Let's not start sucking each other's dicks quite yet.

Who exactly is doing that?

The only part i liked was the last line. Ill agree with dave on that one, the US doesn't usually attack people for thier religion.

I was basically with him up to 6. and 7. I'm not convinced the publicly available evidence shows an alliance between Saddam and the terrorists in question. (Aid for certain operations _certainly_, an alliance like that of the Taliban and Al Queda where Saddam would hand over WMDs to them, not proven).

I also do not believe that attempting to discredit radical Islam would be a good idea -- I can think of nothing that would better ensure its survival.

If people like Noam Chomsky and John Ashcroft wouldn't fulfill those stereotypes quite so accurately, they probably wouldn't have the power they do.

Maybe I was reading a bit too much into it.

--Sk

He doesn't even get it right. There is no such thing as fundamentalist Islam. Fundamentalism applies to a Christian religious movement around 1900 that called for a return to the 'fundamentals' of Christianity.

The difference with the Islamic extremism that is fueling Bin Laden, et al. is that he isn't calling for a return to anything. Instead, he is, by account of most Islamic scholars, misinterpreting the Quran.

So the use of the term fundamentalism is either an attempt to frame the thinking of these people in Western terms, which is not necessarily an accurate undertaking, or a demonization based on the perjorative nature of the term. I think that because of the way the term has slipped into our mainstream consciousness, it's a combination of the two. And that always bothers me - because without an accurate understanding of the enemy, we are bound to over or under qualify who the enemy actually is.

Sorry, that's just my basic rant about the term 'fundamentalist Islam.' I prefer the term extremist, which doesn't carry the connotations of the first term (of course, it has its own problems, but that's a whole different story).

And as for the manifesto above - I think I'd have to agree with those who see it as a flaming hunk of crap. It doesn't actually add anything constructive to the argument, except to frame the extremes on each side as extremes. And after all that, it ends up taking a moderately rightist view without considering a moderate leftist view. This is, of course, supposing that the argument can be framed on a 2-dimensional, left-right plane. I tend to think that it's more Cartesian.

I don''t really agree with that. What it adds is a description a point of view that is in favor of our right to self-defense without supporting "Homeland Defense" as a synonym for "NIghtwatch" or "Geheime Staatspolizei", and stands in opposition to curbs on the individual rights of our citizens as a reaction to terrorism...everywhere from the airliner cockpit to the archetecture of our personal computers.

It also recognizes the true roots of what is referred to elsewhere in the manifesto as Islamo-fascism. Perhaps you prefer that term to the more mainstream "Islamic fundamentalist", or "Islamic extremeist", or perhaps not.

Whatever one calls it, the reference is to the call to holy war to impose sharia law on everyone on the planet. One can debate interpretation of the Quran (and the Bible, for that matter) until the sun burns out, but that's not the issue. What phrase would *you* use to identify this movement?

SO its a hawkish right wing view, with TIPS et al. Well that sure is revolutionary. What makes me laugh is its a right wing view, while decrying the right as extreme right. Kinda circular, take it far enough and its self-defeating. What gets me (it stuck me after i read the top article on the page this came from which is advocating arming children for reasons that entirely escaped me) is that the whole idea that the police can't be anywhere and don't have additional powers thing is a backdoor gun lobby argument - the cops can't do it so we all have to arm up and do it ourselves. How predictable.


If people like Noam Chomsky and John Ashcroft wouldn't fulfill those stereotypes quite so accurately, they probably wouldn't have the power they do.[/quote] And they are the only face of the entire right side of politics from ultralibertarian to fundamentalist puritan christians?

Actually, what's even more circular is declaring it a "right wing view" because it believes in collective and individual self-defense. Do only "right-wingers" believe in self-defense? I guess if you're far enough left it looks that way...and the ideologically correct response from the left is to let anyone with a real or imagined grudge to walk all over you because "it's understandable" After all, *they're* not responsible for what they do...it's *your* fault.

Sure it is.

Pay attention....AIM didn't decry "the right" as "the extreme right" . It decried "IDIOTARIANISM as the species of delusion within the moral community of mankind that gives aid and comfort to terrorists and tyrants operating outside it." It then pointed out who it considered the idiotarians of the Left and the Right.

Is how "extreme" someone is--to the left or right--how much they're willing to sacrifice of somebody else's rights in support of their ideology?

Surely there's nothing "backdoor" about ESR's support of the right to keep and bear arms. RKBA is *about* the individual right of self-defense, but we've already heard your rants on that subject. If you find Eric's views about teaching kids shooting and gun safety mystifying, I refer you to the discussion in the blog archive, and especially to the piece he linked to at his personal site at tuxedo.org.

Predictable? I suppose. Most folks in the open-source community are familiar with Eric's view on RKBA and individual freedom and responsibility.

By the way...don't forget you bade "ta-ta" to this thread six posts ago. Wouldn't want you to waste any more time on it. :-)

I guess if you're far enough right it looks that way too.

I'm not going near the gun topic, ripping this 'manifesto' a new one is far more entertaining that a tired flamewar.

*shrugs* Helps my typing, slowly and i'm not allowed out of the house till the 19th.

Eh? Did Mom and Dad ground you? What about your exam?
Sure...you're not going near RKBA just like you're dropping the thread. Thing is, this is actually all the same issue, just at different scales. "Leave your self-defense in the hands of 'the proper authorities' [the cops/Homeland Defense/the UN]. They'll show up in time to pick up the pieces when the crime is over. Just wave some non-lethal weapons around until then."

I don't like the term Islamo-fascism either. Fascism implies nationalism and, Arab pan-nationalism aside, al-Qaeda isn't really looking for that.

And I call any movement that is not accepted by the mainstream extremism; whether that is Ashcroft, Chomsky, or Wahabbism.

If i go out i lose a day, i take a 10 minutes break every now and then, i lose a couple of hours, self control mechanism.

I'm not responding the rest of your post, its just too silly and thus i am dropping this thread now, its lost all sembelence of logic.

I didn't ask you what term you don't like...so far you don't like *any* term for it. The question is what term you *do* find acceptable to refer to this movement?

Are you simply hoping that if it's never given a name that you won't have to deal with the issue? Or are you in such denial as to claim it doen't even exist?

Uhh, the argument that the cops can't be everywhere and therefore people must be responsible for their own self defense isn't a "backdoor" gun lobby argument. It's one used openly and loudly by gun freedom supporters.

As for Ashcroft and Chomsky: No, they are not the only faces on the right and left side of politics respectively. They are, however, loud voices who are respected by the mainstream of the right and left. And they exemplify the "idiotarianism" of the right and left that ESR describes.

(BTW, if you were paying attention, you'd notice the Manifesto does not include TIPS. TIPS is part of the "idiotarianism of the Right")

(As a computer science degree holder, I feel somewhat funny denigrating Chomsky... but he deserves every bit of it)