjobs". How is that figure not 1.2 million?

A few thousand, radical extremist nutjobs (which are like .001% of all Muslims) are not going to take over America.

[Miller]

As for the math, I freely admit that I'm a dolt when it comes to math, but DtC said that 1/1000 of all Muslims were "radical extremist nutjobs". How is that figure not 1.2 million?

He didn't say 1/1000, he said 1/1000 of 1%, or 1/100,000.

[Measure for Measure]

But terrorism IS something to be concerned about. Sure, comparing Islamism to Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan isn't helpful, because the situations aren't parallel, and the world is different nowadays. But a couple of thousand people were killed by Islamic terrorists here in the US, and hundreds more have been killed in Spain, Bali, and the UK. Well, when you put it that way, it makes terrorism seem like a serious, difficult, but ultimately manageable problem.

But let's not forget that our responses to a terrorist attack can be more costly than the terrorist attack itself. Thus the need for a tough calmness, not hysteria.

[GusNSpot]

But let's not forget that our responses to a terrorist attack can be more costly than the terrorist attack itself. Thus the need for a tough calmness, not hysteria.

Oh my Og.... Do you mean that the average Joe out there is going to have to have the ability to be calm in a crisis? Take some personal responsibility ? Be like the folks on the SDMB, all cool, calm, rational, smarter than the average bear and willing to communicate that fact? Bawahahaha

Why do we / you all seem to think that everyone will ever be able to do this? Even 20% of the voters? Much less the full population? The majority are going to do what 'Hillery' tells them to and all the rational rhetoric in the world will fall on deaf ears.
'If it isn't on CNN, it isn't worth knowing is the battle cry of the masses in todays world.

Being *snarky* will not make the world a better place and the politicians know this, that is why they do not try to court the SDMB folks. Those kinds of thinkers are not a meaningful group as a voter block. To few and too ineffective. Best be trying to reach the masses instead of putting them down. We will live and die as do the masses.

YMMV of course... ;)

[Q.E.D.]

Actuually, you've got this exactly backwards. The Nazis had a little thing called an air force. They also had other stuff like an army and tanks. "Radical Islam" doesn't have shit and poses no threat whatsoever to the US and never will.
Huh. Remind me again who assaulted the US on its own soil. Twice.

[Chefguy]

He is entirely correct on that point, Belgium did, in fact, surrender "on one day". Such dreary formal occasions seldom involve prolonged festivities.

The core information that is omitted in this screed is that Belgium was overrun by the Netherlands, who were in league with Holland and the Dutch in a nefarious plot to force most of Europe to speak Hollandaise. I think Peggy Fleming was involved.

[Qadgop the Mercotan]

The core information that is omitted in this screed is that Belgium was overrun by the Netherlands, who were in league with Holland and the Dutch in a nefarious plot to force most of Europe to speak Hollandaise. I think Peggy Fleming was involved.
They have plans for the US too! They'll make us dizzy from watching windmill blades turn, effeminate from smelling tulips, then they'll drain our Great Lakes and we won't be able to stop them!

(Apologies to Chris Cerf)

[BrainGlutton]

Huh. Remind me again who assaulted the US on its own soil. Twice.

The Japanese, in Hawaii and the Philippines.

[Qadgop the Mercotan]

The Japanese, in Hawaii and the Philippines.Alaska too.

[elucidator]

Americans United to Beat the Dutch!

....force most of Europe to speak Hollandaise....
You can't hide your lyonaise!

[Revenant Threshold]

Alaska too.The British. More than twice, in fact. And we have tanks now, so ner.

[E-Sabbath]

Yeah, well, my great-something grandpa raided England with old John Paul Jones.

[Chefguy]

The British. More than twice, in fact. And we have tanks now, so ner.

Seems to me we had some problems with the Messicans a few times, also.

[Miller]

Huh. Remind me again who assaulted the US on its own soil. Twice.


Remind me again how many Americans have been killed by Al Qaeda, and how many were killed by Nazis.

[buns3000]

Of course. It's all sectarian violence. Just a little internal matter that we should run away from and leave leave to the natives. Who cares how many people die, they're all just brown skinned savages, right? It's an internal matter, nothing to concern us, nothing at all. Jesus fuck, you're like Pol Pot's wet dream. I'm unable to rationalise your expressed concern for the "natives" with your support for the war. Did you think that innocent "natives" wouldn't be killed in the war? Not a problem then, big problem now. Hypocritical much?

Are you also unaware that a majority of the "natives" would like the US to leave? What ungrateful fuckers.